The Roberts census opinion is an attack on our representative system of government

Nov 2005
8,595
3,036
California
#11
"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)
I see you're still quoting an item from a dissent of a court ruling which holds no established legal footing, without the honesty to explicitly state that it is from the dissent...
:rolleyes:
 
Likes: Nwolfe35
Jul 2018
2,007
496
Earth
#12
Care to document this claim?
Also, when has it been used?
How about this?

“Shall Be Vested”.

The distinction between judicial power and jurisdiction is especially pertinent to the meaning of the words “shall be vested” in § 1. Whereas all the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts created by Congress, neither has ever been vested with all the jurisdiction which could be granted and, Justice Story to the contrary,155 the Constitution has not been read to require that Congress confer the entire jurisdiction it might.156 Thus, except for the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which flows directly from the Constitution, two prerequisites to jurisdiction must be present: first, the Constitution must have given the courts the capacity to receive it,157 and, second, an act of Congress must have conferred it.158 The fact that federal courts are of limited jurisdiction means that litigants in them must affirmatively establish that jurisdiction exists and may not confer nonexistent jurisdiction by consent or conduct.159
“Shall Be Vested”.
 
Sep 2014
1,219
148
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
#13
I see you're still quoting an item from a dissent of a court ruling which holds no established legal footing, without the honesty to explicitly state that it is from the dissent...
:rolleyes:
Bury Marbury
'
Obiter dictu was illegally used to establish SCROTUS's judicial review. Also petitio principii, in that the Star Chamber interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution.
 
Sep 2014
1,219
148
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
#14
How about this?

“Shall Be Vested”.

The distinction between judicial power and jurisdiction is especially pertinent to the meaning of the words “shall be vested” in § 1. Whereas all the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts created by Congress, neither has ever been vested with all the jurisdiction which could be granted and, Justice Story to the contrary,155 the Constitution has not been read to require that Congress confer the entire jurisdiction it might.156 Thus, except for the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which flows directly from the Constitution, two prerequisites to jurisdiction must be present: first, the Constitution must have given the courts the capacity to receive it,157 and, second, an act of Congress must have conferred it.158 The fact that federal courts are of limited jurisdiction means that litigants in them must affirmatively establish that jurisdiction exists and may not confer nonexistent jurisdiction by consent or conduct.159
“Shall Be Vested”.
Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns

Also nullifying judicial review is the fact that the Constitution was around for 12 years before the megalomaniac Chief Just-Us found his supreme power in that anti-democratic manifesto. The Alien and Sedition Acts would clearly have been challenged if such a procedure had ever been in the Constitution.

After SCROTUS's usurpation, the outraged President Jefferson, who had purposely been left out of the writing of the Constitution, started proceedings to impeach the Just-Usses one-by-one until they backed down and said their reviews were non-binding. Since the tight and tiny ruling class wants to take as much power away from us, the people, as they possibly can, they are afraid that challenging one part of their hereditary plutocratic oligarchy would lead to challenging the others. Despite the well-rehearsed puppet-show screechfest, the elitists feel stronger together if push ever comes to shove. Partisans for one fake side or another are suckers; that word is a contraction of "part-insane."
 
Jul 2008
18,715
12,466
Virginia Beach, VA
#15
Nine Clowns With Gavels and Gowns

Also nullifying judicial review is the fact that the Constitution was around for 12 years before the megalomaniac Chief Just-Us found his supreme power in that anti-democratic manifesto. The Alien and Sedition Acts would clearly have been challenged if such a procedure had ever been in the Constitution.

After SCROTUS's usurpation, the outraged President Jefferson, who had purposely been left out of the writing of the Constitution, started proceedings to impeach the Just-Usses one-by-one until they backed down and said their reviews were non-binding. Since the tight and tiny ruling class wants to take as much power away from us, the people, as they possibly can, they are afraid that challenging one part of their hereditary plutocratic oligarchy would lead to challenging the others. Despite the well-rehearsed puppet-show screechfest, the elitists feel stronger together if push ever comes to shove. Partisans for one fake side or another are suckers; that word is a contraction of "part-insane."
Without judicial review what is the purpose of the Court?
 
Nov 2005
8,595
3,036
California
#16
Bury Marbury
'Obiter dictu was illegally used to establish SCROTUS's judicial review.
That's your opinion. It is not shared by the vast majority of legal experts.
Moreover to try to proclaim "Obiter dictu" in reference to Marbury v Madison is beyond obtuse. That's like claiming you don't see any forest nor do you see any trees as you repeatedly keep running into trees at full speed... :zany:

Also petitio principii, in that the Star Chamber interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution.
Again, your opinion not shared by the vast majority of legal experts.
 
Nov 2005
8,595
3,036
California
#17
Congress can bar judicial review of laws unless the issue is specifically addressed in the Constitution. The courts don't have a blank check.
Care to document this claim?
Also, when has it been used?
How about this?
“Shall Be Vested”.
The distinction between judicial power and jurisdiction is especially pertinent to the meaning of the words “shall be vested” in § 1. Whereas all the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts created by Congress, neither has ever been vested with all the jurisdiction which could be granted and, Justice Story to the contrary,155 the Constitution has not been read to require that Congress confer the entire jurisdiction it might.156 Thus, except for the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which flows directly from the Constitution, two prerequisites to jurisdiction must be present: first, the Constitution must have given the courts the capacity to receive it,157 and, second, an act of Congress must have conferred it.158 The fact that federal courts are of limited jurisdiction means that litigants in them must affirmatively establish that jurisdiction exists and may not confer nonexistent jurisdiction by consent or conduct.159
“Shall Be Vested”.
I asked you two questions. You attempted to answer the first (but did not) and you did not address the second.

Your attempted answer to my first question is nonsense as it talks about jurisdiction which is not what you claimed.
You need to understand the cases that explain footnote 158 in order to understand where you went wrong.
Including the limitation noted: "Some judges, however, have expressed the opinion that Congress’s authority is limited by provisions of the Constitution such as the Due Process Clause, so that a limitation on jurisdiction that denied a litigant access to any remedy might be unconstitutional. "
 
May 2019
147
61
California
#18
It is absolutely incomprehensible that those who object to our elected President wanting to ask "Is this person a citizen of the United States" on our census form, allege doing so is "arbitrary and capricious", while they embrace unelected judges and Justices imposing their mere whims and fancies as the rule of law, .eg., homosexual marriage.. Of course, these same mindless hypocrite wonders never complained when their Messiah, Obama, had his Census Bureau asked the very same question in 2015.


:rolleyes:



"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)
Yawn. A dead republican's hard drive gave the real reason this administration wants (and isn't getting) the question included. Power.
 
Jul 2014
14,422
8,753
massachusetts
#19
Without judicial review what is the purpose of the Court?
According to many internet experts, the court is there to throw out laws that the Democratic Congress refuses to repeal.
They call this "checks and balances", because Jefferson or one of those founding fathers, once said that you needed "checks" from lobbyists to maintain the "balances" in your off shore accounts......and if they didn't say that, they should have.....
 
Likes: FrostKing
Sep 2014
1,219
148
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
#20
That's your opinion. It is not shared by the vast majority of legal experts.
Moreover to try to proclaim "Obiter dictu" in reference to Marbury v Madison is beyond obtuse. :zany:


Again, your opinion not shared by the vast majority of legal experts.
Imprimatur Ut Imperemus

An expert is a liar for hire. It's pretty naive to think that a clique would oppose anything that increases the power of its own profession