It isn't often that a single graphic is worthy of it's own thread but this one is!

[aligncare]

I would be so out of my depth in this argument. I am not a lawyer. But, if I woke up one day and found I was... I'd blow my brains out. That's how much love I have for the legal profession, circa 2016.

For the lawyers out there, tough! You can't sue me for my opinion. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

But nowhere will you find George Mason saying that ANY court should be the sole arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional!

Are you friggin' blind?

"They could declare an unconstitutional law void." - George Mason

I guess Congress could come to the conclusion that a law they themselves enacted was unconstitutional, then overturn it, or that a law passed by an earlier Congress was unconstitutional and overturn it.

But if that doesn't happen, the the people have the power to challenge the law in the Courts, and the Courts have the power to void the law.

[Bigun]

Come on man, engage your intellect.

If every Court decision ois just an unenforceable "opinion" that carries no weight, why have Courts at all?!

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution…" — Article III of The United States Constitution

What power?

The power to render an unenforceable, powerless, meaningless opinion?

SCOTUS - "In our opinion, that law is unconstitutional."

Congress - "*%^#$ you and your opinion!"

SCOTUS - "-------."

Good Lord man!

Make some sense!

You are going very far afield now Luis!  The Courts are there to settle matters of LAW. That is a very different thing than saying what the law IS!

[Luis Gonzalez]

I would be so out of my depth in this argument. I am not a lawyer. But, if I woke up one day and found I was... I'd blow my brains out. That's how much love I have for the legal profession, circa 2016.

For the lawyers out there, tough! You can't sue me for my opinion. 

I'm not a lawyer either. I'm far from that. But I was blessed with common sense and an inquisitive mind that commands me to challenge everything I think I believe or understand.

I read and educate myself, accepting even those things I thought were wrong as right, if enough evidence exists to counter my previous understanding.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You are going very far afield now Luis!  The Courts are there to settle matters of LAW. That is a very different thing than saying what the law IS!

They have the power to declare unconstitutional laws void.

So, to your point, that law IS unconstitutional, and no laws can stand when they are unconstitutional, because the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.

Scalia agreed in Bush v Gore.

[Bigun]

They have the power to declare unconstitutional laws void.

So, to your point, that law IS unconstitutional, and no laws can stand when they are unconstitutional, because the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.

Scalia agreed in Bush v Gore.

Cite as: 531 U. S. ____ (2000) 1
SCALIA, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 00-949 (00A504)
_________________
GEORGE W. BUSH ET AL. v. ALBERT GORE, JR. ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[December 9, 2000]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KENNEDY
and by him referred to the Court is granted, and it is
ordered that the mandate of the Florida Supreme Court,
case No. SC00-2431, is hereby stayed pending further
order of the Court. In addition, the application for stay is
treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and the petition
for a writ of certiorari is granted. The briefs of the
parties, not to exceed 50 pages, are to be filed with the
Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 4
p.m. Sunday, December 10, 2000. Rule 29.2 is suspended
in this case. Briefs may be filed in compliance with Rule
33.2 to be replaced as soon as possible with briefs prepared
in compliance with Rule 33.1. The case is set for
oral argument on Monday, December 11, 2000, at 11 a.m.,
and a total of 11
/2 hours is allotted for oral argument.
JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring.
Though it is not customary for the Court to issue an
opinion in connection with its grant of a stay, I believe a
brief response is necessary to JUSTICE STEVENS’ dissent. I
will not address the merits of the case, since they will
shortly be before us in the petition for certiorari that we
have granted. It suffices to say that the issuance of the
stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding
the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has
a substantial probability of success.
On the question of irreparable harm, however, a few
2 BUSH v. GORE
SCALIA, J., concurring
words are appropriate. The issue is not, as the dissent
puts it, whether “[c]ounting every legally cast vote ca[n]
constitute irreparable harm.” One of the principal issues
in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the
votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a
reasonable interpretation of Florida law, “legally cast
vote.” The counting of votes that are of questionable
legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to
petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon
what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count
first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for
producing election results that have the public acceptance
democratic stability requires. Another issue in the case,
moreover, is the propriety, indeed the constitutionality, of
letting the standard for determination of voters’ intent—
dimpled chads, hanging chads, etc.— vary from county to
county, as the Florida Supreme Court opinion, as interpreted
by the Circuit Court, permits. If petitioner is correct
that counting in this fashion is unlawful, permitting
the count to proceed on that erroneous basis will prevent
an accurate recount from being conducted on a proper
basis later, since it is generally agreed that each manual
recount produces a degradation of the ballots, which renders
a subsequent recount inaccurate.
For these reasons I have joined the Court’s issuance of
stay, with a highly accelerated timetable for resolving this
case on the merits.

Be sure not to miss this part Luis!

The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether “[c]ounting every legally cast vote ca[n] constitute irreparable harm. ” One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, “legally cast vote.” The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.

Emphasis added by me!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Be sure not to miss this part Luis!

The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether “[c]ounting every legally cast vote ca[n] constitute irreparable harm. ” One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, “legally cast vote.” The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.

Emphasis added by me!

What you don't get is that what you just posted is Judicial Review.

It isn't Judicial Review ONLY when laws are found unconstitutional and voided, it's also Judicial review when laws are found constitutional and upheld.

[Bigun]

Just before his untimely passing, in a dissent from the Obergefell v. Hodges case declaring homosexual marriage a right, Scalia penned an important warning every American needs to read.

From CNS News:

Here is an excerpt of a key passage from Scalia’s decision:

I write sepa­rately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense per­sonal importance to me. The law can recognize as mar­riage whatever sexual attachments and living arrange­ments it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about mar­riage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Consti­tution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit­tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extrav­agant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im­portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

[Bigun]

What you don't get is that what you just posted is Judicial Review.

It isn't Judicial Review ONLY when laws are found unconstitutional and voided, it's also Judicial review when laws are found constitutional and upheld.

NO! It is ruling on whether or not the LAW as it existed at the time was being properly applied!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Just before his untimely passing, in a dissent from the Obergefell v. Hodges case declaring homosexual marriage a right, Scalia penned an important warning every American needs to read.

From CNS News:

Here is an excerpt of a key passage from Scalia’s decision:

I write sepa­rately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense per­sonal importance to me. The law can recognize as mar­riage whatever sexual attachments and living arrange­ments it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about mar­riage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Consti­tution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit­tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extrav­agant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im­portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Scalia is dead wrong.

There is no "ruler" BUT the people and the voice of the people United that is the Constotution, not Antonin Scalia's vision of what the Constitution means, but what the Constitution says and how it applies to the case at hand.

Same-sex marriage came down to a decision on whether or not two adults of sound mind and body who while engaging in what many still see as unorthodox or even sinful lifestyle and activities, but where that lifestyle or those activities are completely legal can be denied a license by the Statenwhere they reside based on a general disapproval of their lifestyle/activities.

The Court opined that under the principles of due process under the law (I would have bet money that it would come down to the Equal Prtection Clause) those las violated the Supreme Law of the Land.

That's how things are supposed to work.

P.S.  I thought Kennedy's opinion was disjointed and even a little bipolar, but the outcome itself was inevitable, and I've been saying as much for quite some time now.

[Bigun]

Scalia is dead wrong.

There is no "ruler" BUT the people and the voice of the people United that is the Constotution, not Antonin Scalia's vision of what the Constitution means, but what the Constitution says and how it applies to the case at hand.

Same-sex marriage came down to a decision on whether or not two adults of sound mind and body who while engaging in what many still see as unorthodox or even sinful lifestyle and activities, but where that lifestyle or those activities are completely legal can be denied a license by the Statenwhere they reside based on a general disapproval of their lifestyle/activities.

The Court opined that under the principles of due process under the law (I would have bet money that it would come down to the Equal Prtection Clause) those las violated the Supreme Law of the Land.

That's how things are supposed to work.

P.S.  I thought Kennedy's opinion was disjointed and even a little bipolar, but the outcome itself was inevitable, and I've been saying as much for quite some time now.

Justice Scalia and I disagree with you and I'll take that ANY day!
 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Justice Scalia and I disagree with you and I'll take that ANY day!

Do you know what is even more offensive than a rule by a majority of nine judges?

Rule by a single judge. So Scalia can think what he wants, but his opinion alone can't be the deciding factor in "all cases, in Law and equity, arising under" the Constitution.

Here's what else I object to in Scalia's dissent. I object to his idea that all my liberties are listed in the Constitution, which is what he alludes to when he talks about "liberties" that the Comstitution and subsequent Amwndments "neglect to mention".

All our liberties are NOT specifically enumerated in the Constitution. They couldn't possibly be all listed there. Our liberties are unmeasurable and innumerable.