☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
29

In case no one really thought of it, the idea of a SCOTUS ruling being "law" as in "law of the land" is complete bullshit. The judicial branch interprets and applies laws. The LEGISLATIVE branch makes the laws, not SCOTUS.

submitted by totes_magotes to whatever 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 13:11:15 ago (+30/-1)     (whatever)

If these dumbfucks wanted abortion "rights" to be, you know, an actual right, it needed a law and not the opinion of a court.

That's how fucked up these radical freaks are: they don't even understand how the government works.


29 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] Prairie 1 point 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 20:31:43 ago (+1/-0)

And isn't this just removing some kind of law that was formed in the past? In other words it's reducing the scope of the federal government, getting it out of people's business.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] -1 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 20:39:16 ago (+0/-1)

Cite me the law reference and number. I'll wait.

[ - ] Prairie 1 point 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 21:49:33 ago (+1/-0)

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] -1 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 22:28:05 ago (+0/-1)

That is not law, that is a lawsuit. Lawsuits happen based on law. How the fuck do you stupid fucks keep not understanding this? It's fucking high school level civics. JFC, y'all about as smart as a room full of niggers if you combined their collective IQ into one number.

[ - ] canbot 1 point 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 23:22:34 ago (+1/-0)

Roe v wade acts as a law by forcing a particular interpretation of the constitution. It is you who is too stupid to understand what is going on.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] -1 points 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 07:02:46 ago (+0/-1)

Cry harder.

[ - ] Prairie 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 07:55:06 ago (+0/-0)

Stick to the arguments rather than REEEEing. As someone else said, law doesn't have to be literal laws, it's whatever results in the government using force against you if you don't comply.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 10:12:51 ago (+0/-0)

That's not law, you fucking moron, that's totalitarian. You dumbfucks don't know what a fuckin' republic is?

[ - ] lord_nougat 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 14:18:25 ago (+0/-0)

Dude. You seem to be forgetting that you are presently existing in CLOWN-WORLD.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 14:59:22 ago (+0/-0)

Fair enough. But someone in government is going to say it out loud and they'll hear it. And suddenly they won't want big government any more.

[ - ] HughBriss 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 15:04:27 ago (+0/-0)

It's generally called judicial review, which established precedent in the early 1800s under Justice Marshall. From wikijewdia:

Marbury v. Madison was the first case in which the Supreme Court struck down a federal law as unconstitutional and it is most significant for its role in establishing the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, or the power to invalidate laws as unconstitutional.

Marshall himself assumed an unconstitutional power by having the SC assume the power of invalidating law instead of just rendering a judgment on whether a law was unconstitutional or not. The SC has been rogue from the very beginning.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 15:43:04 ago (+0/-0)

That is one of the powers of SCOTUS, yes. But a SCOTUS ruling can be overturned. A law has to be repealed which is an entirely different process.

[ - ] HughBriss 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 18:48:18 ago (+0/-0)

I'm not arguing with you, but I think you missed my point, which was that judicial review is an unconstitutional power the SC has assumed for itself. It has deemed itself above the legislative branch and the final arbiter of law, whether the law has been written or not. It also sets limits, goals, quotas, deadlines, and the like, which are not power the SC is assigned in the Constitution. Also, both the States and the President have the power to ignore a SC ruling, which has happened in the past. Yes, it caused a crisis in the separation of powers, but it must be done when (currently) nine men have vast, sweeping power to control, not adjudicate, legislation, thereby affecting he effect and intent of the legislation.

The separation of powers was carefully considered when the Constitution was written, and the idea of the SC taking such enormous and undesignated power for itself was exactly what the writers wanted to avoid.

How is a SC ruling "overturned" if it's not overturned by that same body? That's like one group of people with their own opinion overruling the opinion of another group of people, both under color of "interpretation of law".

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 19:15:44 ago (+0/-0)

SCOTUS does indeed have within its area of power the ability to determine if a law should be applied due to Constitutionality matters. Every court can look at a law and say "This is against some other law over here and this law over here takes priority." They can also look at mitigating factors, changing social requirements, etc. and decide to rule for, against, or throw out a case. "Oh, you had your father in the car and he was bleeding out? I can't see it as reasonable to make you pay this speeding ticket." It happens all the time.

[ - ] HughBriss 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 19:33:28 ago (+0/-0)

That's also not what I was saying. Since the SC has final appellate authority, they are assigned the constitution authority for determining whether a ruling or law was made withing the limits of constitutional law. That's all.

What they did NOT have authority to do was determine for Brown v Board of Education, and mandate that all forms of "racial discrimination" as manifested by "separate but equal" in Southern states have to eradicated. All they were allowed to do by the constitution was to determine whether the law was constitutional, and even then, they exceeded their authority.

The Southern states were well within their rights to ignore the ruling, as all states to when a SC court ruling is clearly biased, unfair, and guided by opinion and not by law.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 20:37:54 ago (+0/-0)

Stop thread spamming. Consider this branch of conversation closed unless you desire to merge it into the other threads. I have better things to do with my evening.

[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 19:00:20 ago (+0/-0)

But a SCOTUS ruling can be overturned.

How?

The only way I'm aware of is to change the Constitution. They used to actually do that.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 19:10:51 ago (+0/-0)

You're thinking of changing the Constitution which requires an amendment and ratification.

A SCOTUS ruling, like any court ruling, is an interpretation of the law (or "opinion," if you prefer) which can be reinterpreted or revisited later. This is what happened with RvW though what made them change their stance is a different area of the original case.

[ - ] HughBriss 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 19:35:34 ago (+0/-0)

How do either Congress or the people "overturn" as SC ruling? You never answered that. The answer is it can't. They have absolute, unappealable authority, which unconstitutional. This was never assigned in the Constitution, which makes states free to ignore their rulings.

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 20:37:13 ago (+0/-0)

I didn't answer it because it's a nonsense question. SCOTUS can only overturn SCOTUS.

They do not have absolute authority. And their power is absolutely defined in the Constitution. You need to go read the shit out of it and leave me the fuck alone until you've done this. I have no patience for this kind of stupid bullshit today.

[ - ] canbot 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 23:23:50 ago (+0/-0)

They pass abortion laws on the state level.

[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 19:03:50 ago (+0/-0)

This point is not made enough. People take it for granted that the Judicial branch shall be supreme above all the others. It's really supposed to be the House of Representatives, as the body most representative of the people. The House is not supposed to be able to violate the Constitution, but the Court has taken to "makin' shit up" which is not their purview.

[ - ] texasblood 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 18:19:01 ago (+0/-0)

Abortion is PRETENDED LEGISLATION.
You fucking cucks still cant get it right.
Look the shit up

[ - ] TheBebot 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 19:23:14 ago (+0/-0)

I always see leftists screaming over how the right is weaponizing the Supreme Court, when they've spent over 5 decades using the SC to push through whatever the fuck they want. Gay marriage, interracial marriage, desegregation, and of course abortion. And now Republicans are the ones "weaponizing" the Supreme Court because they've repealed one of these?

[ - ] thebearfromstartrack4 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 21:51:59 ago (+0/-0)

and the dinosaurs disappeared because of video games of the period (they forgot to eat)

[ - ] canbot 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 23:20:43 ago (+0/-0)

That is how it should work, but the fact that roe v wade in effect does dictate law proves you wrong. There is in effect a way for the judicial to interpret laws in a way that twists and crafts them to thier desired objectives.

[ - ] LawFag -1 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 15:30:07 ago (+0/-1)

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 15:42:13 ago (+0/-0)*

The is not how it works. Any court decision can be overturned. ANY. That is not law, it's interpretation of law. An actual goddamned law needs to be repealed. Get your fucking head out of your ass.

[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 19:00:06 ago (+0/-0)

deleted

[ - ] totes_magotes [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 19:12:12 ago (+0/-0)

lololol, swinging your IQ dick around doesn't get you anything here especially since that, once again, isn't how it works. But you have fun with your little masturbation session. Let me know when you're done stroking off, okay?