afchief
Don't forget; “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v Madison 1803.
Homosexuality is "repugnant!!!!
The Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites? Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote? Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy?
A SCOTUS ruling is ONLY an opinion!!!!!
26 comments
Don't forget; “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury v Madison 1803.
Homosexuality is "repugnant!!!!
Homosexuality is not a law. And you left out the to the Constitution“ part. So you failed twice.
The thesis that the judges write after a SCOTUS ruling is called "opinion", yes, but the ruling itself is the highest ruling in the country, silly boy!
Laws always works the way that the latest one (deemed constitutional) is the one that is valid.
A SCOTUS ruling is ONLY an opinion!!!!!
How can anyone in their right mind claim that a "ruling," implying containing the full force of the rule of law, is merely an opinion with no legal force?
"Repugnant" has a second meaning, afchief; it means "in conflict with." So Marbury v Madison says that all laws that are in conflict with the Constitution are null and void. Even if it were a matter of taste, the phrase is "repugnant to the Constitution ." Who is to say what is repugnant to the Constitution? Article 3 answers clearly: the Supreme Court.
I notice you cite Marbury v Madison . To be more precise, you have cited the Supreme Court's opinion
Okay, afchief; WHY THE HECK DOES THE SUPREME COURT EXIST?!!!!
Let's see that turkey's answer to THAT!
"Marbury v Madison 1803"
Which is the case that firmly established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. This case was in 1803, a mere fourteen years after the Constitution was written.
I'm sure you can cite quite large amounts of writings from the people that actually created the Constitution that clearly showed their opposition to the SCOTUS seizing power.
Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy?
This is the first paragraph from a Wikipedia article about this ruling from 1986 that afchump is mentioning.
Source
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court decision, overturned in 2003, that upheld, in a 54 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals.
Looks like our Constitutional law expert is wrong...as usual. I bet those other laws are overturned as well.
"Homosexuality is "repugnant!!!!"
The Church of England bishops & archbishops in the House of Lords would like a word with you concerning what they did prior to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 being voted on & entering the statute book.
My MP Karl Turner (Labour, Hull East) voted for that bill. We, his constituents know about his voting patterns, thus his decisions having an effect on the thousands of people in this part of Hull - and millions more in the UK as a whole. A couple of years later, he was returned to Parliament with an increased majority. If you subjectively think that homosexuality is 'repugnant', then care to explain how so many more in my neck of the woods thought differently, even though they knew he'd voted for that bill which effectively equates with that 26th June SCOTUS decision?
And Karl Turner MP is also a QC : someone who is expert in the law; not for nothing was he part of Max Gold Partnership: the best law firm in Yorkshire; Max Gold himself having a 100% success rate in all his cases.
...as for your '100%', all it'll result for your 'Opinion' will be eternal butthurt. How can you possibly change the almighty SCOTUS yourself , when the Repubican party can do less than fuck all about Roe vs. Wade? It's time you admitted you're on a hiding to nothing. Unlike Karl Turner QC , you're not even an armchair lawyer; he knows infinitely more - and probably has studied the US Constitution to compare the legal systems of the US & his own country - about the matter than you ever will. He'd say to you:
image
@Judge Kanna
(To afchuff ): 'Objection overruled !'
No, no, no.
Erm...
I got him.
I'll put it another way...you're a big fan of state laws voted on by the people. Let's say that the people in New York decide they don't want guns anymore. They vote to ban guns in that state. Obviously, that case would go up to the SCOTUS and obviously SCOTUS would declare that law unconstitutional. But if the people of New York disagreed and chose to keep their law, is it still valid? Can the New York police confiscate guns?
Trivia Jockey afchief a minute ago
YES, EXACTLY. This has been our point all along. SCOTUS has the power to strike down and void unconstitutional laws. We're glad you finally agree.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
