soc.women

"Vandar" wrote in message
news: $ @ ...
> Mark Sebree wrote:
>
>> On Oct 2, 2:47 pm, Vandar wrote:
>>
>>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>>>
>>>>Vandar wrote:
>>>
>>>>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Vandar wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>beavis wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>If abortion does not kill a baby then why is killing a pregnant
>>>>>>>>>woman
>>>>>>>>>double murder??
>>>
>>>>>>>>----------------
>>>>>>>>It isn't. It's regarded as a crime against the mother. Only
>>>>>>>>uneducated
>>>>>>>>slobbering hooting nincompoops call it "double-murder", the law does
>>>>>>>>NOT.
>>>
>>>>>>> /trials/peterson/
>>>>>>>I guess those at CourtTV are "slobbering hooting nincompoops".
>>>
>>>>>>>California Penal Code Section 187
>>>>>>>(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
>>>>>>>fetus, with malice aforethought.
>>>
>>>>>>-----------------
>>>>>>More legalistic nonsense. The SCotUS says it isn't, and as I recall,
>>>>>>that is the Law of the Land.
>>>
>>>>>The SCOTUS does not define murder and is not the law of the land.
>>>
>>>>----------------
>>>>I can't really help that you're obviously uneducated and illiterate.
>>>
>>>The Constitution is the law of the land, Einstein. The SCOTUS doesn't
>>>make law.
>>
>>
>> SCOTUS does, however, interpret the law. He seems to understand this.
>
> SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. He implies that the California
> definition of murder is contrary to the SCOTUS' interpretation of murder.
> The SCOTUS doesn't interpret murder.

Pardon to use of the term 'idiot' previously.
But, how can anyone NOT understand what the Constitutional requirements are
from the verbatim language of the Constitution itself?