There is no need for personal attacks. (this is when you claim i'm personally attacking people by calling them illiterate.) Despite it being a reality I'm acknowledging rather than an emotional response to something I "dislike".

Congrats you're in the 5%, Get other people on board with reading and understanding the Law. Then we wont have to have dumb conversations like this.

----
edit- To everyone else, Be the change you want to see.
If you're unhappy with how this country is run, The only person you can blame is yourself!

edit2- Destroying scotus because you didn't get "your way" is absurd and childish. You have the ability to change government, don't destroy it.

This post was edited by Mondain on Jul 26 2022 12:57pm

I tried for years to get people to understand law in PARD with links, quotes, etc. It didnt work.

look at today, Ghot is calling a well established decision from 1803 "lefty nonsense" LOL.

its simple, judicial review isnt guaranteed in the constitution, that came in 1803. for 15 years in the USA the role and powers of the SCOTUS were unclear.

No shit. I'm just pointing out to all the die hard textualists that the supreme court's powers don't come from the text of the Constitution.


Dope mispelling on lying when calling people illiterate.

(no disrespect intended by shortening the quote)

I don't believe 95% of us citizens even know the History behind Scotus. They're grabbing at anything to validate their point.


"Spell Check does the thinking for me." - avg person in 2022

Thank you for helping me make examples.

This post was edited by Mondain on Jul 26 2022 01:01pm

I'm literally telling you and ghot the history.

What's your end goal? Is it educating or demoralizing someone to feel superior in your views?

This post was edited by Mondain on Jul 26 2022 01:03pm

Pointing out to someone who's advocating a textualists philosophy that their idea of the supreme court isn't grounded in the text of the Constitution. Go back and read what wicked wrote and see how my response fits into it. It isn't hard, it just requires you to read.

S*** did I just get checkmated.

No, you're cherry picking what you want from history to make an invalid point.

This is from Wikipedia...




Read this over and over until it makes sense to you.
It's pretty clear.

In order to be able to uphold the Constitution, judicial review is implied...it's a consequence.
You can't uphold the Constitution, without the power to say something is UN-Constitutional.

Without judicial review... the Supreme Court, can't uphold the Constitution.... for us.



The people who wrote the Constitution, didn't "waste words".
You need to be able to understand the English language, like they did. You need to know ALL the definitions of a word.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 26 2022 01:16pm