85 - 15

No I am politely given you facts and links, sorry you're wrong


The Supreme court rulings of yesterday can be thrown out today

 

What is Bundy 1? I only know about the one big incident, didn't know the feds had multiple encounters. Wouldn't surprise me, though ... Bundy had stopped paying the agreed-upon grazing fees years before things came to a head. If that was Bundy 2 (or 3 or 4?), there were many people on both sides with guns.

 

Feds had guns of course, the people had guns of course to protect them from the federal government of overreaching.


And one knows all criminal crimes was thrown out.

A win for the people after Ruby ridge and Waco.

 

Except you’ve been proven wrong.

No they can’t

 

Got some rest … feel better. The Supreme Court can overturn previous decisions, but precedent usually holds unless circumstances change … especially on momentous issues. That said, even if the House and Senate ever passed a bill that said that states can secede and the President signed it into law it would almost certainly be challenged in court, and the Supreme Court could then rule it unconstitutional … probably citing the Texas case as precedent, at which point the law would be void. Also, laws can be repealed without the involvement of the Supreme Court. This can be done in a few ways including implicitly. There is no absolute. Currently, based on previous precedent, a state can't secede from the union.

 

How was I proven wrong, I provided links of at least 500 Supreme cases over turned..

You provided opinions . Of Nah Nah poo poo.

I know its frustrating to post propaganda and not facts but facts are facts





This is a list of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that have been explicitly overruled, in part or in whole, by a subsequent decision of the Court. It does not include decisions that have been abrogated by subsequent constitutional amendment or by subsequent amending statutes.

This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

ConstitutionalEdit
Article OneEdit
Commerce Clause
Overruled decision Overruling decision
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (191 United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941)
Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. v. State Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 90 (1937) Department of Revenue v. Washington Stevedoring Cos., 435 U.S. 734 (197
Joseph v. Carter & Weekes Stevedoring Co., 330 U.S. 422 (1947) Department of Revenue v. Washington Stevedoring Cos., 435 U.S. 734 (197
Spector Motor Service v. O’Connor, 340 U.S. 602 (1951) Complete Auto Transit v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977)
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter, 384 U.S. 35 (1966) Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324 (1989)
National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976) Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985)
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U.S. ___ (201
Ex post facto
Overruled decision Overruling decision
Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221 (1883) Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990)
Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343 (189 Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990)
Federal tax
Overruled decision Overruling decision
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) (in part) South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (198
State import/export tax
Overruled decision Overruling decision
Low v. Austin, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 29 (1872) Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276 (1976)
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) Limbach v. Hooven & Allison Co., 466 U.S. 353 (1984)
Article One courts
Overruled decision Overruling decision
Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438 (1929) Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962)
Williams v. United States, 289 U.S. 553 (1933) Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962)
O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258 (1969) Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435 (1987)
Article ThreeEdit
Overruled decision Overruling decision
Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1 (1842) Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (193
Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481 (1971) Dove v. United States, 423 U.S. 325 (1976) (per curiam)
Compensation Clause
Overruled decision Overruling decision
Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920) United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (2001)
Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501 (1925) O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939)

 

Another one that doesn't understand the the law,


It can be challenged in court, if a law is passed by Congress and signed into law by the president its absolute law.


Some ridiculous Supreme court rulings 150 years ago can and have been thrown out..

 

This is what I found in 2 minutes:

Supreme Court decisions can only be overturned in two ways:

Legitimate Methods

1. The US Supreme Court reverses a decision on an earlier case by making a contradictory decision on a current case.
2. Congress and the States can overturn a decision by amending the Constitution.

 

I think it's the case everywhere, that a court can overturn a previous decision, otherwise incorrect decisions could never be corrected, which would be wrong.

 

Exactly that's why it was so important to get Gorsuch and kavanaugh in office

A poster thinks a Supreme court decision is permanent

 

Really, the appointment of judges should not be a political game; they should be appointed independantly.

 

Wow. One city.

Even Detroit has more employment opportunities than rural towns like Glennie, MI or Barton City, MI.

Besides, isn't Trump bragging about 3.5% unemployment?

Seriously, Kurps, you're going to claim one city's woes disprove the overwhelming truth that cities have more opportunities? Really? I think I just heard a scraping sound ... seems you've reached the bottom of the debate barrel.

 

Uhm the reason why I bring this up is for the ghost readers, Detroit was the richest city in the Entire United states at one time, its was LBJ's model city..

You do know that correct?

 

Maybe this meme can explain it more then I can..

 

As you posted a list of Supreme Court decisions that have been overturned by other Supreme Court decisions as evidence, here is a list of laws that have been partially or completely overturned by the Supreme Court. Please note the column that says "Federal or state provision(s)". You can sort on the column to make seeing all of the ones that say "Federal" easier: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/unconstitutional-laws/ I suspect the list is far from complete as the earlier year listed seems to be 1971.

And yes, I've already agree that Supreme Court rulings can be thrown out … but they hold until they're overturned … which is why I bolded, italicized, and underlined "Currently" in my previous post.

As I said before, Supreme Court rulings can be overturned and laws can be ruled unconstitutional or repealed. There don't seem to be any absolutes.

 

Its weird how I argue freedom and you argue no freedom on US laws..

Why is that , just curious

 

already refuted this

 

I'm simply pointing out that a state can not secede from the union. your opinion of whether they should or shouldn't be able has no effect on the fact that they currently can't, and would need an amendment to do so.

 

It's my understanding that this isn't necessarily so. As kurps pointed out, there are lots of examples where previous Supreme Court rulings have been overturned by subsequent rulings. You have stated that you've refuted the list, but could you kindly restate it?

 

Every example he provided was not a subsequent case on the same merits as the previous case. Nobody has standing to challenge a SCOTUS ruling. Nobody. All lower courts are bound by the precedent of the SCOTUS ruling. A new case, on different merits with different facts that present a separate, but possibly related legal question as the previous ruling can indeed be brought before the court. But in order for a SCOTUS ruling which declares something unconstitutional to be overturned, a new amendment is required.

 

Ah, gotcha. That said, it seems as though appellate lawyers can be pretty creative in coming up with merits and facts. Isn't it conceivable that a case might be brought that would essentially challenge the findings of Texas v. White … or at least the section that ruled secession unconstitutional?

 

no. a new amendment would be required.

 

I'm not sure that I get it. How is that Texas v. White is absolute and would require and amendment but there's so much concern that a court may overturn Roe v. Wade? Doesn't Roe v. Wade declare abortion as constitutional and didn't Planned Parenthood v. Casey affirm it? Does that mean that an amendment would be needed for it to be otherwise? I'm honestly not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to be educated.

 

Wrong they all got to vote for Californias electors.

 

No state is going to even attempt to secede.

And, that case has been in place so long that the principle of stare decisis would certainly cause the court to refrain from addressing it again.