Just curious.......

[Que]

Him. Re-reading the myth of Marbury v Madison, I realize my memory of what he was arguing was incorrect. He is not arguing Marbury was improper, he is arguing that using Marbury to elevate SCOTUS over the other branches is wrong.


His point is that Marbury merely allows the court to enforce or not enforce laws based on their constitutionality, not tell other branches what they can and cannot do.

Where is the good Col. When he is needed. Cannot very well have a conversation on the subject with any of the posters that have opinions about my opinion but no idea about the underlying arguments.

Sad!

 

[bestone4ever]

How am I a "victim" when several (a couple) of idiots choose to wade into a subject they are ill-equipped to argue?

I don't feel at all victimized when you show up and decide to make yourself look stupid.

Edit speaking of stupid I didn't even notice which account you happened to use to post this. If you're going to try to not make it incredibly obvious what your root account is you probably shouldn't use one of the 30 or so of his stock retorts.

Who is ill-equipped to have a conversation with you? What's the subject?

 

[Que]

Who is ill-equipped to have a conversation with you? What's the subject?

Well just off the top of my head I would say that anyone who parachutes into a thread and cannot determine the subject at hand is ill-equipped to debate that or any other subject.

 

[bestone4ever]

Well just off the top of my head I would say that anyone who parachutes into a thread and cannot determine the subject at hand is ill-equipped to debate that or any other subject.

True that but I won't hold your glaring ineptitude to you just yet. What subject are people ill-informed to converse with you about? The case? Kavanaugh? Many different subjects have been discussed in this thread so instead of trying to be a Kavanaugh, be straightforward.

 

[Oblimo]

My assertion that many constitutional Scholars argue that Marbury was badly decided is not really open to debate. There are people who argue that.

“Many” is a relative term. But yes, there are those who suggest judicial review should be abolished.

And they are the fucking lunatic fringe.

Like every good debate there's the other side where people feel that it is good law. The fact that I'm pointing out there actually is a debate about that is not even debatable but yet we have numbskulls here pretending they even have any idea what we're talking about.

I am reminded of the “teach the controversy” argument for Creationism in public schools.

Take Michael Paulsen. Sure, he’s a Yale Law graduate and a University Chair at the University of St. Thomas. He knows a fuckton more of the history of Constitutional law than me.

And here’s his argument against judicial review — or, more correctly against how he claims judicial review has been practiced for the past century in the US. It’s published in the Michigan Law Review, for Christ’s sake.

He’s also out of his fucking mind. The fact that he accuses the SCOTUS of condoning the greatest genocide in human history for its decisions on abortion is just partisan icing on the cake. If the result of Roe had been the other way around, he — and “many” of your “many scholars,” Que — would be defending judicial review to the death.

When I said his argument was published in Michigan Law Review, “for Christ’s sake,” I meant it literally.

But not Thomas. Thomas does not, in my opinion, make arguments based on political expediency or religious dogma. I thought that was made obvious by his delicious dissent in Gonzales v Raich. Unlike the purely partisan Scalia, Thomas is consistent and actually possesss more than an iota intellectual integrity.

But that doesn’t stop him from being lunatic fringe.

 

[Anns_dead_Father]

OBAMA!!!​

I think that little queer guy is on drugs. He rambles on and on about FOX talking points from years ago.

 

[Oblimo]

His point is that Marbury merely allows the court to enforce or not enforce laws based on their constitutionality, not tell other branches what they can and cannot do.

No, his point is that abortion is the gravest evil this nartion has ever known, and if one has to revise history to have it outlawed forever, so be it.

 

[von_Bismarck]

I think that little queer guy is on drugs. He rambles on and on about FOX talking points from years ago.

Unfortunately, that's true. Que is a little meth abusing tweaker. That's part of the reason his wife left him and took "his" kids. But they're not really his kids. The other part of the reason his wife left him is his nasty panty sniffing habit. Understandably, the ex wife didn't want her children growing up in that sort of environment.

 

[Que]

“Many” is a relative term. But yes, there are those who suggest judicial review should be abolished.

And they are the fucking lunatic fringe.



I am reminded of the “teach the controversy” argument for Creationism in public schools.

Take Michael Paulsen. Sure, he’s a Yale Law graduate and a University Chair at the University of St. Thomas. He knows a fuckton more of the history of Constitutional law than me.

And here’s his argument against judicial review — or, more correctly against how he claims judicial review has been practiced for the past century in the US. It’s published in the Michigan Law Review, for Christ’s sake.

He’s also out of his fucking mind. The fact that he accuses the SCOTUS of condoning the greatest genocide in human history for its decisions on abortion is just partisan icing on the cake. If the result of Roe had been the other way around, he — and “many” of your “many scholars,” Que — would be defending judicial review to the death.

When I said his argument was published in Michigan Law Review, “for Christ’s sake,” I meant it literally.

But not Thomas. Thomas does not, in my opinion, make arguments based on political expediency or religious dogma. I thought that was made obvious by his delicious dissent in Gonzales v Raich. Unlike the purely partisan Scalia, Thomas is consistent and actually possesss more than an iota intellectual integrity.

But that doesn’t stop him from being lunatic fringe.

That makes no sense. Deciding Roe was the purview of States cannot be construed as judicial activism. It is the opposite of judicial a activism it is inaction.

He was not just a "Yale graduate" he was specifically editor of the Law Review. So he qualifies as a constitutional scholar which schism, before his cowardly retreat wanted to know if I could name any. Which I did.

It's perfectly reasonable for you to disagree with his point of view and I would not by any means characterize it as the majority of you but it is certainly not the Lunatic Fringe either. I probably am somewhere out on the edges of The Lunatic Fringe but on the other hand I wouldn't characterize myself as a constitutional scholar either.

Reading a bit just now both to refresh my memory and frankly for a little confirmation bias I'm finding that he basically would not really agree with my point of view and is much more centrist then what you are characterizing him as.

He does seem to have some context of a theology degree as well so I'm guessing he's probably Catholic maybe Benedictine.

There is a strong tendency amongst Catholic Scholars to be pretty disdainful of Roe versus Wade and I'm quite certain that as Feinstein would call it their Dogma lives loudly within them and I'd think that does color their clarity of rendering opinions on the matter.

They are not wrong though about the problems with Roe versus Wade Roe versus Wade has actual legal problems. Those legal problems have been patched up by subsequent legal decisions so that the underlying idea that most people short hand as Roe versus Wade is intact and probably relatively constitutional.

Roe versus Wade is already been superseded on numerous occasions Roe versus Wade went much too far in the courts dialed it back with other decisions that negated the unconstitutional aspect of it without actually going back and overturning Roe v Wade.

 

[Anns_dead_Father]

Unfortunately, that's true. Que is a little meth abusing tweaker. That's part of the reason his wife left him and took "his" kids. But they're not really his kids. The other part of the reason his wife left him is his nasty panty sniffing habit. Understandably, the ex wife didn't want her children growing up in that sort of environment.

What a disgusting little worm of a 'man' he is. He reminds me of my son Stan, who now calls himself Ann.

 

[von_Bismarck]

What a disgusting little worm of a 'man' he is. He reminds me of my son Stan, who now calls himself Ann.

Is he that cancer faking transvestite who trolls around for rape stories? I can't blame you for thinking your own son is disgusting. Rumor has is Stan has a gay Pakistani lover on the board.

 

[schism666]

True that but I won't hold your glaring ineptitude to you just yet. What subject are people ill-informed to converse with you about? The case? Kavanaugh? Many different subjects have been discussed in this thread so instead of trying to be a Kavanaugh, be straightforward.

that shut him down

 

[Que]

Is he that cancer faking transvestite who trolls around for rape stories? I can't blame you for thinking your own son is disgusting. Rumor has is Stan has a gay Pakistani lover on the board.

Index cards. Von-Bismark is now established and it is the latest Skiddles replacement you are supposed to be doing that weird thing you do about pretending you are new here.

Also, the whole back and forth with you as Skiddles and the supposedly separate Dick Fagman family tree messes up the back-story that Skiddles and Fagman are two totally-not-you alt family trees.

If you are going to proclaim yourself the board puppetmaster, you are going to have to quit tangling up the marionette strings.

 

[Que]

True that but I won't hold your glaring ineptitude to you just yet. What subject are people ill-informed to converse with you about? The case? Kavanaugh? Many different subjects have been discussed in this thread so instead of trying to be a Kavanaugh, be straightforward.

You are free to add to the discussion on any of those subjects or anything else you'd like if you have anything to add. It is a public forum, don't let me stop you from embarrassing yourself.

None of those topics were front and center when you dropped in though, which reinforces my point that if you can't discern what is being discussed and pick up a conversational thread to jump in on, I really cannot help you.

 

[Anns_dead_Father]

Is he that cancer faking transvestite who trolls around for rape stories? I can't blame you for thinking your own son is disgusting. Rumor has is Stan has a gay Pakistani lover on the board.

That's him, he has mental issues...

 

[Que]

SMH. You are really terrible at this. You have your whole set-up and punchline backwards. Von Bismarck who is from the Fagman puppet line is the one who is supposed to "clue in" the newbie from the Skiddles legacy.

How did this ever work for you?

 

[Anns_dead_Father]

That's him, he has mental issues...

See what I mean. What a pathetic little man.

 

[von_Bismarck]

SMH. You are really terrible at this. You have your whole set-up and punchline backwards. Von Bismarck who is from the Fagman puppet line is the one who is supposed to "clue in" the newbie from the Skiddles legacy.

How did this ever work for you?

Lay off the meth, cuckboi.

 

[dolf]

People her have told me you are, not only beautiful, but a wise and fair woman as well. Hoping that is true I ask the following: Why would you support the destruction of a man's life without any supporting witnesses, evidence, or corroboration, of allegations from his high school years some 35 years ago?

Senator Susan Collins has just came out and said:"This FBI report on Kavanaugh, this 7th investigation, appears to have been very thorough." Senator McConnell has just stated that nothing in this report impugns the testimony Kavanaugh has provided the Senate.

The obvious lie, the one that doesn't rely on witness statements from old classmates, would be the legality of his drinking. The age limit was raised from 18 to 21 when he was 17, so his statement that he was drinking legally is an obvious lie.

There seem to be others, like him starting fights or blacking out or shagging around, that rely on witnesses. Given the politics involved, you could say that witnesses have an incentive to lie though.