Durham protestor arrested for her part in statue damage

[diesel1959]

Oh, and I'm totally down with the Wiener Dog Song--my two provide enough comic relief for the whole family.

 

[Younggun]

What I'm saying is that it wasn't always clear that certain rights enshrined in the BoR were enforceable as against the States--meaning that States didn't have to respect those particular civil rights. Each State had their own constitutions and many of the rights you see in the Federal BoR were already protected at the State level in that State. When, after the Civil War was over and certain rights of the newly freed slaves were not being respected, the Federal Government put forth the 14th Amendment and when it was ratified by the requisite number of States, it became the law of the land.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to make certain civil rights applicable to the States (which is what I mean when I say "effective as against the States") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights .

It was never made clear until McDonald via Heller that the 2d Amendment benefited from the same treatment through the incorporation doctrine. Now it is inarguable.

Thanks!

 

[Younggun]

Younggun,

You've "blessed us" with so much SILLY BILGE that I cannot decide what "97%" that you want an answer to.
Would you care to clafify your query??

yours, satx

Sure. I'd like you to respond to the points in the post besides post #2. And if you have time, some sort of fact based counter to any of the other points I've made would be appreciated, with constitutional text and your interpretation if possible. Otherwise your posts may just come across as "SILLY BILGE" in an otherwise good constitutional discussion.

Minds aren't changes and opinions swayed through unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[zincwarrior]

Thanks!

Indeed. BOR illuminates the discussion of that uncertainty.

 

[jrbfishn]

If SCOTUS doesn't have the power to declare a law or an act unconstitutional, exactly who does?
Congress and Potus obviously can't be counted on to act within the Constitution. If the Highest Court does not have that authority, then the Constitution just became a worthless piece of paper and the other 2 branches of Government can ram anything they want down our throats. The only recourse we have, would then be revolution.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

[diesel1959]

If SCOTUS doesn't have the power to declare a law or an act unconstitutional, exactly who does?
Congress and Potus obviously can't be counted on to act within the Constitution. If the Highest Court does not have that authority, then the Constitution just became a worthless piece of paper and the other 2 branches of Government can ram anything they want down our throats. The only recourse we have, would then be revolution.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Exactly. Those who blindly argue that Marbury v. Madison should never have happened haven't a grip on the reality of what the balance of power, shared powers, and checks & balances are really all about. It's a beautiful thing.

 

[jrbfishn]

On all things, there will be someone that thinks the wrong decision was made. But there has to be a third has to branch to stop the other 2. If not, violence is the only recourse.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

jrbfishn,

OK. So what happens when someone like Justice Ginsburg (who has openly said that federal judges may do exactly as they wish) & 4 other leftists gets control of the SCOTUS & decides that an election wasn't fair to some group, just DUMPS the winner & declares that 2nd place wins??

NINE judges should NOT be essentially FREE to overturn anything that the other 2 branches of government do and/or overturn the wishes of the majority of citizens/voters.

yours, satx

 

[LOCKHART]

Cray cray???? Wtf??? lol!

 

[jrbfishn]

Show me where they did that. What election did the SCOTUS overturn. I realize I'm slow an may have missed one.
Advocating that overturning a law that is against the Constitution is not wrong. Advocating unethical or illegal acts by a court is not either. Commiting them is. Unfortunately, a court deciding against established case law or the constitution is not a crime either. One of the few, the very few, amendments I personally would like to see is that all laws passed by congress should have to pass strict scrutiny of the Constitution before being enacted. All federal judges and the SCOTUS must use strict scrutiny in all cases before them involving the Constitution. Not doing so would be grounds for removal from the Bench. Each Judge should be required to show in writing why and how their decision follows the Constitution in each case before them. Any elected or appointed member of the House or Senate that authors more than 5 Bills deemed unconstitutional would begrounds for removal from office. Members of the House and Senate limited to a maximum of 3 terms.
Then we would have a Constitutional government.

from an idjit coffeeholic

 

[easy rider]

The SCOTUS cannot overthrow the government. It does not make law, it's the final judgement in a case of law.

 

[jrbfishn]

I know that. satx seems to think otherwise.

from an idjit coffeeholic

 

[satx78247]

jrbfishn,

May I gently suggest that you re-read the 1st paragraph of #88 & more carefully this time??

ImVho, a group of Justices doing that is a REAL possibility IF we patriotic Americans should ever allow a leftist CROOK like HRC to be elected as POTUS & thereafter appoint LIBs to the SCOTUS.

yours, satx

 

[easy rider]

jrbfishn,

May I gently suggest that you re-read the 1st paragraph of #88 & more carefully this time??

ImVho, a group of Justices doing that is a REAL possibility IF we patriotic Americans should ever allow a leftist CROOK like HRC to be elected as POTUS & thereafter appoint LIBs to the SCOTUS.

yours, satx

Even so, there has to be a case (suet) for them to pass judgement on. They cannot step in and arbitrarily pass judgement on an election.

 

[satx78247]

Even so, there has to be a case (suet) for them to pass judgement on. They cannot step in and arbitrarily pass judgement on an election.

easy rider,

And you don't think that some organization/person would file a case IF they thought the fictional election could/would be "set aside"?

yours, satx

 

[easy rider]

easy rider,

And you don't think that some organization/person would file a case IF they thought the fictional election could/would be "set aside"?

yours, satx

Filed cases don't automatically go to the supreme court.

 

[satx78247]

easy rider,

In the scenario that I "created" the case could go to the SCOTUS, just as the "Bush-Gore" case did.

yours, satx

 

[diesel1959]

jrbfishn,

OK. So what happens when someone like Justice Ginsburg (who has openly said that federal judges may do exactly as they wish) & 4 other leftists gets control of the SCOTUS & decides that an election wasn't fair to some group, just DUMPS the winner & declares that 2nd place wins??

NINE judges should NOT be essentially FREE to overturn anything that the other 2 branches of government do and/or overturn the wishes of the majority of citizens/voters.

yours, satx

The judges on SCOTUS don't get to take up issues sua sponte--there must be a case or controversy presented to them as a legal case.

 

[satx78247]

I know that. satx seems to think otherwise.

from an idjit coffeeholic

jrbfishn,

Certainly at least Justice Ginsberg believes that the federal judges can decide anything, enter any case (which MAY have "federal consequences") and/or ignore any judicial precedent, as she said that in 2016.
(I suspect that Ginsberg is NOT the only LIB judge who believes that they are "driving the train" & can do exactly as they please.)

yours, satx

 

[diesel1959]

jrbfishn,

Certainly at least Justice Ginsberg believes that the federal judges can decide anything, enter any case (which MAY have "federal consequences") and/or ignore any judicial precedent, as she said that in 2016.
(I suspect that Ginsberg is NOT the only LIB judge who believes that they are "driving the train" & can do exactly as they please.)

yours, satx

and, thankfully, she will suffer the same human foible that we all bear--she will expire. We're all born to do so . . . only she'll do it long before Gorsuch. God willing.