As the Lauren Boebert "SugarDaddyMeet.com-Gate" begins to expand...and it is going to expand a lot

As already posted: "ultimate authority".
The only constraint on the SCOTUS is the President's power to nominate justices and the Senate's power to advise and consent (or not) on the nominations.

 

So far this whole thing has been nothing but opinion so what are you getting at?

 

Again: Not how it works.

For an example of why, see Trail of Tears. You'll find that "Mr Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it" was uttered by someone. Can you tell the class who that person was and what they were in reference to sport?

They have the power of review, but that is only to point out what the constitution says. They can't make it say what it does not say. They cannot insert clauses that are not there. They cannot remove clauses that are there.
They can only work with what is on the paper. That is a limited remit.

Further: The court has no enforcement mechanisms, so the limit of the court's power is the other branches respect for the court. So long as they accept that the Court is the last word, it is the last word. If they don't, as in the example above, the Court is powerless and worse than.

 

I believe that was President Andrew Jackson.
For the rest, I'm afraid you're off point.
Example: Once upon a time the Constitution justified "separate but equal". Then it didn't.

 

Indeed it was, points for you. For extra points: Can you name the case, what the case said he was to do or not do, and then tell us what he actually did?

Quote the text of the constitution that enshrines "separate but equal". Use only the text of the constitution to do so.

Don't worry, no one is going to hold their breath waiting on you to deliver on that.

 

You don't consider yourself authoritarian?

 

Point of fact, neocons aren't libertarian (no, neocons are the opposite of libertarian, they're authoritarian). BTW, there are many different types of supporters of Biden. The dopey neocon as I've mentioned, the left libertarian (the left libertarian loves Biden 'cause the left libertarian hates capitalism and, therefore, hated Trump) and the authoritarian progressive. I suspect you're the left libertarian...The Bill Maher and Joe Rogan acolyte, for examples.

 

Is that code for cabse5's post isn't what I agree with so it shouldn't be allowed?

 

You're actually making my point because you're the one who claimed the justices could not create or abolish constitutional provisions. And yet in Plessy v Ferguson they enshrined "separate but equal" and in Brown v Board of Education they eliminated it. Game. Set. Match.

 

Nope.

 

Plessy v Ferguson got overturned because it was a thing spun from whole cloth.
Correcting something spun from whole cloth by pointing out what the text actually says, is not making it say whatever you like. Its pointing out it says what it actually says IE Equal protection finds segregation abhorrent and antithetical which would be patently obvious on a first reading to someone who is not a racist piece of **** partisan looking to twist things for their own gain.
Hence: I can't understand why you're so taken with the idea of partisan judges, they do god awful **** and abuse their position of trust for personal gain. This would be a bug not an intended feature, a corruption not a norm.

 

Aren't you for prohibition of arms? And you're 'neutral' on ending prohibition of marijuana?

 

Indeed neocons and conservatives are not libertarian.

FFS: I'm not a Biden supporter. LIFE IS NOT A BINARY SOLUTION SET AND NEITHER ARE ELECTIONS.
I don't listen to Maher or Rogan, and I'm not left libertarian.

 

Wrong on both counts.

 

I refer you again to Chief Justice Hughes and to the doctrine of judicial review. This is not a matter of partisan judges; it is a matter of understanding the Constitutional and our legal system.

 

You realize your posts are written down and can easily be referred to.... right?
Why would you lie about something so easily discoverable?

 

Your question: "And you're 'neutral' on ending prohibition of marijuana?"
It would be more accurate to say I don't care.

 

And I refer you again to show me where the equal protection clause says unequal treatment is alright.
You can't, and I'll refer you to plessy v ferguson where they spin from whole cloth the idea that equal means unequal IE down is up.
That is something you can't do, because you cannot spin from whole cloth you're stuck with what the text actually says, hence why that case and reasoning were overturned. You can't overturn a case without their reasoning being so laughably wrong as something like down is up as in Plessy.
Plessy was wrong when decided, plainly so, from a prima facie reading of the equal protection clause. If a prima facie reading defeats your claim, the rules of judicial review stop your analysis there. You only get to torture interpretations at all when the clauses are ambiguous. Equal protection is very straightforward.

 

Argue with the above poster, not me.

Further: YOU had said BOTH counts. Yet here you are saying prohibition of arms policies are "good things".

Again: Why dissemble in so obvious a manner? Have some dignity and stand for the positions you espouse.

 

And yet it was the law of the land for 60 years.

 

I believe our gun laws should change, but the only serious way to do that would be to alter the 2A itself. I therefore put little stock in the nibbling around the edges we see today.

 

Gotta say, I am seeing some serious and (mostly) respectful debate on this thread. Apparently, the way to get people to really engage in debate is to write about a woman selling her ***** for money...

 

Or a woman subjected to scurrilous political attacks.

 

So was the Brady bill. So is the NFA.
So are any number of unconstitutional statutes, regulations, and plainly unsupported unilateral executive actions taken over the years.

And some things declared unconstitutional went through anyway: see Trail of Tears.

That indicates a partisan court held sway, rather than one which took its duties and limitations seriously. That illustrates why your fixation with activist judges is disgusting, morally and constitutionally repugnant, and part of the reason why we cannot have nice things.

 

When you make of yourself a moral paragon, you expose yourself to illustrations impeaching your character for same.
When you're a brain dead idiot who wants to make something double secret illegal which won't stop anyone from manufacturing it at all but will cost more money and expand federal power, attacks against your policies are not spurious.