You're blinded by your partisan rage and are advocating weak arguments.
I could care less who becomes mayor because I am sure that just like the previous two mayors he,the republican and the independent will be another downtownie dude bag.
It is NOT irrelevant. Adleson said he didn't vote for the measure because it was unconstitutional.
Per rulings of circuit courts he was correct at the time, and that view was later affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. You are arguing that it is irrelevant that he was right: the law would have been and would currently be unconstitutional.
Again at the time he did not know if it was or wasn't constitutional. So it is irrelevant argument to use.
Furthermore, a desire for State's rights is a position within the construct of the Constitution. It is an argument for a different construction, interpretation, and application of Constitutional governance. It is not a dismissal of the constitution.
Again if he care what the constitution he would have voted along with the other elected officials who chose to support state sovereignty. So it punches a hole in your argument that Adelson cares what is and isn't constitutional.
The fact of the matter is Adleson is and has been working within the confines of the U.S. Constitution.
No he hasn't see above.
So be pissed that he was correct if you want, but it's turning Jamesrage into impotent rage.
So far I see no one posting anything to counter that Adelson is a scumbag sympathizer. The closest thing is a bill that adds kidnapping to a list of crimes where a certain percentage of their sentence must be served out. As far as I am concerned Adelson is another Judge Edward Cashman, a scumbag sympathizer who is soft on those who rape children.