Rush is not ignorant of Constitutional Law

Rush:

When a man has the graciousness to acknowledge he has made one error and another man is so ungracious as to continue gloating over that one single instance over and over again for MONTHS on end, the latter has demonstrated how small his soul is, how low his own sense of self esteem is, and his utter lack of civility.

Yes, Rush, after you had suffered through agonizing months of getting humiliatingly caught with factual errors, wrong citations, and total ignorance of Constitutional Law, there was one time - ONE TIME - all the way back on May 8 at 5:21 p.m., more than 4 months ago - when I listed several individuals that I opined merited impeachment and wrongly included legislators. When you brought that to my attention, I did the research and found that, although it is not specified in the Constitution itself, nor any U.S. Supreme Court decision, the only instance in which charges of impeachment were brought, back in 1798, resulted in the Senate dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, establishing the general understanding that they are not subject to impeachment but only to their own internal processes of discipline. I acknowledged this history and graciously conceded the point. You have not been gracious in accepting that acknowledgment.

So since you think playing “gotcha” is so mature, or you are so excited to have finally been right for once in your life, let’s look at some of the embarrassing Constitutional absurdities YOU came up with, but which you were neither big enough or gracious enough to acknowledge. You have proven yourself to be not only arrogant, but smallish and petty.

On 5/28 you misstated both the basis of the decision in Bush v. Gore (531 U.S. 98 (2000)), and the vote count as to the outcome (you said 7-2, which was only the vote on the question of whether there was an equal protection violation; as to whether or not that inequality could be remedied, thus the need to block the recount, the vote was 5-4).

On 5/22 , you gave an incorrect description of the constitutional basis of the California State Supreme Court decision in "In re Marriage Cases" ((S147999) consolidated appeal regarding same sex marriage prior to the election to pass a Constitutional amendment.

On 4/24 you repeated for a second time, the absurd claim that it requires FIVE decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, when in fact it only requires ONE, and having established a single precedent, Courts will rarely even consider a rehearing unless they are willing to consider overturning the precedent, which requires obtaining at least four justices’ consent in order to issue a writ of certiorari and hear the case.

On 4/10 you stated that “the Court has never exactly defined what the 2nd Amendment is....” obviously oblivious to the fact that they did just exactly that in District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 290 (2008)),

On 4/10 you stated that the Supreme Court had never mandated separation of church and state. I promptly replied with just a few cases in which they very clearly did just that, of which you admitted to having no knowledge:
Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
Abington School District v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

In none of the above were you big enough, as I was, to acknowledge your error.
You merely slinked away and hid for a few days, licking your wounds, until you came back later to pretend that your history of total ignorance would be forgotten.

Now, Rush, do you want to be gracious enough to accept the fact that I acknowledged an error MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS AGO and, if not man enough to acknowledge when you have made a fool of yourself, at least move on and accept when someone else is, or do you want me to keep going on with even more Constitutional ignorance with which you have humiliated yourself over the months?