Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, Ohio, Alabama passing 6 week abortion ban bills

[El OchoCinco]

i try to be nice... buy you are such fucking fool when it comes to the law... and economics.. what a clown show you just put on. Lots of words.. . you even got close to it... when typed some words about it but its clear you did do not comprehend what the court did in marbury vs madison... and its subsequent line of cases. page after page of stupidity... just went by.



Judicial Review... understand the concept...


There is a reason why nobody is arguing that congress can pass abortion laws a then make them non "reviewable".


-----

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

About the Supreme Court | United States Courts - USCourts.gov

You do realize Marbury v. Madison was quite controversial since a branch of government claimed a power NOT granted to it by the Constitution about 20 years after the Constitution was ratified.... You even said it yourself.... judicial review is NOT FOUND within the text of the Constitution. We take it for granted now as our system of government but imagine one of the branches standing up and saying, we can stop you other two from doing something we don't agree with....

And Piezone is NOT WRONG about the exceptions clause in Article III.... my discussion with him is that it was invoked with respect to a political matter that Congress did not want the courts stepping into but it has never been used to remove a power of the court afforded to it by the Constitution with respect to rights such as 14th amendment rights already recognized and now accepted as judicial review as per Marbury case.

I dont think you understand what the court did in Marbury v Madison and why it was such a major case in the young history of the United States Constitution. We simply accept it now but back then it was a major power grab...

 

[El OchoCinco]

Can another state rush a law through state congress paying bounties on those who snitch on straw purchases and/or private party gun sales w/o running background checks using this precedent? Or make something illegal that's unconstitutional (heartbeat vs viability (roe v. wade) so you can snitch on gun owners. Maybe a "training requirement" per the "well regulated militia" clause. If you didn't attend classes, you get snitched on.

Easiest way to throw out a law is using it in the same way for something the other party opposes.

The problem with the law is right now it is in texas... maybe a few other states are adopting it...but it needs to be made into a large issue of violating the implied privacy clause of the 14th Amendment which was relied in Roe V. Wade. I believe a case befroe the SC would find the Texas law unconstitutional but I feel strongly that the SC wanted to cut off this use of emergency rulings and bypassing an entire system of state and federal court systems.

ALSO, courts tend to avoid decisions on such matters until they are ripe..... as in there is no actual plaintiff whose rights were violated, it is just a claim of chilling a right. A woman has to get an abortion after the heartbeat timeline and get charged and then contest the charges as being levied under a law that is unconstitutional. That will be the best way to rush an appeal if the person will be arrested or charged. Criminal charges tend to rush things through.

 

[jem]

go ahead... tell me what you think I don't understand about Marbury v. Madison.

You do realize Marbury v. Madison was quite controversial since a branch of government claimed a power NOT granted to it by the Constitution about 20 years after the Constitution was ratified.... You even said it yourself.... judicial review is NOT FOUND within the text of the Constitution. We take it for granted now as our system of government but imagine one of the branches standing up and saying, we can stop you other two from doing something we don't agree with....

And Piezone is NOT WRONG about the exceptions clause in Article III.... my discussion with him is that it was invoked with respect to a political matter that Congress did not want the courts stepping into but it has never been used to remove a power of the court afforded to it by the Constitution with respect to rights such as 14th amendment rights already recognized and now accepted as judicial review as per Marbury case.

I dont think you understand what the court did in Marbury v Madison and why it was such a major case in the young history of the United States Constitution. We simply accept it now but back then it was a major power grab...

 

[El OchoCinco]

go ahead... tell me what you think I don't understand about Marbury v. Madison.

No one has that kind of time....

Piezone did not ignore Marbury... he said the exceptions clause raises an interesting point even though it was only used a few times in history.

I raised the point that the exceptions clause main case was over a political issue and not any existing or established constitutional right where Congress wanted full jurisdiction, something that will not happen with abortion.

 

[jem]

Are you really supporting the idea that Congress could create a law, declare it non reviewable.... and the court would be bound by that declaration? seriously?

Try this... No churches are allowed to assemble indoors during Covid. This law is not reviewable by the Supreme Court.

You think that is winning argument?


Its loony.

No one has that kind of time....

Piezone did not ignore Marbury... he said the exceptions clause raises an interesting point even though it was only used a few times in history.

I raised the point that the exceptions clause main case was over a political issue and not any existing or established constitutional right where Congress wanted full jurisdiction, something that will not happen with abortion.

 

[Cuddles]

Are you really supporting the idea that Congress could create a law, declare it non reviewable.... and the court would be bound by that declaration? seriously?

Try this... No churches are allowed to assemble indoors during Covid. This law is not reviewable by the Supreme Court.

You think that is winning argument?


Its loony.

cotdamn you're dumb

 

[El OchoCinco]

Are you really supporting the idea that Congress could create a law, declare it non reviewable.... and the court would be bound by that declaration? seriously?

Try this... No churches are allowed to assemble indoors during Covid. This law is not reviewable by the Supreme Court.

You think that is winning argument?


Its loony.

Holy crap jem... i am trying to be respectful and discuss but you really are being obtuse on purpose....

go back and read what I wrote... you just made my argument and then tried to argue it back to me.... wear a helmet when you bike ride.

Also Congress has passed a law and made it non reviewable and the SC upheld it becuase it was a political question not a legal question and Congress did not want the SC legislating on a political issue (Ex Parte McCardle) so the SC dropped a case because their jurisdiction was taken away.

 

[jem]

I did not even address you.. yet you came after me telling me I don't understand Marbury and you told me Piezoe was not wrong...


Not wrong... his argument was ridiculous... and irrelevant in light of Marbury. It was one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen on the subject of statutory creation or constitutional law.

lets review this...
Take a look what Piezoe wrote below in the 3rd paragraph I quote below... and then think about this.


Dear Congress if you just write these 11 magic words after every statute... you shall never suffer judicial review again. So just take away any right you wish..just don't forget the magic words.

signed:

Piezoe Esq.

Has anyone but me noticed this statement in bold below, incorporated into Chief Justice Chase's remarks and included in my quote above of his remarks attending McCardle:

...and the power [of Congress] to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this [Supreme] court is given by express words.

Now is moment for the Congress, once again, to touch that Constitutional third rail, Codify Roe and include as the final eleven words in the Statute: The Supreme Court shall not have appellate jurisdiction over this Statute.

 

[piezoe]

I did not even address you.. yet you came after me telling me I don't understand Marbury and you told me Piezoe was not wrong...


Not wrong... his argument was ridiculous... and irrelevant in light of Marbury. It was one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen on the subject of statutory creation or constitutional law.

lets review this...
Take a look what Piezoe wrote below in the 3rd paragraph I quote below... and then think about this.


Dear Congress if you just write these 11 magic words after every statute... you shall never suffer judicial review again. So just take away any right you wish..just don't forget the magic words.

signed:

Piezoe Esq.

You shouldn't lie or misrepresent. But I suppose in your case it doesn't matter.

 

[jem]

I fully represent that you posted the quote below and I believe it to be one of the silliest things I read in years...in light of Marbury v. Madison.

exactly. That's why it,so far as I know, has never been used. This might however be the the occasion when it is needed to save the Republic, if in fact the Court has been so corrupted as to threaten the existence of the democratic Republic. Congress could be very specific in passing a law, such as codifying Roe, and then stating within the statute itself. "This statute shall not be reviewable by the Court."