Dumbest Ever

Shocker.. Doug approved a comment.

Tom said...
Marbury vs. Madison

209 years of case law later, it makes you insane.. doesn't it?

It's called an "implied power". You should read Federalist 78.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.

And that's how the courts work in the United States. It's too bad you don't agree, but you're in the fringe minority in your view and it's not going to change.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...
Implied Power is unconstitutional, only express powers are to be applied. Final arbiters of the Constitution are the States. Courts cannot change law based on judicial review. They can have the opinion regarding constitutionality, and then Congress can decide whether or not to follow such recommendation. If States believe law is unconstitutional, they can nullify, or ignore, it. If you don't believe the Congress cannot put the courts in their place, explain the eleventh amendment, tough guy. Your ignorance is astounding (hence why I rarely post your idiocy) And of course, case law is a court creation, giving themselves power - but the Constitution was the States giving the federal government power. So, if feds through courts are giving themselves power, rather than asking States for authorities, that would mean the federal government is "seizing power" which makes it tyrannical.

Tom Said...
I'm "ignorant"?

Yet - your view of the judicial issue is contradicted by over 200 years of law in the United States. I'm "ignorant" when, in fact, my position is consistent with the way the federal government has operated for over 200 years.

It is a fact that justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas would disagree with YOU, and agree with me. It is a fact that the entire legal system of the United States would agree with my view of the issue.

And I am the one that is "ignorant".

You don't even understand what "judicial review" is. The courts don't "change law" - they simply decide if a law is constitutional or not, and if it is not, they have the authority to invalidate the law. That is not a controversial view in the US legal system. It is not controversial even in the "conservative" view of law. It is not controversial with the conservatives in Congress, nor with conservative leaning judges.

There is a minuscule segment of the population that disagrees, and you happen to have that fringe view. And that makes me the ignorant one, as opposed to it being you who is completely not understanding why and how judicial review exists in the United States.

It's not going to change either. The legal system in the US is not suddenly going to agree with Doug Gibbs and change the way the system has operated for a couple hundred years.

Riddle me this.. suppose Congress passes, and the President signs, a law that says all people with green eyes are banned from travelling abroad. They cannot leave the US and their passports are confiscated. What recourse do those citizens have in your dream world? None. They could not appeal to our justice system because the courts would have no authority to strike down that law. They would have to wait for the same body that enacted the law to remove the law, and if that body chose not too, they simply would have no option of appeal.

Oh.. and I like your description of Congress keeping the courts "in their place". The 11th amendment is very specific in its language, is it not? It could have been written explicitly to remove the authority of judicial review from the courts, but it was not. Why was it not?

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

The 11th amendment is proof that judicial review is a valid legal concept under the Constitution merely because the amendment exists. It is proof that if Congress wanted to remove that authority from the courts, they can, and should, do so via Constitutional amendment in exactly the same manner as they have done in the 11th.

Explain to me, tough guy (lol), why has Congress, in 209 years of history post Marbury, not proposed an amendment to put the courts "in their place" and instead agreed with and abides with the courts authority to strike down federal and state law? Congress knows that the laws they pass can be, and have many times, been struck down by the Supreme Court - yet, they do nothing to change that. Why?

You have zero answer for that. Why no amendment?

You believe that Loving vs. Virginia was an illegal act of the Supreme Court, don't you? If it was illegal - why have the states done nothing to change that, but rather simply abides by the decision? Why has Congress done nothing?

We both know the reason why you delete my comments as you will this one. It isn't because I'm "wrong", or "ignorant", and this case is a perfect example of that. It's because I do nothing but show you what is absolutely true - and all you can do is make weird and fringe arguments about how it's all some conspiracy or other.

In the end, it's an absurd argument. You don't like it when I can so easily prove you wrong on pretty much everything, so deleting it becomes the best way of coping for you. Then you claim that it's because I'm being "ignorant". I find that highly amusing.

The odds of him approving my second comment are pretty much nill. Doug always deletes comments when I prove him wrong, and always has the last word in order to give the appearance that he's not the Dumbest Person on the Planet.