[TheRealThing]

You parse much better than you persuade. Again, you seek to engage some monolithic left, scatter straw to high heavens upon the actual person you are debating. While I concur that our Founders, many of them, were extremely forward thinking and perceptive, they were not omnipotent nor without blind spots. That is plain enough from history. Justice Scalia's approach comes to the South in the era of Jim Crow. That is the question, TRT. "Here comes the plaintiff seeking to attend the University of Mississippi"... would the approach of Justice Scalia have found it "activist" of judges to give Constitutional remedy? That it is settled law now does not answer the question. Is Justice Scalia's approach so restrictive that it leaves to the legislative branch Constitutional remedy that is the duty of the judicial to recognize and protect? This is not to say that the Left is not guilty of being too broad, but it is to say the issue is NOT identity politics. It is a legitimate debate about what happens when Justice Scalia's approach is taken to logical come out places.

You dodge much better than you debate. My intent is to stick with established truths, not persuade the unpersuadable. And let's get real, to pursue any debate topic of your interest is not a journey to the truth. Rather such so-called debate is merely to linger in a cloud of liberal deception, which act tends to lend credibility where none is otherwise merited. Such cloud is nonetheless, one which I and others can easily see through despite your best efforts.