Win / KotakuInAction2
KotakuInAction2
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
KotakuInAction2 The Official Gamergate Forum
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

69
White House declares SCOTUS ruling on Roe 'unconstitutional,' confirms Medicaid to be used to fund abortions (thepostmillennial.com)
posted 2 years ago by dagthegnome 2 years ago by dagthegnome +69 / -0
53 comments share
53 comments share save hide report block hide replies
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
▲ 1 ▼
– Gizortnik 1 point 2 years ago +1 / -0

There is a difference between nullification of the law, and a rejection of it.

Marbury v Madison doesn't tolerate the expansion of that right, it centralizes it into SCOTUS and makes it clear that only SCOTUS can both immediately force non-compliance with the law from every branch at it's decree and that it's assertion can only be overturned with a constitutional amendment, and that no other branch may challenge SCOTUS's interpretation of the law. It doesn't matter what congress said, thinks, or does, only SCOTUS has the authority to saw what the law is, even if the people who made the law disagree.

Here's the best part. Say you overturn a SCOTUS decision with a constitutional amendment. Guess who gets to decide that that constitutional amendment doesn't mean what you wrote down it meant? SCOTUS.

Marbury v Madison, is and was, unconstitutional.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– GodEmperorOfHumility 1 point 2 years ago +1 / -0

Marbury v Madison doesn't tolerate the expansion of that right, it centralizes it into SCOTUS and makes it clear that only SCOTUS can both immediately force non-compliance with the law from every branch at it's decree and that it's assertion can only be overturned with a constitutional amendment, and that no other branch may challenge SCOTUS's interpretation of the law.

It says no such thing. The decision is not long or hard to read, and I encourage you to read it yourself: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison

Marshall argues unequivocally that testing laws against the Constitution is part of the responsibility of the courts, but nowhere does he say anything that would exclude other branches from the same duty- in fact, he explicitly asserts the opposite:

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. (emphasis added)

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Gizortnik 1 point 2 years ago +1 / -0

Bullshit:

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

Those agencies don't get to enforce the law outside of the court's opinion. That's his point. No agency gets to say that the law isn't the law. Only the court says what the law is. Only the court may decide if a law is repugnant to the constitution. That is the mechanisms that departments and agencies are bound by: the court's declaration on the state of the law.

I've read the decision, and I know the impact as well. No one may challenge SCOTUS without a constitutional amendment, and SCOTUS may interpret that amendment as it sees fit, which is exactly what Justice Marshall argued many times, and in that very opinion specifically said that only the judiciary can say what the law is. Not the people who wrote it, not the people who enforce, just the courts.

SCOTUS may then order and compel all courts, including state courts, and all federal agencies and entities, and all state agencies and entities, to operate in compliance with it's 5-4 ruling thanks to the Supremacy Clause as well.

Any agency or entity that is NOT in compliance with the court's decision is operating outside the law, because only the court can say what the law is, and no one else. The lower courts can't say it. The appellate courts can't say it. Only 5 people on SCOTUS, ever, can tell you what the law is. If one federal agency is operating outside of the court's decision, it is operating outside the law, and the other federal agencies must bring it to heel, either by coercion, removal, or by criminal charges. Whether or not you think this is what the decision says is kind of irrelevant, because that is how the decision has been handled since it was decided.

This is in direct contrast to the English common law system. It is a much more decentralized system that (before the invention of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom under Tony Blair) didn't accept the arbitration of the God Kings of Law. Courts still had the ability to have judicial review at lower levels, and at appellate levels, and argued about whether or not the law violated ancient English rights and liberties. SCOTUK was made intentionally to end that, and operate as the God Kings of Law. They had their own Marbury v. Madison moment a few years ago when they made an identical decision to seize power by asserting that SCOTUK asserted it had the ability to rule on legislative procedures within the House of Commons, since the UK (infamously) has no Separation of Powers doctrine.

Their stunt was the same that Marshall pulled in 1803: give themselves the power of sole arbiter of the law by deciding what it is.

Luckily, the court doesn't have it's own private enforcement arm yet, and has to rely on the Executive branch to enforce most of it's orders. That doesn't mean they don't have any enforcement mechanism. SCOTUS spent decades basically purging the lower courts and State SC's of judiciaries who were arguing against Brown v. Board because they over-reached.

permalink parent save report block reply

Original 8chan Links to Gamer Gate:

.

The main GG discussion is on the videogames board: https://8chan.moe/v/

.

GamerGate archive is at https://8chan.moe/gamergatehq/

.

GamerGate Wiki:

https://ggwiki.deepfreeze.it/index.php/Main_Page

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

The below rules are just a summary of the rules which can be found in the Welcome Ashore post.

.

ONE: Do not post Illegal Activity, or criminal manifestos.

.

TWO: Do not engage in speech that promotes, advocates, glorifies, or endorses violence.

.

THREE: Do not threaten, harass, defame, or bully users.

.

FOUR: Do not post involuntary Salacious Material.

.

FIVE: Do not post Porn

.

SIX: NSFW content must be flaired NSFW.

.

SEVEN: Do not post Facebook accounts or twitter accounts with less than 500 followers, and personal information.

.

EIGHT: Do not intentionally deceive others by impersonating another.

.

NINE: Do not solicit or engage in transactions that are federally regulated by the US govt.

.

TEN: No vote manipulation. Do not break communities.win's features.

.

ELEVEN: Do not post spam.

.

TWELVE: Do not post intentional falsehoods or hoaxes.

.

THIRTEEN: No reposts

.

FOURTEEN: Do not post more than 5 posts a day to this sub.

.

FIFTEEN: Do not direct particularly egregious identity based slurs at users.

.

SIXTEEN: Do not attack entire identity groups as inferior or conspiring.


Moderators

  • DomitiusOfMassilia
  • ClockworkFool
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2025.03.01 - t4mxf (status)

Copyright © 2024.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy