Should Supreme Court Decisions Be Ignored???

[sealybobo]

Well of course, this is settled law and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere.

But parenthetically one might recall that day a few years ago when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state's Constitution prevented discrimination in marriages between heterosexual couples and gay couples. There was absolutely no precedent for this decision; it was Judicial Activism writ large. That decision, coupled with the constraints on amending the Massachusetts Constitution (which took a minimum of two years to accomplish, once the tedious formalities were out of the way) GUARANTEED that "gay marriage" would be the law of Massachusetts for YEARS, and there was nothing that anybody could do about it. Furthermore, even if the Massachusetts legislature rebelled against the decision and amended the Constitution to ban gay "marriage," there would be a virtual army of people who had already been married in Massachusetts, whose status would probably be "carved in concrete" and never assailable again, either in Massachusetts courts or Federal. And taking it a step further, people married in Massachusetts, even if citizens of another state, would henceforth be married EVERYWHERE due to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

So if there were ever a case where the Executive had the right and the opportunity to challenge the infinite supremacy of the Judiciary over law, this was it. Governor Mitt Romney (now Senator of Utah) could have said to the state and county employees processing marriage applications, "Ignore this decision; we will wait until the legislature acts on the issue. But for now, the law remains as it has been for 200+ years." But HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

And the rest is history. Pity.

"...and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere."

You may simply accept what you are told.....but the master that I serve is truth.

You will be able to find no error in any of my posts.

So if one day the Supreme Court says turn in your assault rifles you will do it?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed a bid by gun rights advocates to overturn President Donald Trump’s ban on “bump stocks” - devices that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like a machine gun - implemented after the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting.

The justices left in place a lower court’s decision that upheld the Trump administration’s action to define bump stocks as prohibited machine guns under U.S. law.

The ban, which went into effect in March 2019, was embraced by Trump following a massacre that killed 58 people at a music festival in Las Vegas in which the gunman used bump stocks. It represented a rare recent instance of gun control at the federal level in a country that has experienced a series of mass shootings.

So in the future you will accept whatever gun control the Supreme Court dishes out?

So if one day the Supreme Court says to wear lipstick and a pink dress, you will do it?

So you think their decisions should be ignored?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

They all should be ignored....Each and every one of them...Especially their grossly idiotic tax code.

Ignore the sons-of-bitches and defy them to lock us all up.

If they lock us up.....do I still get to watch the Yankee games?????

This is critical in my decision on whether or not to join you!!!!

 

[sealybobo]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

They all should be ignored....Each and every one of them...Especially their grossly idiotic tax code.

Ignore the sons-of-bitches and defy them to lock us all up.

If they lock us up.....do I still get to watch the Yankee games?????

This is critical in my decision on whether or not to join you!!!!

No you have to watch games in red states like Atlanta Braves games.

 

[Oddball]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

They all should be ignored....Each and every one of them...Especially their grossly idiotic tax code.

Ignore the sons-of-bitches and defy them to lock us all up.

If they lock us up.....do I still get to watch the Yankee games?????

This is critical in my decision on whether or not to join you!!!!

There ain't enough jails.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well of course, this is settled law and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere.

But parenthetically one might recall that day a few years ago when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state's Constitution prevented discrimination in marriages between heterosexual couples and gay couples. There was absolutely no precedent for this decision; it was Judicial Activism writ large. That decision, coupled with the constraints on amending the Massachusetts Constitution (which took a minimum of two years to accomplish, once the tedious formalities were out of the way) GUARANTEED that "gay marriage" would be the law of Massachusetts for YEARS, and there was nothing that anybody could do about it. Furthermore, even if the Massachusetts legislature rebelled against the decision and amended the Constitution to ban gay "marriage," there would be a virtual army of people who had already been married in Massachusetts, whose status would probably be "carved in concrete" and never assailable again, either in Massachusetts courts or Federal. And taking it a step further, people married in Massachusetts, even if citizens of another state, would henceforth be married EVERYWHERE due to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

So if there were ever a case where the Executive had the right and the opportunity to challenge the infinite supremacy of the Judiciary over law, this was it. Governor Mitt Romney (now Senator of Utah) could have said to the state and county employees processing marriage applications, "Ignore this decision; we will wait until the legislature acts on the issue. But for now, the law remains as it has been for 200+ years." But HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

And the rest is history. Pity.

"...and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere."

You may simply accept what you are told.....but the master that I serve is truth.

You will be able to find no error in any of my posts.

So if one day the Supreme Court says turn in your assault rifles you will do it?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rebuffed a bid by gun rights advocates to overturn President Donald Trump’s ban on “bump stocks” - devices that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like a machine gun - implemented after the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting.

The justices left in place a lower court’s decision that upheld the Trump administration’s action to define bump stocks as prohibited machine guns under U.S. law.

The ban, which went into effect in March 2019, was embraced by Trump following a massacre that killed 58 people at a music festival in Las Vegas in which the gunman used bump stocks. It represented a rare recent instance of gun control at the federal level in a country that has experienced a series of mass shootings.

So in the future you will accept whatever gun control the Supreme Court dishes out?

So if one day the Supreme Court says to wear lipstick and a pink dress, you will do it?

So you think their decisions should be ignored?

The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.



BTW.....red lipstick....that's your color.

 

[Zorro!]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

SCOTUS has run amok since John Marshall and none of the assholes in the administrative or legislative branches since has had balls enough to do anything about it. What they can and should have done a long time ago is to impeach and remove from the bench justices who stay beyond their constitutional bounds. Interpret doesn't mean rewrite or nullify nor does it mean to stretch to cover what it was clearly never meant to cover.
It means to read and apply what was put there by the legislature and agreed to by the administration. That is the one and the only purpose of SCOTUS under the constitution which they are bound to and bound by.

Read Justice Gorsuch's book "A Republic if You Can Keep It." He's on it. As SCOTUS begins to unwind the decisions that have created the Deep State, look for the Left to make exactly the point you are making in this panel, but for wholly different reasons, to preserve Consequentionalism over Texualism and Originalism.

BREAKING: SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR CASE ON WHETHER OBAMACARE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would hear a GOP-led effort against Obamacare, with opening arguments likely slated for the fall.

Obamacare came under threat in December when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 vote that the individual mandate, which required Americans to buy health insurance under threat of fine, was unconstitutional. But the court kicked the rest of the case back down to Texas district judge Reed O’Connor, who initially decided that the individual mandate was unconstitutional in December 2018.

Key issue is whether the rest of Obamacare is severable from the Individual Mandate. In the Pelosi and Reid led House and Senate, they did such a sloppy job writing this legislation that no severability clause was written into the enabling legislation.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

8. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Those are the famous words uttered by President Andrew Jackson in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land.

This ruling was foundational in establishing the general idea that Native Americans have some degree of sovereignty in their interaction with U.S. governments. The words and actions of President Jackson in relation to the opinion is a historic event exemplifying the ever present debate over state and federal power and the role of the courts in our modern times.” Remembering the Time Andrew Jackson Decided to Ignore the Supreme Court In the Name of Georgia’s Right to Cherokee Land




9. That was Andrew Jackson, father of the modern Democrat Party. And the Court backed away.

“The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard.[5] Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.[6][7] This may be seen as a prudential decision, for avoiding the possibility of political conflict between the Court and the Executive, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.” Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

“The fact remained, however, that in this case and in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when it was ruled that the Bank of the United States was in fact constitutional, Jackson challenged the Court’s authority as the final arbiter. As president, Jackson believed that his authority to deem what was constitutional equaled the Supreme Court’s.” Andrew Jackson and the Constitution | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History




Jackson was, or course, correct.

10. “. . some have argued that the President—in certain circumstances—has an independent power to interpret the Constitution, and a concomitant power to ignore or defy court orders if the President comes to a good faith conclusion that the courts have erred.” “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History, and Scholarship,” Seth Tillman



The pronouncements of the Supreme Court should be treated as the red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.

Most people are not aware of number 8.

The Federalist Papers discussed how the court was to have NO will or force.

So...Jackson was correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

"My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. "

That appears to be the result of your lack of education....

....or, do you still stand behind the Dred Scott decision?


Now...here's where you get an education:

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴

The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵
4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

8. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Those are the famous words uttered by President Andrew Jackson in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land.

This ruling was foundational in establishing the general idea that Native Americans have some degree of sovereignty in their interaction with U.S. governments. The words and actions of President Jackson in relation to the opinion is a historic event exemplifying the ever present debate over state and federal power and the role of the courts in our modern times.” Remembering the Time Andrew Jackson Decided to Ignore the Supreme Court In the Name of Georgia’s Right to Cherokee Land




9. That was Andrew Jackson, father of the modern Democrat Party. And the Court backed away.

“The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard.[5] Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.[6][7] This may be seen as a prudential decision, for avoiding the possibility of political conflict between the Court and the Executive, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.” Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

“The fact remained, however, that in this case and in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when it was ruled that the Bank of the United States was in fact constitutional, Jackson challenged the Court’s authority as the final arbiter. As president, Jackson believed that his authority to deem what was constitutional equaled the Supreme Court’s.” Andrew Jackson and the Constitution | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History




Jackson was, or course, correct.

10. “. . some have argued that the President—in certain circumstances—has an independent power to interpret the Constitution, and a concomitant power to ignore or defy court orders if the President comes to a good faith conclusion that the courts have erred.” “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History, and Scholarship,” Seth Tillman



The pronouncements of the Supreme Court should be treated as the red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.

Most people are not aware of number 8.

The Federalist Papers discussed how the court was to have NO will or force.

So...Jackson was correct.

Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????

You're correct....it doesn't.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.


The decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated as red and green lights are in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

"My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. "

That appears to be the result of your lack of education....

....or, do you still stand behind the Dred Scott decision?


Now...here's where you get an education:

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴

The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵
4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. I'll even go you one further:

Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment on the pretext of making blacks equal to whites. In fact, what that amendment did was to nullify the concept of unalienable Rights and scrap the Bill of Rights, making it a Bill of Privileges for subjects (as opposed to Rights of Citizens.)

No, I don't live in a delusional world. Every position has a downside. But, when the United States Supreme Court reinterprets the Constitution, they are legislating from the bench. If you are for allowing it, then there is no point in having a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. George Washington admonished people like you:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

8. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Those are the famous words uttered by President Andrew Jackson in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land.

This ruling was foundational in establishing the general idea that Native Americans have some degree of sovereignty in their interaction with U.S. governments. The words and actions of President Jackson in relation to the opinion is a historic event exemplifying the ever present debate over state and federal power and the role of the courts in our modern times.” Remembering the Time Andrew Jackson Decided to Ignore the Supreme Court In the Name of Georgia’s Right to Cherokee Land




9. That was Andrew Jackson, father of the modern Democrat Party. And the Court backed away.

“The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard.[5] Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.[6][7] This may be seen as a prudential decision, for avoiding the possibility of political conflict between the Court and the Executive, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.” Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

“The fact remained, however, that in this case and in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when it was ruled that the Bank of the United States was in fact constitutional, Jackson challenged the Court’s authority as the final arbiter. As president, Jackson believed that his authority to deem what was constitutional equaled the Supreme Court’s.” Andrew Jackson and the Constitution | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History




Jackson was, or course, correct.

10. “. . some have argued that the President—in certain circumstances—has an independent power to interpret the Constitution, and a concomitant power to ignore or defy court orders if the President comes to a good faith conclusion that the courts have erred.” “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History, and Scholarship,” Seth Tillman



The pronouncements of the Supreme Court should be treated as the red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.

Most people are not aware of number 8.

The Federalist Papers discussed how the court was to have NO will or force.

So...Jackson was correct.

Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????

You're correct....it doesn't.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.


The decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated as red and green lights are in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

I don't understand you. First you sound like your're criticizing my position; now you're posting something that is in favor of it.

Laws cannot be reasonably obeyed if they are subject to arbitrary decisions by the United States Supreme Court wherein there is no debate, input by the public and sufficient notice that what we're doing today may be illegal tomorrow.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

"My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. "

That appears to be the result of your lack of education....

....or, do you still stand behind the Dred Scott decision?


Now...here's where you get an education:

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴

The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵
4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. I'll even go you one further:

Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment on the pretext of making blacks equal to whites. In fact, what that amendment did was to nullify the concept of unalienable Rights and scrap the Bill of Rights, making it a Bill of Privileges for subjects (as opposed to Rights of Citizens.)

No, I don't live in a delusional world. Every position has a downside. But, when the United States Supreme Court reinterprets the Constitution, they are legislating from the bench. If you are for allowing it, then there is no point in having a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. George Washington admonished people like you:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

8. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Those are the famous words uttered by President Andrew Jackson in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land.

This ruling was foundational in establishing the general idea that Native Americans have some degree of sovereignty in their interaction with U.S. governments. The words and actions of President Jackson in relation to the opinion is a historic event exemplifying the ever present debate over state and federal power and the role of the courts in our modern times.” Remembering the Time Andrew Jackson Decided to Ignore the Supreme Court In the Name of Georgia’s Right to Cherokee Land




9. That was Andrew Jackson, father of the modern Democrat Party. And the Court backed away.

“The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard.[5] Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.[6][7] This may be seen as a prudential decision, for avoiding the possibility of political conflict between the Court and the Executive, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.” Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

“The fact remained, however, that in this case and in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when it was ruled that the Bank of the United States was in fact constitutional, Jackson challenged the Court’s authority as the final arbiter. As president, Jackson believed that his authority to deem what was constitutional equaled the Supreme Court’s.” Andrew Jackson and the Constitution | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History




Jackson was, or course, correct.

10. “. . some have argued that the President—in certain circumstances—has an independent power to interpret the Constitution, and a concomitant power to ignore or defy court orders if the President comes to a good faith conclusion that the courts have erred.” “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History, and Scholarship,” Seth Tillman



The pronouncements of the Supreme Court should be treated as the red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.

Most people are not aware of number 8.

The Federalist Papers discussed how the court was to have NO will or force.

So...Jackson was correct.

Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????

You're correct....it doesn't.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.


The decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated as red and green lights are in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

I don't understand you. First you sound like your're criticizing my position; now you're posting something that is in favor of it.

Laws cannot be reasonably obeyed if they are subject to arbitrary decisions by the United States Supreme Court wherein there is no debate, input by the public and sufficient notice that what we're doing today may be illegal tomorrow.

My position: The decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated as red and green lights are in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

"My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. "

That appears to be the result of your lack of education....

....or, do you still stand behind the Dred Scott decision?


Now...here's where you get an education:

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴

The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵
4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. I'll even go you one further:

Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment on the pretext of making blacks equal to whites. In fact, what that amendment did was to nullify the concept of unalienable Rights and scrap the Bill of Rights, making it a Bill of Privileges for subjects (as opposed to Rights of Citizens.)

No, I don't live in a delusional world. Every position has a downside. But, when the United States Supreme Court reinterprets the Constitution, they are legislating from the bench. If you are for allowing it, then there is no point in having a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. George Washington admonished people like you:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.

You're a fucking idiot. You're a short sighted fucking idiot. Don't presume to speak for me. A question would serve you better than that kind of allegation. The fact that you don't understand the law, legal reasoning, or historical reality precludes the fact that you don't know what in the Hell the Dred Scott decision is really about. You never read it!

Scott v. Sandford

Roger Taney did not write the statutes you ignorant idiot. He applied existing laws. It wasn't Taney's job to decide if the laws or the intent of those writing said laws were in line with the idea of racial amalgamation. It wasn't Taney's job to over-rule the intent of the law. He interpreted the law consistent with existing statutes and the intent of those writing the law. In other words, rather than to play political football to win the accolades of the masses, he did his job. He did not legislate from the bench and he gave ample court rulings to sustain his holding.

As for attacking me personally, you are a moron. If you want to know what I think at a personal level, ask me. Don't speak for me. Have the common courtesy of allowing me to speak for myself. I don't need a dumb ass that obviously failed high school civics and never actually read the Dred Scott decision to speak for me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

"My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. "

That appears to be the result of your lack of education....

....or, do you still stand behind the Dred Scott decision?


Now...here's where you get an education:

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴

The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵
4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. I'll even go you one further:

Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment on the pretext of making blacks equal to whites. In fact, what that amendment did was to nullify the concept of unalienable Rights and scrap the Bill of Rights, making it a Bill of Privileges for subjects (as opposed to Rights of Citizens.)

No, I don't live in a delusional world. Every position has a downside. But, when the United States Supreme Court reinterprets the Constitution, they are legislating from the bench. If you are for allowing it, then there is no point in having a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. George Washington admonished people like you:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.

You're a fucking idiot. You're a short sighted fucking idiot. Don't presume to speak for me. A question would serve you better than that kind of allegation. The fact that you don't understand the law, legal reasoning, or historical reality precludes the fact that you don't know what in the Hell the Dred Scott decision is really about. You never read it!

Scott v. Sandford

Roger Taney did not write the statutes you ignorant idiot. He applied existing laws. It wasn't Taney's job to decide if the laws or the intent of those writing said laws were in line with the idea of racial amalgamation. It wasn't Taney's job to over-rule the intent of the law. He interpreted the law consistent with existing statutes and the intent of those writing the law. In other words, rather than to play political football to win the accolades of the masses, he did his job. He did not legislate from the bench and he gave ample court rulings to sustain his holding.

As for attacking me personally, you are a moron. If you want to know what I think at a personal level, ask me. Don't speak for me. Have the common courtesy of allowing me to speak for myself. I don't need a dumb ass that obviously failed high school civics and never actually read the Dred Scott decision to speak for me.

Re-post as an adult, without the juvenile vulgarity, and I may provide a response.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

"My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. "

That appears to be the result of your lack of education....

....or, do you still stand behind the Dred Scott decision?


Now...here's where you get an education:

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴

The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵
4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. I'll even go you one further:

Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment on the pretext of making blacks equal to whites. In fact, what that amendment did was to nullify the concept of unalienable Rights and scrap the Bill of Rights, making it a Bill of Privileges for subjects (as opposed to Rights of Citizens.)

No, I don't live in a delusional world. Every position has a downside. But, when the United States Supreme Court reinterprets the Constitution, they are legislating from the bench. If you are for allowing it, then there is no point in having a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. George Washington admonished people like you:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.

You're a fucking idiot. You're a short sighted fucking idiot. Don't presume to speak for me. A question would serve you better than that kind of allegation. The fact that you don't understand the law, legal reasoning, or historical reality precludes the fact that you don't know what in the Hell the Dred Scott decision is really about. You never read it!

Scott v. Sandford

Roger Taney did not write the statutes you ignorant idiot. He applied existing laws. It wasn't Taney's job to decide if the laws or the intent of those writing said laws were in line with the idea of racial amalgamation. It wasn't Taney's job to over-rule the intent of the law. He interpreted the law consistent with existing statutes and the intent of those writing the law. In other words, rather than to play political football to win the accolades of the masses, he did his job. He did not legislate from the bench and he gave ample court rulings to sustain his holding.

As for attacking me personally, you are a moron. If you want to know what I think at a personal level, ask me. Don't speak for me. Have the common courtesy of allowing me to speak for myself. I don't need a dumb ass that obviously failed high school civics and never actually read the Dred Scott decision to speak for me.

Re-post as an adult, without the juvenile vulgarity, and I may provide a response.

I do not require a response. You accused me of endorsing slavery. That is all that is necessary to know.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. "

That appears to be the result of your lack of education....

....or, do you still stand behind the Dred Scott decision?


Now...here's where you get an education:

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴

The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵
4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. I'll even go you one further:

Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment on the pretext of making blacks equal to whites. In fact, what that amendment did was to nullify the concept of unalienable Rights and scrap the Bill of Rights, making it a Bill of Privileges for subjects (as opposed to Rights of Citizens.)

No, I don't live in a delusional world. Every position has a downside. But, when the United States Supreme Court reinterprets the Constitution, they are legislating from the bench. If you are for allowing it, then there is no point in having a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. George Washington admonished people like you:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

For any not aware of what a fool you are, let's enlighten all: the Dred Scott decision that you 'stand behind,' made human being simply property.

It endorses, as you do, slavery.

You're a fucking idiot. You're a short sighted fucking idiot. Don't presume to speak for me. A question would serve you better than that kind of allegation. The fact that you don't understand the law, legal reasoning, or historical reality precludes the fact that you don't know what in the Hell the Dred Scott decision is really about. You never read it!

Scott v. Sandford

Roger Taney did not write the statutes you ignorant idiot. He applied existing laws. It wasn't Taney's job to decide if the laws or the intent of those writing said laws were in line with the idea of racial amalgamation. It wasn't Taney's job to over-rule the intent of the law. He interpreted the law consistent with existing statutes and the intent of those writing the law. In other words, rather than to play political football to win the accolades of the masses, he did his job. He did not legislate from the bench and he gave ample court rulings to sustain his holding.

As for attacking me personally, you are a moron. If you want to know what I think at a personal level, ask me. Don't speak for me. Have the common courtesy of allowing me to speak for myself. I don't need a dumb ass that obviously failed high school civics and never actually read the Dred Scott decision to speak for me.

Re-post as an adult, without the juvenile vulgarity, and I may provide a response.

I do not require a response. You accused me of endorsing slavery. That is all that is necessary to know.

I see you prefer not to think before posting....so as to be just as surprised as everyone else.




Did you write this?
"Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. "

Yes, you did.

QED you endorse slavery.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

"My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. "

That appears to be the result of your lack of education....

....or, do you still stand behind the Dred Scott decision?


Now...here's where you get an education:

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴

The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵
4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. I'll even go you one further:

Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment on the pretext of making blacks equal to whites. In fact, what that amendment did was to nullify the concept of unalienable Rights and scrap the Bill of Rights, making it a Bill of Privileges for subjects (as opposed to Rights of Citizens.)

No, I don't live in a delusional world. Every position has a downside. But, when the United States Supreme Court reinterprets the Constitution, they are legislating from the bench. If you are for allowing it, then there is no point in having a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. George Washington admonished people like you:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Robert Bork disagrees with you.

He called the decision a mistake.

And credits it with starting the Civil War.

I believe that he stated Tanney should have just refused standing to Scott and let it be at that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

All three branches of government are equally capable of overstepping their authority and breaking the law. We've just never held the United States Supreme Court accountable.

My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. If the high Court, the other two branches of government or the people don't like that law - AMEND THE FREAKING CONSTITUTION. Don't let the United States Supreme Court legislate from the bench.

"My view is that once the United States Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is settled. "

That appears to be the result of your lack of education....

....or, do you still stand behind the Dred Scott decision?


Now...here's where you get an education:

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴

The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵
4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

Yes, I'm fully aware of the Dred Scott decision and would stand behind it. I'll even go you one further:

Congress illegally ratified the 14th Amendment on the pretext of making blacks equal to whites. In fact, what that amendment did was to nullify the concept of unalienable Rights and scrap the Bill of Rights, making it a Bill of Privileges for subjects (as opposed to Rights of Citizens.)

No, I don't live in a delusional world. Every position has a downside. But, when the United States Supreme Court reinterprets the Constitution, they are legislating from the bench. If you are for allowing it, then there is no point in having a House of Representatives and a U.S. Senate. George Washington admonished people like you:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Robert Bork disagrees with you.

He called the decision a mistake.

And credits it with starting the Civil War.

I believe that he stated Tanney should have just refused standing to Scott and let it be at that.

Bet you've read about the deal....today we call it quid pro quo....between Roger Taney and Buchanan.

"President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision"
President James Buchanan Directly Influenced the Outcome of the Dred Scott Decision | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine