Should Supreme Court Decisions Be Ignored???

[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.

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

Actually, no.

Thanks for sharing.

Update: Article was very interesting. Thank you again.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

In no particular order...

1. Learn how to address your betters

2. Develop a facility with the English language.....slaver.

 

[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

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.

In hindsight a lot of things can be said. Lots of attorneys / judges like to play armchair quarterback, but Taney spent ove 20 pages of citing legal precedents that those who make idiotic statements have not read. It's easier to find some lawyer or judge that will tell you what you want to hear.

If it meant that much to you, then you would have studied law and posed these issues in a think tank. That's how I came to draw my conclusions.

 

[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.

In hindsight a lot of things can be said. Lots of attorneys / judges like to play armchair quarterback, but Taney spent ove 20 pages of citing legal precedents that those who make idiotic statements have not read. It's easier to find some lawyer or judge that will tell you what you want to hear.

If it meant that much to you, then you would have studied law and posed these issues in a think tank. That's how I came to draw my conclusions.

Robert Bork was a pretty good judge.

I doubt he has made an idiotic statement his entire life.

It does not make him right and he isn't the final authority. But he's been pretty trustworthy as far as I am concerned.

And I am sure he spent more time on the decision than most.

I had no opinion. I was reading one of his books...and it was just there.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"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.

No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

I don't know you as well as I know PoliticalChic. I don't know

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.

This does not work.

Nothing is EVER settled.

They've doubled back on themselves (reversed course) hundreds of times.

So even amending the constitution (and nice as that sounds) really does not do the job.

If everyone followed the 10th amendment, 90% of these rulings would not have happened.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

I don't know you as well as I know PoliticalChic. I don't know

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.

This does not work.

Nothing is EVER settled.

They've doubled back on themselves (reversed course) hundreds of times.

So even amending the constitution (and nice as that sounds) really does not do the job.

If everyone followed the 10th amendment, 90% of these rulings would not have happened.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

A great problem with the Supreme Court is that the Constitution never would have been ratified without the promise of federalism....your reference to the 10th amendment.


The current issue, abortion, is a case in point....pun intended.

If every state can have different gun laws, why isn't the same true for abortion laws?
Reagan recommended voting with ones feet....moving to where you like the laws better.



BTW....loved this book:

 

[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

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

So, I checked out your link. We can always run to one source or another to get bias confirmation. My problem is, I deal in legal realities, not speculative possibilities.

AFTER you've read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and after you've read the 21 pages of court citations offered by Taney and after you have shepardized them, get back to me.

Citing the opinions of other pundits to bolster your claim does nothing to convince me.

If you want an honest and critical observation, there isn't a swinging soul on this entire board that doesn't support slavery. All of those people have their cockeyed view of why they're right, but they ALL support slavery in one form or another.

Thomas Jefferson made much ado about appealing to the white Christians of his time with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We were all created equal, but Jefferson owned slaves. He called the Indians savages. He was in the same political party as Andrew Jackson and Jackson believed in ethnic cleansing. Jefferson even screwed at least one of his slaves, had offspring, then never married Sally Hemings... he never even freed his own children!

Today, the Democrats are still at it. This time they want the whites to be the slaves. Don't you? Everybody has their idiotic excuse - and you will not ask my personal opinion, so I won't bore you with it.

The left wants the white male to be the slave today. You can't wait to play that "slave" card, even knowing that over 92 percent of the white people never owned a slave - and many whites were negatively impacted by the rich who worked the slaves. To demand those who profited off the trade would be to indict a number of rich Jews... that would be "anti -semitic" (sic) The left seems to forget that it was blacks who sold their own brethren into slavery to begin with. Does the left condemn them and demand they be held accountable? Hell no.

But, we can't let the right off the hook either. Despite the FACT that our foundational principles proclaims that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) gave ALL MEN unalienable Rights, some want to build a wall around the United States in an effort to deny to others the Liberty that we supposedly had more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified. The word unalienable means that the Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Constitutionally speaking we can create special privileges and immunities for the citizenry (Socialist Security, a public education, welfare, etc.), but when we infringe on the Liberties of others, it destroys the concept of unalienable Rights - not that the right cares. They would forfeit the Bill of Rights if their version of slavery could be implemented. They say so every day.

Most of you allow the government to steal your money via the 16th Amendment. It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet those who might agree with me on one issue or another would not have kind words for the people who challenge the 16th Amendment.

EVERYBODY here; everybody you know; even you support some flavor of slavery. You have your justification for it. But, you still do it. Accusing me of endorsing it is dishonest and hypocritical on your part. Pot meet kettle.

 

[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

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.

In hindsight a lot of things can be said. Lots of attorneys / judges like to play armchair quarterback, but Taney spent ove 20 pages of citing legal precedents that those who make idiotic statements have not read. It's easier to find some lawyer or judge that will tell you what you want to hear.

If it meant that much to you, then you would have studied law and posed these issues in a think tank. That's how I came to draw my conclusions.

Robert Bork was a pretty good judge.

I doubt he has made an idiotic statement his entire life.

It does not make him right and he isn't the final authority. But he's been pretty trustworthy as far as I am concerned.

And I am sure he spent more time on the decision than most.

I had no opinion. I was reading one of his books...and it was just there.

So, now we're going to debate a man that wasn't a United States Supreme Court Justice?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

So, I checked out your link. We can always run to one source or another to get bias confirmation. My problem is, I deal in legal realities, not speculative possibilities.

AFTER you've read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and after you've read the 21 pages of court citations offered by Taney and after you have shepardized them, get back to me.

Citing the opinions of other pundits to bolster your claim does nothing to convince me.

If you want an honest and critical observation, there isn't a swinging soul on this entire board that doesn't support slavery. All of those people have their cockeyed view of why they're right, but they ALL support slavery in one form or another.

Thomas Jefferson made much ado about appealing to the white Christians of his time with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We were all created equal, but Jefferson owned slaves. He called the Indians savages. He was in the same political party as Andrew Jackson and Jackson believed in ethnic cleansing. Jefferson even screwed at least one of his slaves, had offspring, then never married Sally Hemings... he never even freed his own children!

Today, the Democrats are still at it. This time they want the whites to be the slaves. Don't you? Everybody has their idiotic excuse - and you will not ask my personal opinion, so I won't bore you with it.

The left wants the white male to be the slave today. You can't wait to play that "slave" card, even knowing that over 92 percent of the white people never owned a slave - and many whites were negatively impacted by the rich who worked the slaves. To demand those who profited off the trade would be to indict a number of rich Jews... that would be "anti -semitic" (sic) The left seems to forget that it was blacks who sold their own brethren into slavery to begin with. Does the left condemn them and demand they be held accountable? Hell no.

But, we can't let the right off the hook either. Despite the FACT that our foundational principles proclaims that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) gave ALL MEN unalienable Rights, some want to build a wall around the United States in an effort to deny to others the Liberty that we supposedly had more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified. The word unalienable means that the Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Constitutionally speaking we can create special privileges and immunities for the citizenry (Socialist Security, a public education, welfare, etc.), but when we infringe on the Liberties of others, it destroys the concept of unalienable Rights - not that the right cares. They would forfeit the Bill of Rights if their version of slavery could be implemented. They say so every day.

Most of you allow the government to steal your money via the 16th Amendment. It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet those who might agree with me on one issue or another would not have kind words for the people who challenge the 16th Amendment.

EVERYBODY here; everybody you know; even you support some flavor of slavery. You have your justification for it. But, you still do it. Accusing me of endorsing it is dishonest and hypocritical on your part. Pot meet kettle.

This is quite a rambling post.

And would take up 20 different threads to explore all that you've covered.

However, the question.....is should the SCOTUS be ignored ?

What you call slavery...I am not sure.

John Jay stated that we give up some nautural rights to preserve the rest of them. His statement was that was how governments were formed and that governments were absolutlely necessary.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"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.

In hindsight a lot of things can be said. Lots of attorneys / judges like to play armchair quarterback, but Taney spent ove 20 pages of citing legal precedents that those who make idiotic statements have not read. It's easier to find some lawyer or judge that will tell you what you want to hear.

If it meant that much to you, then you would have studied law and posed these issues in a think tank. That's how I came to draw my conclusions.

Robert Bork was a pretty good judge.

I doubt he has made an idiotic statement his entire life.

It does not make him right and he isn't the final authority. But he's been pretty trustworthy as far as I am concerned.

And I am sure he spent more time on the decision than most.

I had no opinion. I was reading one of his books...and it was just there.

So, now we're going to debate a man that wasn't a United States Supreme Court Justice?

You just totally lost me.

I sad a man wasn't a SCOTUS judge ?????

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

I don't know you as well as I know PoliticalChic. I don't know

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.

This does not work.

Nothing is EVER settled.

They've doubled back on themselves (reversed course) hundreds of times.

So even amending the constitution (and nice as that sounds) really does not do the job.

If everyone followed the 10th amendment, 90% of these rulings would not have happened.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

I cannot help that the system is doing things that fail to meet constitutional muster. I do speak out and until the early 2000s I put my money and my time into challenging unconstitutional and illegal acts - especially by the government. But, the political pundits that know every damn thing wanted to argue and filibuster... much like what you see happening here. At some point, there was no point.

But, if the United States Supreme Court doesn't abide by the law and we don't hold them accountable, what's the point?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

I don't know you as well as I know PoliticalChic. I don't know

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.

This does not work.

Nothing is EVER settled.

They've doubled back on themselves (reversed course) hundreds of times.

So even amending the constitution (and nice as that sounds) really does not do the job.

If everyone followed the 10th amendment, 90% of these rulings would not have happened.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

I cannot help that the system is doing things that fail to meet constitutional muster. I do speak out and until the early 2000s I put my money and my time into challenging unconstitutional and illegal acts - especially by the government. But, the political pundits that know every damn thing wanted to argue and filibuster... much like what you see happening here. At some point, there was no point.

But, if the United States Supreme Court doesn't abide by the law and we don't hold them accountable, what's the point?

O.K.

How do we hold them accountable ?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

I don't know you as well as I know PoliticalChic. I don't know

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.

This does not work.

Nothing is EVER settled.

They've doubled back on themselves (reversed course) hundreds of times.

So even amending the constitution (and nice as that sounds) really does not do the job.

If everyone followed the 10th amendment, 90% of these rulings would not have happened.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

A great problem with the Supreme Court is that the Constitution never would have been ratified without the promise of federalism....your reference to the 10th amendment.


The current issue, abortion, is a case in point....pun intended.

If every state can have different gun laws, why isn't the same true for abortion laws?
Reagan recommended voting with ones feet....moving to where you like the laws better.



BTW....loved this book:

If not for the illegally ratified 14th Amendment, you would not have 40,000 + federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, regulations, edicts, statutes, ordinances, case holdings, etc. governing firearms.

Today abortion is legal; in a few months it might be illegal if Trump has his way. Then some liberal court will reverse that. It looks like it's up to nine people wearing women's underwear, playing God instead of turning the job of legislation over to legislators.

And, since it's already been done, we might as well keep doing it wrong. Right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

So, I checked out your link. We can always run to one source or another to get bias confirmation. My problem is, I deal in legal realities, not speculative possibilities.

AFTER you've read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and after you've read the 21 pages of court citations offered by Taney and after you have shepardized them, get back to me.

Citing the opinions of other pundits to bolster your claim does nothing to convince me.

If you want an honest and critical observation, there isn't a swinging soul on this entire board that doesn't support slavery. All of those people have their cockeyed view of why they're right, but they ALL support slavery in one form or another.

Thomas Jefferson made much ado about appealing to the white Christians of his time with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We were all created equal, but Jefferson owned slaves. He called the Indians savages. He was in the same political party as Andrew Jackson and Jackson believed in ethnic cleansing. Jefferson even screwed at least one of his slaves, had offspring, then never married Sally Hemings... he never even freed his own children!

Today, the Democrats are still at it. This time they want the whites to be the slaves. Don't you? Everybody has their idiotic excuse - and you will not ask my personal opinion, so I won't bore you with it.

The left wants the white male to be the slave today. You can't wait to play that "slave" card, even knowing that over 92 percent of the white people never owned a slave - and many whites were negatively impacted by the rich who worked the slaves. To demand those who profited off the trade would be to indict a number of rich Jews... that would be "anti -semitic" (sic) The left seems to forget that it was blacks who sold their own brethren into slavery to begin with. Does the left condemn them and demand they be held accountable? Hell no.

But, we can't let the right off the hook either. Despite the FACT that our foundational principles proclaims that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) gave ALL MEN unalienable Rights, some want to build a wall around the United States in an effort to deny to others the Liberty that we supposedly had more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified. The word unalienable means that the Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Constitutionally speaking we can create special privileges and immunities for the citizenry (Socialist Security, a public education, welfare, etc.), but when we infringe on the Liberties of others, it destroys the concept of unalienable Rights - not that the right cares. They would forfeit the Bill of Rights if their version of slavery could be implemented. They say so every day.

Most of you allow the government to steal your money via the 16th Amendment. It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet those who might agree with me on one issue or another would not have kind words for the people who challenge the 16th Amendment.

EVERYBODY here; everybody you know; even you support some flavor of slavery. You have your justification for it. But, you still do it. Accusing me of endorsing it is dishonest and hypocritical on your part. Pot meet kettle.

You wrote:
"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 can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

I don't know you as well as I know PoliticalChic. I don't know

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.

This does not work.

Nothing is EVER settled.

They've doubled back on themselves (reversed course) hundreds of times.

So even amending the constitution (and nice as that sounds) really does not do the job.

If everyone followed the 10th amendment, 90% of these rulings would not have happened.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

I cannot help that the system is doing things that fail to meet constitutional muster. I do speak out and until the early 2000s I put my money and my time into challenging unconstitutional and illegal acts - especially by the government. But, the political pundits that know every damn thing wanted to argue and filibuster... much like what you see happening here. At some point, there was no point.

But, if the United States Supreme Court doesn't abide by the law and we don't hold them accountable, what's the point?

O.K.

How do we hold them accountable ?

Take their advice:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

You have a wide range of avenues of redress. Passive resistance, civil disobedience, and appealing to the other two branches of government to voice your disagreement with Marbury v. Madison are the first that come to mind. That road is a thread unto itself, but bottom line:

Any law that conflicts with the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled AND interferes with my unalienable Rights is a law that I will gladly ignore if it impedes my ability to exercise my Rights AND I'm not imposing on the Rights of my fellow man.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

I don't know you as well as I know PoliticalChic. I don't know

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.

This does not work.

Nothing is EVER settled.

They've doubled back on themselves (reversed course) hundreds of times.

So even amending the constitution (and nice as that sounds) really does not do the job.

If everyone followed the 10th amendment, 90% of these rulings would not have happened.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

A great problem with the Supreme Court is that the Constitution never would have been ratified without the promise of federalism....your reference to the 10th amendment.


The current issue, abortion, is a case in point....pun intended.

If every state can have different gun laws, why isn't the same true for abortion laws?
Reagan recommended voting with ones feet....moving to where you like the laws better.



BTW....loved this book:

If not for the illegally ratified 14th Amendment, you would not have 40,000 + federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, regulations, edicts, statutes, ordinances, case holdings, etc. governing firearms.

Today abortion is legal; in a few months it might be illegal if Trump has his way. Then some liberal court will reverse that. It looks like it's up to nine people wearing women's underwear, playing God instead of turning the job of legislation over to legislators.

And, since it's already been done, we might as well keep doing it wrong. Right?

I think we see this the same way.

And I think you and PolitcalChic are on the same page.

It just seems you are very combative.

So:

1. I hate the 14th amendment. I agree it's ratification was illegal. The southern states were not allowed a vote and Ohio (I think) was not allowed to withdraw it's ratification. Lew Rockwell did a great piece on it.

The Squalid 14th Amendment - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

It gave rise to the doctrine of incorporation.

And the downside was that yes.....it would mean states could have gun control. As I understand it, most states have a type of 2nd amendment written into them so counties could not do their own thing. But why would states do that if they thought the Bill of Rights prevented them from it ?

But I am still lost as to how you think this should be rectified.

No, I don't want the fed to keep doing it wrong....I don't want the fed doing anything but what the constitution says it should be doing.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

"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

So, I checked out your link. We can always run to one source or another to get bias confirmation. My problem is, I deal in legal realities, not speculative possibilities.

AFTER you've read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and after you've read the 21 pages of court citations offered by Taney and after you have shepardized them, get back to me.

Citing the opinions of other pundits to bolster your claim does nothing to convince me.

If you want an honest and critical observation, there isn't a swinging soul on this entire board that doesn't support slavery. All of those people have their cockeyed view of why they're right, but they ALL support slavery in one form or another.

Thomas Jefferson made much ado about appealing to the white Christians of his time with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We were all created equal, but Jefferson owned slaves. He called the Indians savages. He was in the same political party as Andrew Jackson and Jackson believed in ethnic cleansing. Jefferson even screwed at least one of his slaves, had offspring, then never married Sally Hemings... he never even freed his own children!

Today, the Democrats are still at it. This time they want the whites to be the slaves. Don't you? Everybody has their idiotic excuse - and you will not ask my personal opinion, so I won't bore you with it.

The left wants the white male to be the slave today. You can't wait to play that "slave" card, even knowing that over 92 percent of the white people never owned a slave - and many whites were negatively impacted by the rich who worked the slaves. To demand those who profited off the trade would be to indict a number of rich Jews... that would be "anti -semitic" (sic) The left seems to forget that it was blacks who sold their own brethren into slavery to begin with. Does the left condemn them and demand they be held accountable? Hell no.

But, we can't let the right off the hook either. Despite the FACT that our foundational principles proclaims that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) gave ALL MEN unalienable Rights, some want to build a wall around the United States in an effort to deny to others the Liberty that we supposedly had more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified. The word unalienable means that the Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Constitutionally speaking we can create special privileges and immunities for the citizenry (Socialist Security, a public education, welfare, etc.), but when we infringe on the Liberties of others, it destroys the concept of unalienable Rights - not that the right cares. They would forfeit the Bill of Rights if their version of slavery could be implemented. They say so every day.

Most of you allow the government to steal your money via the 16th Amendment. It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet those who might agree with me on one issue or another would not have kind words for the people who challenge the 16th Amendment.

EVERYBODY here; everybody you know; even you support some flavor of slavery. You have your justification for it. But, you still do it. Accusing me of endorsing it is dishonest and hypocritical on your part. Pot meet kettle.

You wrote:
"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 can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Your repetitive stupidity is boring and meaningless. You hide the fact that YOU, IN FACT, SUPPORT SLAVERY. What in the Hell makes you think I'm hiding? I try to get people to meet me in face to face situations to discuss and debate that subject. It's people like you hiding. You sound like a fucking nazi. If you repeat a lie enough, people might believe it. It makes you a liar on top of being an idiot and a moron.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

No dumbass. That statement makes NO pretense about endorsing slavery. Neither did Roger Taney interject his political opinions. You should quit while you're ahead. Civics and English are NOT your forte.'

I don't know you as well as I know PoliticalChic. I don't know

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.

This does not work.

Nothing is EVER settled.

They've doubled back on themselves (reversed course) hundreds of times.

So even amending the constitution (and nice as that sounds) really does not do the job.

If everyone followed the 10th amendment, 90% of these rulings would not have happened.

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

I cannot help that the system is doing things that fail to meet constitutional muster. I do speak out and until the early 2000s I put my money and my time into challenging unconstitutional and illegal acts - especially by the government. But, the political pundits that know every damn thing wanted to argue and filibuster... much like what you see happening here. At some point, there was no point.

But, if the United States Supreme Court doesn't abide by the law and we don't hold them accountable, what's the point?

O.K.

How do we hold them accountable ?

Take their advice:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

You have a wide range of avenues of redress. Passive resistance, civil disobedience, and appealing to the other two branches of government to voice your disagreement with Marbury v. Madison are the first that come to mind. That road is a thread unto itself, but bottom line:

Any law that conflicts with the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled AND interferes with my unalienable Rights is a law that I will gladly ignore if it impedes my ability to exercise my Rights AND I'm not imposing on the Rights of my fellow man.

98% in aligment.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

So, I checked out your link. We can always run to one source or another to get bias confirmation. My problem is, I deal in legal realities, not speculative possibilities.

AFTER you've read the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and after you've read the 21 pages of court citations offered by Taney and after you have shepardized them, get back to me.

Citing the opinions of other pundits to bolster your claim does nothing to convince me.

If you want an honest and critical observation, there isn't a swinging soul on this entire board that doesn't support slavery. All of those people have their cockeyed view of why they're right, but they ALL support slavery in one form or another.

Thomas Jefferson made much ado about appealing to the white Christians of his time with the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We were all created equal, but Jefferson owned slaves. He called the Indians savages. He was in the same political party as Andrew Jackson and Jackson believed in ethnic cleansing. Jefferson even screwed at least one of his slaves, had offspring, then never married Sally Hemings... he never even freed his own children!

Today, the Democrats are still at it. This time they want the whites to be the slaves. Don't you? Everybody has their idiotic excuse - and you will not ask my personal opinion, so I won't bore you with it.

The left wants the white male to be the slave today. You can't wait to play that "slave" card, even knowing that over 92 percent of the white people never owned a slave - and many whites were negatively impacted by the rich who worked the slaves. To demand those who profited off the trade would be to indict a number of rich Jews... that would be "anti -semitic" (sic) The left seems to forget that it was blacks who sold their own brethren into slavery to begin with. Does the left condemn them and demand they be held accountable? Hell no.

But, we can't let the right off the hook either. Despite the FACT that our foundational principles proclaims that a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) gave ALL MEN unalienable Rights, some want to build a wall around the United States in an effort to deny to others the Liberty that we supposedly had more than a decade before the Constitution was ratified. The word unalienable means that the Right is above the jurisdiction of government. Constitutionally speaking we can create special privileges and immunities for the citizenry (Socialist Security, a public education, welfare, etc.), but when we infringe on the Liberties of others, it destroys the concept of unalienable Rights - not that the right cares. They would forfeit the Bill of Rights if their version of slavery could be implemented. They say so every day.

Most of you allow the government to steal your money via the 16th Amendment. It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto. Yet those who might agree with me on one issue or another would not have kind words for the people who challenge the 16th Amendment.

EVERYBODY here; everybody you know; even you support some flavor of slavery. You have your justification for it. But, you still do it. Accusing me of endorsing it is dishonest and hypocritical on your part. Pot meet kettle.

You wrote:
"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 can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Your repetitive stupidity is boring and meaningless. You hide the fact that YOU, IN FACT, SUPPORT SLAVERY. What in the Hell makes you think I'm hiding? I try to get people to meet me in face to face situations to discuss and debate that subject. It's people like you hiding. You sound like a fucking nazi. If you repeat a lie enough, people might believe it. It makes you a liar on top of being an idiot and a moron.

Get a grip.

That isn't her.

I can vouche for that.