Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Squawker I was the last one to post in that thread, so I don’t see how I failed to do anything. |
You failed because your posts were no longer germane to my points.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Squawker The Marbury v. Madison case, was just a political p*ssing contest because the Republicans won the election. (Some things never change) The court assumed new powers that were not entitled to them. In typical Republican style even then, the legislature didn’t fight it. Source [/b] |
The new chief justice, John Marshall, understood that if the Court awarded Marbury a writ of mandamus (an order to force Madison to deliver the commission) the Jefferson administration would ignore it, and thus significantly weaken the authority of the courts. On the other hand, if the Court denied the writ, it might well appear that the justices had acted out of fear. Either case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy of the law.
Of course, this has been in effect for over 200 years. And at that time, the republicans (vs the Federalists) held control not only over the Congress but the Presidency. If they didn't like the MvM decision, they most certainly could have legislated a law to stop it. And so on over the last 200 years. And you know what? That HAS NOT HAPPENED. It sure hasn't been too problematic over the course of the last 200 years to keep the balance of power in check by means of MvM (Dred Scott excluded, of course).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Squawker What Scalia said, was that it has to be in the constitution, for the courts to be allowed to rule on it. The constitution does not give a woman the right to kill her own child, therefore the court cannot decide that it is “unconstitutional”. |
Scalia's loosey goosey interpretation of what is in the constitution is laughable. He has a hard time understanding what precedence is and as such is a fringe member of the far right.