The only dumbasses are those who refuse to face the reality of desperation.

Quite a few anti-constitutional desperatos on this thread..

You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution...

Thank God you don't get to decide what words mean. Legally trained judges do, and they went to places like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, where they learned what legal words mean on a consistent basis.

Me too. I speak the same language they do.

You speak the language of "I have angry politics, and I will make words mean whatever I say they mean in order to impose my will!"

Fortunately, you are just one crank. When it comes to the meaning of words of law, you can take it to the bank that what I say is true and accurate 100% of the time. Words mean things. Legal words mean things. They mean what courts and the legal profession and tradition and the institutions that teach these things say they mean. They do not mean what any old angry man thinks they mean.

Thank God. Because it means the law is predictable, and no subject to the whims of angryman.

Because I understand the law objectively and professionally, I can objectively and professionally tell you the places where I disagree with it, and what would have to happen for it to be changed to reflect what I want.

All you can do is go ballistic and try to redefine words to suit you - but honestly you're just an ignorant old jackass and not one other person in the world cares what you think words mean.

It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions. That's our legal system, that's our political system. That's how the game is played, and it is not treasonous for me to want to get my way.

You can make up whatever meanings of words you want to, but you're just a single angry old man pounding on a keyboard. You don't get to define what one single word means, you never will, and you're wrong.

What you want will never happen, because you don't get to define anything.

I don't either, but at least I am realist who knows what words DO mean, and what the system actually IS, so I don't sit around spinning fantasies of what the world would look like IF ONLY I got to define words to mean what I want them to mean.

You don't like Catholic beliefs or ideas and don't want to see them prevail. That's fine. I do. That's also fine. It's not treason. It never will be treason. And given fertility and demographic realities, over time I am very likely to win, and see what I want as the law of the land. There is no chance of that ever happening for you.

You're cranky and angry, you'll die cranky and angry. And after you die, you'll wake up and discover that the Catholics were right all along. So you are doomed to the defeat of everything you believe in in this world AND the next, for all eternity.

Sucks to be you.

Kavanaugh, the Jesuit coach

Where you anarchist LIBERALterians stumble, is understanding that our forefathers did expect that TAXES would be collected and utilized to fund benefits to the populace AS A WHOLE, via a tax collected system. All parts of the populace use the roadway, get arrested, use the courts system, use the public schools... so there is nothing socialist about funding it from a tax base.

Not all of the populace needs welfare, healthcare, cellphones, food stamps and housing... raising taxes to supply that shit is INCOME DISTRIBUTION... ie socialism.

Get your shit straight... because equating enforcing laws to welfare is a far stretch... one used by anarchist to justify anarchy.

More word redefinitions, I see. It's a sport here on The Island of Misfit Toys.

Post #29: — Kavanaugh has tutored at Washington Jesuit Academy, where he sits on the board of directors, and at J.O. Wilson Elementary School, according to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals website. He went to high school at Georgetown Prep — which Justice Neil Gorsuch also attended

---

By being Catholic he's "Jesuit"?

More word redefinitions, I see.

Jesuit Academy, J.O. School, Georgetown Prep.
Jesuit, Jesuit, and Jesuit.

Dang right he's Jesuit! What's your redefinition of Jesuit, Mark of the Beast Jesuit tattoo on his forehead?

So, we agree on HOW the Constitution should be interpreted. That's something. There are not many people out there who see things quite this way. Many claim to, but then they go sideways when they come to something they really, really want politically. The 14th Amendment and anchor babies is an obvious example.

I guess we agree. Thanks for the comments.

I would note that when stating what the law is, I try to state the prevailing interpretation with which I may disagree. As a result, I get accused of advocating all nature of things I disagree with.

Yes, you note a common sideways occurrence. Activist judges are railed against, and then a desired result is advocated which requires a differently activist judge to achieve.

Senator Jacob Howard stated upon introducing his amendment to the House version of the 14th Amendment (adding the citizenship clause), "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

The Lynch v. Clark case is notable as it is from 1844 and clearly shows the court affirmation of citizenship for babies of aliens before the 14th Amendment existed. Granting citizenship to the children of aliens was not a new concept begun with the 14th Amendment. The Amendment placed the matter beyond the reach of the legislature to change, primarily with the then recently freed slaves in mind.

What's your redefinition of Jesuit

A clergyman who has taken his vows and joined the Society of Jesus. That's a Jesuit.

Lay people may agree with the Jesuits, but they're not ordained clergy and they're not themselves Jesuits.

"Catholic" is not synonymous with "Jesuit", or vice versa.

A Jesuit is not a Franciscan, and neither is a Domincan. All three are clergy alone. All three are Catholic. And none of them are synonymous with Catholic. If you haven't taken holy orders and vows, you're not a Jesuit by definition.

That's how I define it - which is to say, that is what the word actually MEANS.

The other point is that you think Jesuits are very bad, but I think Jesuits are very good. You use the term as a term of alarm and accusation. I use the term to recognize some of the brightest and most capable clergy in the Catholic religion.

To distill it down: You - Jesuit BAAAAD. Me - Jesuit GOOD.

I wouldn't trust this guy any farther than the old Soviet-era defectors. They can say anything they want and sometimes the wilder it is, the better their handlers (or publishers) like it.

You don't like Catholic beliefs or ideas and don't want to see them prevail. That's fine. I do. That's also fine. It's not treason. It never will be treason.

You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our constitutions enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution...

You keep trying to make a rhetorical distinction: --- " It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions ----" (court opinions make law?)

Whereas our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..

Sucks to be a fanatic like you.

(Btw, As a boy I was confirmed as a Catholic, agree with most Christian principles, but am now agnostic enough to admit that I'll never understand religion.)

Obviously Supreme Court opinions make law.

Obviously, a fanatic like you ---- wants Supreme Court opinions to make law.

They don't. SCOTUS opinions decide legal disputes about constitutional issues.

Federal, State, and local legislators make law; -- laws that must comply with our Constitution..

In America, Judges make law. Always have. That’s why Roe is the law of the land.

I’m the realist who discusses the way things ARE, whether I like it or not.

It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions ----" (court opinions make law?)

Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..

Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same...

Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..

Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same...

Our Constitution is a short document that puts out a general structure of government, leaves just about everything to politics, and is clear as mud as to the actual power relationship between the Judiciary and either the Legislature or the Executive.

The Constitution is chock full of Common Law terms, which it does not define: the Common Law is ASSUMED by the Constitution, and the Common Law is judge-made law.

Practice has supplied the answer to the question marks: judicial review for constitutionality has been a hallmark of the Supreme Court since Marbury v. Madison, which was decided by a Court full of Founders, addressing a President and a Cabinet likewise full of Founders.

Marbury v. Madison is as much a product of the Founding Fathers as the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and IT establishes that, yes, the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution means - and to create the Common Law of the Constitution, which is precisely what they have been doing ever since.

Our system of government is in fact "Catholic", in the sense that it is based on traditions of institutions dealing with each other in certain ways. You would like for our system of government to be "Protestant", with the written Constitution as the "Sola Scriptura" document which anybody, like you, can read and know what it all means just from the words in that document.

That IS NOT our system of government. And at NO POINT from its ratification by the Founding Fathers through the establishment of judicial review by the Founding Fathers (in Marbury) until today has our government resembled anything remotely approaching what you insist is "The Constitution" above.

No. Your little fairy tale of what the Constitution is, and means, and says, is simply your solipsistic read of some words, by your understanding. The law is what I have been saying - what I have been educated in, and am licensed to say in two jurisdictions. It is not what you believe it to be, based on your simplistic read and understanding of some words.

It IS not, and it never will be. The Constitution is not the Bible, and American government is not based on Sola Scriptura. It DOESN"T MATTER what you read the words to say. You are one single man, and your opinion governs nothing. I'm just one single man, and I know that my opinion doesn't govern anything either, but I earn a living by knowing what those written words ACTUALLY MEAN within the structure of government that we ACTUALLY HAVE, and THAT - and not your little exercise in solipsistic "Sola Scriptura" literalist constitutionalism - is what the Constitution IS, and MEANS.

I have to get it right, because if I don't, I don't eat.

I would not be insulting you so directly if you were not calling me a traitor over and over again. But you are. I am not a traitor. But you are a stubborn, ignorant old fool who cannot read the law properly, because you don't understand the words you are reading - and so therefore you supply what YOU think they mean, and manipulate them to attain the results YOU want to see. Problem is, you didn't go to law school and get to put on a black robe such that YOUR opinions have any weight on this matter, and so they don't.

Stop calling me a traitor and I'll stop coming after you personally. Keep doing it, and I'll keep pointing out that you're the crazy uncle in the attic who thinks he's St. Jerome.

You’re the solipsistic here, who mistakes his own opinions on the way things ought to be with the way things are. I’m the realist who discusses the way things ARE, whether I like it or not.

Welcome to the Twilight Zone and the tpaine Court of the Imagination™.

Just to get you acclimated to the tpaine Court of the Imagination™, here are a few unique provisions guaranteed to make you wonder why you bothered to study law.

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46847&Disp=7#C7

In the long run, SCOTUS opinions don't mean much, as people,and the legislators they elect have the right to ignore them, and write new laws that circumvent their supposed edicts.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-27 18:44:47 ET

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46277&Disp=49#C49

The 2nd [Amendment] has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.

tpaine posted on 2016-05-25 12:08:35 ET

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.

tpaine posted on 2016-06-23 21:26:13 ET

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732

During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional.

http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136

Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional?

It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional..

- - - - - - - - - -

Our system of government is in fact "Catholic", in the sense that it is based on traditions of institutions dealing with each other in certain ways. You would like for our system of government to be "Protestant", with the written Constitution as the "Sola Scriptura" document which anybody, like you, can read and know what it all means just from the words in that document.

That IS NOT our system of government. And at NO POINT from its ratification by the Founding Fathers through the establishment of judicial review by the Founding Fathers (in Marbury) until today has our government resembled anything remotely approaching what you insist is "The Constitution" above.

The law is what I have been saying - what I have been educated in, and am licensed to say in two jurisdictions.

Stop calling me a traitor and I'll stop coming after you personally.

Feel free to come after me in any way you dream up. ---- I say dream because your replies are becoming increasingly bizarre, -- and unlike what a licensed professional would post.

Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..

Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same...

Our written Constitution is a document which anybody, like me, can read and know what it basically means just from the words in the document.

Lawyers like you, hiding behind your !icenses, disagree, naturally. Boast on...

BTW, - concerning Marbury: ---- Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning -- -

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co- equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

Lawyers like you, hiding behind your !icenses, disagree, naturally. Boast on...

It's not a question of hiding behind a license, it's a question of education and standards.

You have a political opinion. You like your political opinion. You read a document - the Constitution - and you read it in a way that allows you to say what you say.

That's nice.

It has no bearing on reality.

I have a law degree. That's not boasting, it's a fact. I have passed the bar exam in two states. Again, not boasting - a fact. In order to pass the bar exam, I had to get a series of questions right. See, there are right and wrong answers in the law, and you don't pass the bar and get a license to practice law unless you get enough of the answers right. The same is true with law school: you don't get the degree if you can't get the exam questions right.

There's no partial credit.

Now, thing is, some of the right answers - what the law IS - do not suit me. What I do that is different from you is that I recognize where my politics differ from the law, and I try to figure out how to get the law to change.

What you do is simply change the meaning of words and declare your opinion to be the law.

It reminds me of the joke about the engineer and the economist who wash up on a desert island with a box of canned food. They each go off to devise a way to get the cans opened. The engineer comes back with a device he made that used two rocks to crush the can, causing the contents to slide out into an waiting half-coconut shell.

The economist's solution began with "Well, first we assume a can opener. That's what you're doing: you're assuming a can opener.

here are a few unique provisions

The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. ---- tpaine posted

Thank you for posting some of my opinions, as I stand by them all..

Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in Marbury:---

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co- equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Lawyers like you, hiding behind your !icenses, disagree, naturally. Boast on... ---- tpaine

I have a law degree. That's not boasting, it's a fact. I have passed the bar exam in two states. Again, not boasting - a fact. In order to pass the bar exam, I had to get a series of questions right. See, there are right and wrong answers in the law, and you don't pass the bar and get a license to practice law unless you get enough of the answers right.

Law exams are made up by other lawyers, proving of course, that if you want to be licensed you must agree with other lawyers. --- Ridiculous.

You claim that: --- "What I do that is different from you is that I recognize where my politics differ from the law, and I try to figure out how to get the law to change." -------------------- Well, I do exactly the same , the only difference being, --- I make sure that the new laws i advocate, are not UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

Our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions..

Your 'realistic' desire to make religious law is unconstitutional, and gives aid and comfort to enemies who desire the same...

Law exams are made up by other lawyers, proving of course, that if you want to be licensed you must agree with other lawyers. --- Ridiculous.

It does not prove that. Rather, it proves that if you want to be licensed, you have to know what the law IS.

YES, what the law is, IS determined by other lawyers - mainly judges. YES, most certainly that law is often the result of real abusive power grabs by judges. YES, I find quite a bit of the law offensive. But YES, the law IS what the courts and the lawyers who run things have decided it is. The courts WILL uphold that law, and the cops with their guns WILL enforce what the courts say. So YES, if you want to take other people's money for practicing in front of American courts, you have to know what the law IS - what will be enforced, what will happen.

You can think what you want to think without a license, but you can't go take big fees from people asserting that your opinion of the law actually IS the law. It isn't. The law is what the courts - which is to say the lawyers who sit on the bench - SAY the law is.

You don't hire a lawyer to have a philosophical discussion. You hire a lawyer to know the law for you, and to tell you what will happen if you do thus and so. It's not a matter of the lawyer's opinion so much as knowledge of the state of the actual LAW - whether the law is ultimately LEGITIMATE or not is not the question.

Obviously if the Supreme Court overrules Roe and bans abortion, it is not going to do that by stating "We do this because Rome has spoken." They will, rather, read the words of the Constitution and say that nobody can be deprived of life without due process, and due process is not possible for innocent unborn babies, so THEREFORE abortion must be unconstitutional. That's how they would do this.

Sure, this would have the EFFECT of erecting the Catholic canon law as the law of the nation, but the reason given for doing so will be pure-as-the- wind-driven-snow constitutionalism.

The laws against stealing are also religious, but we don't have to strike those down on that account either.

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed,

It may be dangerous, but it has the virtue of being true. Judges are the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions.

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, ---- Jefferson, writing to Marshall

It may be dangerous, but it has the virtue of being true. Judges are the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. ---- Vicomte13

That is your opinion, it is far from being true.

SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction...

Get a grip on your judicial authoritarianism.

SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction...

SCOTUS opinions can be erased by constitutional amendment, yes.

When a SCOTUS opinion strikes a part of a statute, Congress can indeed pass a new statute that addresses the problem, and thereby remove the barrier created by the Supreme Court opinion, yes.

Executive inaction can nullify a SCOTUS opinion. President Lincoln ignored the Court's habeas corpus rulings during the Civil War. No President has done so since. The President that did risks impeachment.

Public inaction? The public doesn't fully obey any of the laws now, so not sure what the public has to do with this.

Thank you for posting some of my opinions, as I stand by them all..

I am sure that you do. You live in your own world.

Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in Marbury:---

And Marbury is still good law and binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

You failed to say what you think the significance of somebody's disagreement with the Opinion of the Court in Marbury might possibly be.

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...." U.S. Const., Article III

SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the law, including the Constitution. Their opinion of what the law states is binding. If there is a desire for different law, the Constitution can be amended or repealed by the people.

In a similar vein, the Queen of England has the plenary veto power as a reserved power. She COULD veto an act of Parliament, but to do so would risk a Parliamentary stripping of her veto, so she would have to do it under a circumstance in which the bulk of the people were unambiguously with her, or where the Crown agencies actually were willing to obey her and not a corrupt and unpopular Prime Minister.

In short, a constitutional crisis could change the rules, but nothing short of that is going to.

SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction... ---- tpaine

SCOTUS opinions can be erased by constitutional amendment, yes.

When a SCOTUS opinion strikes a part of a statute, Congress can indeed pass a new statute that addresses the problem, and thereby remove the barrier created by the Supreme Court opinion, yes.

Executive inaction can nullify a SCOTUS opinion. President Lincoln ignored the Court's habeas corpus rulings during the Civil War. No President has done so since. The President that did risks impeachment.

Public inaction? The public doesn't fully obey any of the laws now, so ----- Vic

Nolu, ------ SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the law, including the Constitution. Their opinion of what the law states is binding. If there is a desire for different law, the Constitution can be amended or repealed by the people.

You two have some differences. I suggest you discuss them...

I thank Vic for his honesty in agreeing with my points...

I was saying that Supreme Court opinions are law, and they are.

You mentioned a series of ways, some legitimate, some not, by which a SCOTUS opinion can be overturned. In other words, ways in which a higher law changes a lower law. That's true.

But if it comes to a square on constitutional issue, the Supreme Court trumps. Probably the cardinal example would be a law passed by Congress and signed by the President that purported to strip the Supreme Court of the power of Constitutional review. SCOTUS would strike down that law as unconstitutional.

You mentioned a series of ways, some legitimate, some not, by which a SCOTUS opinion can be overturned. In other words, ways in which a higher law changes a lower law. That's true.

But if it comes to a square on constitutional issue, the Supreme Court trumps.

SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction.. -------------------- ALL are legitimate when the scotus opinion is unconstitutional. (IE, Dred Scott)

Digress as you will, the fact remains, your desire to pass religious laws is repugnant, and gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction.. -------------------- ALL are legitimate when the scotus opinion is unconstitutional. (IE, Dred Scott)

Digress as you will, the fact remains, your desire to pass religious laws is repugnant, and gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

Very little of that is true.

Yes, SCOTUS opinions can be, and have been overturned through constitutional amendments, and through legislation. They cannot legally be, and none has ever in fact been, overturned by either executive or public inaction.

There is nothing legitimate, under our current understanding of our government, about disregarding an "unconstitutional" Supreme Court decision. We have never had a case, nor developed any theory of jurisprudence, whereby a Supreme Court decision has itself been, or could be, "declared unconstitutional". There is no body under the Constitution who has ever been viewed as being able to make such a declaration. The people can, of course, AMEND the Constitution, thereby rendering unconstitutional that which was constitutional before, but that is not disregarding the Supreme Court. It is, rather, overriding the court through the amendment of the court's governing document.

No mechanism exists in our tradition for cancellation of a SCOTUS opinion through public inaction. It's not written into the Constitution, and it's never happened.

Executive inaction happened on two occasions: Andrew Jackson ignored SCOTUS on an Indian deportation question, and Lincoln routinely ignored Supreme Court writs of habeas corpus. Both Jackson and Lincoln were very popular presidents, and Lincoln was fighting a war in which the better part of the political opposition had seceded. Neither of these behaviors produced a precedent that any subsequent President has dared to emulate.

Andrew Johnson defied a law, the Tenure of Office Act, and was impeached over it. He survived impeachment and therefore "won" the point (Stanton was not reinstated as Secretary of War). Nevertheless, though he "won" the specific point over which he was impeached (in the sense that he retained the office, and Stanton was not reinstated, so Johnson successfully resisted the law), the precedent that people remember is not that Johnson prevailed on the specific point, but that he was impeached. No President since has dared directly and openly defy the law.

So, you may say that executive or public inaction are means by which SCOTUS opinions are overturned, but that's never actually happened.

Dred Scott was overturned by the enactment of the 13th Amendment,

The notion that a Supreme Court decision could ITSELF be unconstitutional has never been part of our system. I will grant that a very bold President COULD make such an argument. Whether he would prevail or not would be a political matter. Were Trump to try it, he would not have survived. Even a very popular President like FDR took a real hit when he set about threatening to pack the Supreme Court to get his way. American people are wary of actions that would fundamentally violate their sense of civics.

In a nutshell, no.

I merely want the Supreme Court to rule that substantive due process prohibits the killing of an unborn child, because the child had no opportunity to have a fair trial before being deprived of life. That's a constitutional question, not a religious one. YOU say it's religious. I say it's a matter of national security.

I don't think Nolu and I actually disagree at all.

I was saying that Supreme Court opinions are law, and they are.

I said the same as you. I see no disagreement on the law.

SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction.. -------------------- ALL are legitimate when the scotus opinion is unconstitutional. (IE, Dred Scott)

The Opinion of the Court in Dred Scott was not unconstitutional, was correctly decided, and I very much doubt you have the slightest clue what the mandate of Dred Scott said, or what the actual decision of the case was.

Dred Scott is still citable as good law, and has been cited as recently as 2016 by the Solicitor General of Kansas in a brief to the Supreme Court of Kansas.

SCOTUS opinions interpreting the Constitution are overturned by Amendments to the Constitution, or by the Court revisiting the issue as in Brown and separate but equal. Public inaction does nothing. Executive inaction may mean a lack of enforcement, but it does not effect a legal overturning of the Opinion.

Digress as you [Vicomte13] will, the fact remains, your desire to pass religious laws is repugnant, and gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

He did not say he wants to pass religious laws. He said he wants laws passed that align with his religious moral beliefs. Some have a moral belief that all abortion is wrong and should be prohibited. Advocating for said belief is repugnant to pro-choice folks, not repugnant to pro-life folks, and does not give aid and comfort to our enemies, something that refers to enemies in time of war.

Catholics ------- simply have our set of interests and beliefs, and we want to see them enacted as the law of the land. Nothing more, nothing less.

I merely want the Supreme Court to rule that substantive due process prohibits the killing of an unborn child, because the child had no opportunity to have a fair trial before being deprived of life. That's a constitutional question, not a religious one. YOU say it's religious. I say it's a matter of national security.

You 'merely' want the Supreme Court to enact a Catholic belief as the law of the land..

What you want is specifically mentioned as being unconstitutional in the First Amendment..

Give it up..

He did not say he wants to pass religious laws. He said he wants laws passed that align with his religious moral beliefs. ---- (Yes, he wants his religious moral beliefs passed into laws.)

Some have a moral belief that all abortion is wrong and should be prohibited. Advocating for said belief is repugnant to pro-choice folks, not repugnant to pro-life folks, and does not give aid and comfort to our enemies, something that refers to enemies in time of war.

We have radical Muslim enemies working to install Shira 'law', in the USA..

Religious laws are repugnant to the First Amendment of our Constitution...

Why are you giving and and comfort to religious radicals?

Well, let me correct myself: it’s a free country - you can ascribe whatever motive you like. The liberals just attempted to block Trump’s travel ban because they said that deep down inside it was motivated by religious hatred, but the Supreme Court does not presume to sift through the hearts of men. It’s analysis is straightforward: it’s an immigration matter, the president controls that, what the President is doing has national security as its stated purpose, not racial or religious animus, and the ban is aimed at countries that have a rational relationship to terror - not every Muslim country. Therefore, the law has a rational basis, and it’s clearly within the President’s power. End of analysis.

You want to go farther, to plumb the hearts of men. You know that my motivation for wanting to ban abortion is because I know that the human being is ensouled at conception, a concept rooted in religion, not science. You know that is my motivation - that I believe that because I am Catholic and think that my church is correct on the matter.

But that is not the basis I have argued. I have pointed to the fact that the unborn baby is going to be killed, legally, without having been convicted of any crime, and without a process or a hearing. I’m squarely arguing the due process clause of the 14th amendment. I note that it applies to “persons”, and that there’s no formal definition in law as to when a person becomes a person. I am asking the court to establish that as a constitutional matter, to preclude the states from deciding differently, just as Roe precludes the states from deciding differently in the other direction.

I know I cannot win at the ballot box, and I know that the legislatures of many states won’t go along, So I need a super-powered body to override the democracy if I am going to get my way. That’s why this has to be done through the Supreme Court. There is no other way to do it.

I am a pragmatic objective-driven person, a military man with a military mind. I am interested in winning the war, and the ends justify the means, when the ends are mine. Of course I will bellyache when the other side with ends I don’t support try the same thing and win - not because I don’t understand why they have done what they have done, nor even because I am really morally outraged at their tactics. I am annoyed at their victory - I want to win.

If things are expressed in such a direct and honest people, less ruthless minds will quail and retreat. Therefore, hypocrisy is the hommage that my vice of pragmatic ends-justify-the-means victory seeking pays to the virtue of formal rights-based legalism. I will make my argument in the form required for the people who don’t want to face the truth directly, and dance the legal fan dance of concealed motives and hypocrisy, in order to get my way.

Am I really outraged at the way the abortion supporters fight their battle? Of course not. They want to win, and they have been effective at it. I despise their cause, but I tip my hat to their skill in advancing it within our system.

It seems to me that you MIGHT be doing the same thing, but the trouble is that you’re stating things about the physics of the battlefield that are not true. You’re making Pickett’s Charge, over and over again. That was never going to work.

IN our system, you don’t get to read my heart. You only get to react to my argument. Yeah, I want to win a Catholic victory. But no, I have not come onto the battlefield under an icon of Mary. I’ve argued the 14th amendment and due process. I can’t win under an icon - that’s impossible given our system. But I COULD win under the constitutional argument, if similarly minded judges are sitting up there seeking a pretext to do the right thing.

Oh, what a terrible person I am for not directly stating my intentions but hiding them behind valid legal arguments. Hypocrisy is the hommage vice renders to virtue. That’s our system. I am not about making a beau geste. I’m always about winning the battle and getting my way. So sue me.

We have radical Muslim enemies working to install Shira 'law', in the USA..

We have radical nutters claiming their imaginary law is the law of the land. The Republic has not collapsed because of it.

We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I have yet to have an encounter where anyone attempted to require me to obey Sharia law.

Religious laws are repugnant to the First Amendment of our Constitution...

Laws reflecting a religious moral belief are not prohibited. Laws establishing a state religion are prohibited.

The Catholic religion, and many Catholics, maintain as a religious moral belief that all abortion is wrong and sinful.

If the people adopted a Constitutional amendment that all abortion was unlawful, or an amendment confirming that a right to abortion emanates from a penumbra of the Bill of Rights, there would be no First Amendment Freedom of Religion implication.

Nobody would have established the Church of Choice, or the Church of Life, as the Church of the United States. A religious moral belief, such as choice or life is not a religion.

The official United States motto is In God We Trust (P.L. 84-140, 70 Stat. 732). And we are all free to be athiests.

https://www.scribd.com/document/383819804/70-Stat-732-PL-850-National-Motto-In-God-We-Trust

Why are you giving and and comfort to religious radicals?

Why are you espousing radical beliefs and trying to pass them off as the actual law of the United States?

The right to free speech gives you the right to preach your radical beliefs, even where they are far removed from reality.

Vicomte13 wrote at (#120) ------ Catholics ------- simply have our set of interests and beliefs, and we want to see them enacted as the law of the land. Nothing more, nothing less.I

I merely want the Supreme Court to rule that substantive due process prohibits the killing of an unborn child, because the child had no opportunity to have a fair trial before being deprived of life. That's a constitutional question, not a religious one. YOU say it's religious. I say it's a matter of national security.

I replied: :----- You 'merely' want the Supreme Court to enact a Catholic belief as the law of the land..

What you want is specifically mentioned as being unconstitutional in the First Amendment..

Your last reply: --- "Oh, what a terrible person I am for not directly stating my intentions but hiding them behind valid legal arguments. Hypocrisy is the hommage vice renders to virtue. That’s our system. I am not about making a beau geste. I’m always about winning the battle and getting my way. So sue me."

Instead of a lawsuit, -- how bout I take pity on you, and let you rest? --' You could also consider finding some professional help...

Why are you espousing radical beliefs and trying to pass them off as the actual law of the United States?

My comments about our Constitution are only radical in your confused mind..

You too need rest...

Instead of a lawsuit, -- how bout I take pity on you, and let you rest? --' You could also consider finding some professional help...

Instead of getting professional help, how about I smile at the progressive Hispanicization of America, recognizing the fact that Latinos are much more pro-life on average than whites, even while being more pro- social state.

In other words, as the country fills up with my co-religionists, the Democrat party in particular fills up with people who are markedly less pro-choice than they are, but who otherwise will maintain necessary social welfare.

All I have to do is sit and wait and time and demographics will give me the victory. The Republicans won't be doing it, nor the Independents. It will come from a Democratic Party that has become dominated by Latin Catholics, and they think like I do on abortion.

Give it up? Why would I do that? I'm pretty much winning on everything I care about. Some recipes take longer to cook.

Better learn Spanish.

Si, se puede.

Instead of a lawsuit, -- how bout I take pity on you, and let you rest? --' You could also consider finding some professional help...

Instead of getting professional help, how about I smile at the progressive Hispanicization of America, -----

There you go again, smiling about the 'progressive' death of our Republic..

Your every post gives aid and comfort to our enemies. --- You shame yourself..

Better learn Spanish.

Si, se puede. [Yes, we can]

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan... Tear down that wall Mr. Pope, and let the illegal aliens in! Francis hates immigrants. Trump loves them, and will sign amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. It's "a bill of love." Jeb! will be so proud of Donnell then.

Yes we can, deport all of the illegal aliens.

Yes we can, deport all of the illegal aliens.

Yes you could, but no, you won't.

You won't because your Republican capitalists will never tolerate the loss of profits from the cheap exploitable labor, and of course the Democrats will join with the Republican capitalists because the Dems are looking forward to the votes of the illegals' children (and some of the illegals themselves).

If you can get your Republicans in line with what you want, you would get it. But you can't, they won't, and it won't happen.

Pity.

My comments about our Constitution are only radical in your confused mind..

Your claims about the Constitution are not citable to any legal authority but The tpaine Court of the Imagination™. The views of a minority of one, posing as the established law of the land, is about as radical as it gets.

Si, se puede. [Yes, we can]

Where did we come from?

How about I smile at the progressive Hispanicization of America, recognizing the fact that Latinos are much more pro-life on average than whites, even while being more pro- social state.

So when MS-13 swarms into YOUR town, squat across the street in a tent as the town grow more dangerous, socialist and ILLEGALLY Hispanic...you mean YOU'RE ok with that?

And btw -- Latinos may be more pro-life than "whites" (secular, atheist and RCC whites that is), but by and large the ONLY way these ILLEGAL INVADER families and the fathers can afford larger families is because they are being subsidized by AMERICAN taxpayers. IOW, they are thieves of US sovereignty and US taxpayer resources via socialism at the local, state and national level. WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. Yet THIS theft without the consent of Americans makes you smile? Just...weird on so many levels.

All I have to do is sit and wait and time and demographics will give me the victory....as the country fills up with my co-religionists...

HUH?? Give YOU "the victory"?? Over who? WHO LOSES?? REAL AMERICANS?? Protestant Americans? That's a pretty galling principle. In your mind you've declared war...on the USA. Just like the Globalists and Democrats

Moreover, it's actually treasonous and a betrayal of all those descendants of the Americans who've established, built AND sacrificed for the principles of the Founders.

[My victory] will come from a Democratic Party that has become dominated by Latin Catholics, and they think like I do on abortion.

Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.

The day the the dominant demo of Democrats are the same outlaw Latinos who invaded the USA and re-established La Raza is THE day there is no more USA. Chyeah -- "WOO-HOO!!" Feliz Cinco de Mayo! And btw Vic -- the Democrats' "holy sacrament" of Abortion will NEVER change. Their leadership will remain the Tom Perez-Che types.

I'm pretty much winning on everything I care about.

As confused as you seem to be across the board about issues that really matter to freedom and sovereignty, that doesn't surprise me.

Better learn Spanish.

Why? Was a war fought and someone forgot to tell us? Or...Are some posters moving to El Salvador or Mexifornia?