Personally, I think it would be funny if you were launched by rocket to the moon. That satisfies you not being on the planet. You annoy me and the proximity is an issue.

“Considering the picture I saw of you, that won’t be a problem much longer.”

So thinking someone is going to die soon is the same as wishing they would. Hmmmm, I don’t think that’s 100% correct. Or even 50% correct.

Don’t get me wrong, when you die, (however long it takes), I won’t shed a tear. But I’m not doing anything to speed that process up, or even contemplating it. Your death, is not on my mind.

“Because it has been tried and succeeded in some small part, on a state level, does not disprove my point.”

Actually, it does.

The court rules that a law is invalid because of X, Y, and Z. If congress can fix X, Y, and Z, the law can come back. This happens a lot. (Usually it is, “The law is too vague. Be more specific.”)

The fact that there are some laws that are broken beyond repair doesn’t mean the court overstepped its bounds. It just means the law was totally fucked up.

“(Aside to Clem: “And 12 remained in place.” Because in those states, it was already legal. But you knew that)”

Of course.

This response that follows is for frameone, and frameone alone.

You have used my example of “legislating from bench” and are trying to deny it to disprove one part of my argument, while using it as a proof for your side.

You obstinately refuse to accept what I am saying. Perhaps you should think a minute about what I am saying before you comment.

We have established that the Legislature (aside to Clem — that means Congress) can, but only rarely does, rewrite a law that does not pass Constitutional muster.

Because it has been tried and succeeded in some small part, on a state level, does not disprove my point.

Both parties have pretty much given up an reversing Roe v. Wade on a national level. So that’s it. By judicial fiat abortions can be legal up to the day of delivery.

(Aside to Clem: “And 12 remained in place.” Because in those states, it was already legal. But you knew that)

Further proof that you, like nearly all NeoCons, are either stupid or liars. I think it’s both.

I never wished you would die, I merely predicted it would happen soon.

“It ACQUIRED the power to rule on unconstitutionality, per se [i.e, the power of nullification] after Marbury v. Madison”

No it didn’t. The power was defined then, but it was in the constitution before. Without judicial review, the courts have nearly no power and are certainly not part of the checks and balances.

“38 states’ abortion laws went down the tubes that day.”

And 12 remained in place.

It rules that a certain law was unconstitutional because of a particular factor and all other laws that have that factor are therefore also unconstitutional.

Or are you saying the Supreme Court should have to declare each law unconstitutional individually? Wouldn’t that be a huge waste of time?

“Think about it: How often are laws re-written after they have been declared unconstitutional?”

You realize the abortion laws in several states have been re-written a number of times, including very recently. Some of them were killed before they were voted into place because the legislators new they would fail the constitutional test. Others have made it to the Supreme Court to be overturned or upheld.

In short, you are wrong.

If he did, he wouldn’t post.

Could you please just stop and think before you post?

Think about it: How often are laws re-written after they have been declared unconstitutional?

Article III, Section 2, says “The judicial power shall extend to all cases,” not that the ruling shall extend to all the states.

Now, Article IV is a little closer:
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Not the Supreme Court.

But that, of course, isn’t the end of the story is it? There are a number of remedies that legislatures have to respond to Supreme Court decisions, the first one being: Re-write the law in accordance with the Constitution.

The second would be an amendment to the Constitution.

Again, both of these remedies are checks against the Court.

That’s the system Frank. If you think it’s too onerous fine but it’s onerous for a reason so that the Constitution is not subject to every whim and pet issue that gets kicked up by politicians and hacks as they rile people up for their own political gain.

And as for your latter comment I believe its called Article III.

The Constitution should take precedence over all other laws, but that doesn’t make the Referee the “winner of the game”.

The Supreme was given a specific jurisdiction, and they have exceeded it, on the left, and on the right.

But stop and think about it for two seconds. Please.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If a state or federal law conflicts with the Constitution, which law is the Court supposed to apply? The Constitution should take precedence over all other laws where there is a conflict otherwise the constitution is meaningless. Is that not correct?

Wrong !!

38 states’ abortion laws went down the tubes that day.
The Supreme Court didn’t JUST declare prohibiting abortion in Texas illegal, they declared abortion legal up until every point of pregnancy including actual delivery in EVERY STATE OF THE UNION!

Did they or did they not?

Yes or No.

BTW, if you’re not 14, you need therapy — desperately.

Do we agree:

The Legislative makes the laws, and can, if necessary, rewrite laws that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.

The Executive branch can veto such laws, and that veto can be overridden

The Supreme Court’s ORIGINAL jurisdiction was over cases involving

Indiv v. Govt
State v. State
State v. Fed Gov
State v. Foreign Country

It ACQUIRED the power to rule on unconstitutionality, per se [i.e, the power of nullification] after Marbury v. Madison

If we don’t agree on that, then we stop right here.

a) Twisting my words, so that person A can pretend I said Z, and person B can respond to A’s interpretation Z.

b) One person says one thing, which is wrong, and then the other person says something which is wrong, and then when I respond, the other person can “cherry pick” from answer.

You are so fucking stupid. Calling you retarded is an insult to retarded people.

You don’t need legislators or presidents for life, because you have a judiciary that is there to correct them when they overstep they limitations.

Of course, assholes like you want to strip them of it.

“[Feeling misinterpreted? Welcome to my world.]”

You are not misinterpreting my words. You are lying about what I said.

And again I suggest doing a little research on projection.

“I never said Roe v. Wade was incorrect in this thread. I was merely pointing out that the procedure in Roe v. Wade was ‘legislating from the bench’”

And you are wrong. No legislation was written in Roe v. Wade. An unlawful law was removed, which is not the same thing. Had the constitution been observed from the start, it wouldn’t have been there to begin with.

“Abortion is the taking of a life,”

And you’re wrong here as well. You’re forgetting a key defining characteristic of life, which doesn’t come into play in most abortions, so you can’t make that blanket statement.

“Well, Skippy, in order for a law to be discovered as “not fitting the Constitution”, it would have to be rewritten first, would it not?”

No, Frank. It wouldn’t.

A law can be unconstitutional as originally written. Unless you meant something else like declaring a law invalid is rewriting it. But that would be powerfully retarded.

“Paulie, I’m tired of you, and I’m tired of Strowbridge, and I’m tired of my words being twisted, and I’m tired of getting lame civics lessons from a guy who writes movie reviews for a living.”

I’m tired of you being on the same planet as me. Considering the picture I saw of you, that won’t be a problem much longer.

(Unless you are in you 80s, you need to see a doctor.)

“I’d mop the floor with either one of you. And if I could debate each of you one at a time, I’d beat you both.”

How would it make a difference? It’s not like you have to post responses to us simultaneously. You can do them one at a time.

You act like one of us is stealing your keyboard so you can’t respond.

How could debating one of us at a time be easier? Hell, I could send my responses to Frameone and he could post them and you’d never know.

…

Well, you’d figure it out when he called you retarded.

…

Although, since you are retarded, perhaps you wouldn’t figure it out.

You know how this is like a blog? You are free to respond whenever and however you’d like frank. If you want to actually explain what the hell it is you mean in language people can understand, by all means, go for it. You seem incapable of it though.

Please explain how determining a law to be unconstitutional is the proper and accepted role of the courts but somehow roe v wade is legislating from the bench. The court determined that the abortion law in question was unconstitutional. You may not agree with their reasoning but that’s what they did and it’s all that they did. period.

One minute I’m addressing you, and CSS is responding, then I’m addressing him, and you’re responding.

I’d love to challenge either of you to a straight up debate on this topic.

I’d mop the floor with either one of you. And if I could debate each of you one at a time, I’d beat you both.

yeah frank, because legislators are barred from consulting constitutional lawyers or their own brains to figure this out before the write a law. Indeed, legislators should not have to know anything about the constitution or its functioning before sitting down to write laws. This is apparently the criteria for right wing candidates at least.

idiot.

You know, frank, you may as well have gone whole hog here given your position on abortion and just said:

‘I was merely pointing out that the procedure in Roe v. Wade was “killing babies with their own hands from the bench.”

Like i said, merely, my ass.