>>2678062

When I heard him a couple of months ago re-affirm the divine status of Marbury I fucking groaned. All the lawyers present laughed "only a fool could doubt that was good law and the way things should be".

We have to put these people back in the box. By sophistical sleight of hand the written Supreme Law has been supplanted by whatever is inside the heads of these black robed assassins that work for the jews and masons (same thing) with their penumbras and emanations.

"We decide what the law is". ORLY? Who told you that? "We told ourselves that." How IS the record of SCOTUS over time on the BIG issues? "We decide who is human and who is not. We decide who can trade with whom and who cannot. We decide the value of a human and we decided the meaning of value. We tell you plebs what x and y means and you must agree for anything less is apostasy."

>>2678199

imo: including SCOTUS and from what I have read at last a couple of them (including Roberts) are guilty of serious financial crimes involving them deciding cases they had a financial interest in the outcome, e.g. Obamacare.

Then there is the issue before of the judge in the Edgar Madison Welch show-trial also being the judge on the Wolfe case. Now how does that happen?

PRICK & LIAR

>>2678314

little marco's chin often shows signs of bruising

>>2678358

Nah. He's a good guy. Very funny man and he's going to annihilate them. I watched a speech by RFK Saturday night he gave upon hearing MLK had been murdered. That speech signed his death warrant imo.

I think 1808 Americans ought to watch it.

>>2678469

>>2678508

Agreed. The guy is OVERFLOWING with good will and mercy to his enemies and they just keep knocking him back.

>>2678554

no I haven't read anything at all. the problem is the decision itself. it's perfectly clear it was a set-up to reach that decision they needed a case. the parties and interests involved are not honest brokers.

here's the thing - I can already tell you have granted the premise - three equal branches? Really. EQUAL? How so? EQUAL? What does that even mean anyway?

The issue is whether they possessed the authority to hear whether they had the authority. They determined not only did they have the authority, they had the authority to rule, and rule in their favor. It's caled boot-strapping. You need to look at the interests at play. Divorcing that holding for the real-world infoghting between federalist and anti-federalists is as bad as the fake case-in-controversy of Griswold v Connecticut that just happens to have come to the fore after David Ben Gurion visited the US and claimed we'd be using contraceptives soon enough. Oh really.

If the Supreme Law is silent, then it gets kicked back to the people, it isn't up to a bunch of lawyers and judges to inject themselves for the sake of expediency. Supreme qualifies COURT not LAW, and COURT delimits Supreme. The issue is not judicial review per se but who decides the depth and scope and I am saying it is not up to the Article III power to determine its own power. They are Article III for a reason.

Both their original and appellate jurisdiction and the rationale under-girding the federal courts must be dealt with at an Article V Convention. Lets have it all out there. Fair enough. You all can get your chance to shame me into silence then, publicly, as we re-live the issue for the people and let them decide openly and clearly. We'll also discuss prohibiting lawyers from serving in Congress or holding any elected office.