Personally, it's hard to really discuss anything here when it's unclear what is "misrepresented" or "corrupt" about this op-ed piece, and the author of the blog entry isn't involved in this thread, but rather his post is simply copy/pasted onto this forum. Bob questioned whether this blog or the op-ed has anything to do with corruption, and was met with insults for his time. Providing a copy/paste of the dictionary definition of corruption was nice I suppose, but it really doesn't do much to clarify what the point of this post is, other than making us aware of someone else's blog post. At the end of the day, is there really a distinction between copy/pasting someone else's blog and providing a bare link to the blog?
My thoughts as well.
Here is the L.A. Times article:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/08/opinion/la-oe-ellis-gun-control-nullification-20130908All the L.A. Times author is saying is that he disagrees with the majority on the court, and he is lamenting that the minority on the court did not prevail, because he himself believes the minority is more correct.
Then in closing, he mentions Scalia's concession about x-felons, mentally ill, schools, government buildings, and commercial sales regulation.
A lame article.
I'm actually surprised this article came out of The Land Down Under (Southern Cal) because they tend to vote right wing GOP down there. Nobody down there would have appreciated this article.
Anyway, much ado about nothing.
