I claimed that a single individual disagrees with the proposition that legally reducing one's tax burden is immoral.
I provide quotes from that individual to support that. If you think that the individual does not hold the point of view that I claimed, and that I cherry picked two quotes in an attempt to misrepresent his opinion, then I have selectively quoted.
Note I never claimed that the Supreme Court found this to be true, nor that it was the law of the land in the US.
[edit]
I would also like to point out that I didn't pick the individual at random. He is one of the more respected judicial philosophers of the 20th century, and easily the most influential judge to never have served on the supreme court.
>I claimed that a single individual disagrees with the proposition that legally reducing one's tax burden is immoral.
You are butchering his position even worse than I thought. He never said what you claim. The best case you can argue with his support is that the bluster of morals cannot be used to legally force someone to do more than the law requires.
Never once does he come anywhere near "disagree[ing] with the proposition that legally reducing one's tax burden is immoral". He makes no moral judgement on the matter whatsoever.
And I don't see how trawling nearly 100 years back in time to find a dissenting and disregarded opinion is anything other than selective quoting. You may as well have quoted yourself from 10 minutes prior.
I claimed that a single individual disagrees with the proposition that legally reducing one's tax burden is immoral.
I provide quotes from that individual to support that. If you think that the individual does not hold the point of view that I claimed, and that I cherry picked two quotes in an attempt to misrepresent his opinion, then I have selectively quoted.
Note I never claimed that the Supreme Court found this to be true, nor that it was the law of the land in the US.
[edit]
I would also like to point out that I didn't pick the individual at random. He is one of the more respected judicial philosophers of the 20th century, and easily the most influential judge to never have served on the supreme court.