[–] lord_nougat 2 points 0 points 2 points (+2|-2) ago
And if the decision split evenly, they had to engage in combat to determine the winner!
[–] ArcturianDeathTrap2 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Kill the alien controllers, any and all aliens. Kill the human judges
[–] AnotherGrayman 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
she
Literally the only relevant detail.
Women should not be given positions of authority.
[–] JohnGaltApproves ago
Lincoln tortured the Constitution to serve his jew masters.
[–] JohnGaltApproves ago
Lincoln was a corporate attorney who used jew tricks to win court cases. His time in the Illinois legislature was marked by parliamentary trickery akin to Schumer and Pelosi where one time, in an effort to deny a quorum for a vote, he jumped out of a window.
During his first run for POTUS, when directly asked about how he’d serve his (((corporate))) masters in northern manufacturing and banking, Lincoln, much the same as Biden today, would refuse to answer the question, well aware his response would alienate voters.
At Fort Sumter, Lincoln, like Wilson and FDR later, needing public support for his unconstitutional war, would fabricate a situation where he could force his enemy into appearing to be the aggressor, despite the opposite being true.
During his disgusting war where he sent whites to die so that he could maintain his empire and his (((corporate))) masters could keep their customers locked down with limited alternatives, in a move that would give Bill Gates a hard-on, he arrested newspaper editors in the north for questioning the official narrative of the war and asking who benefitted.
[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
For all the arguments against judicial review as laid out by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, it simply can't be the case that they have no power to opine on the subject.
If the other two branches decided to ignore the Constitution and a case or controversary under an unconstitutional law or an unconstitutional application of a Constitutional law arises, to simply allow the law to be enforced since it was passed in accordance with the procedures of the Constitution (in the first instance) or was enforced as interpreted by the sole branch with executive authority, would mean they would be incapable of their own oathes of office.
It's just not a reasonable position logically. I suppose one could change when the issue is a case or controversy and when it is ripe, but it simply makes no sense to say there is no judicial review.
If it really is co-equal it cannot be treated as subservient to legal interpretations by the other two branches.
[–] lanre 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
True, but on the other hand an executive order is not a law, and because of that what power does the court really have to second guess the executive? If an executive order goes against the law (eg. DACA) then it seems like the court should act as a tie-breaker, but if an executive order or policy is aligned with the law, it seems to me that the courts should have no power to overturn the executive order. It's a difficult issue because the legislative and the executive frequently stomp on the constitution, but that doesn't mean allowing the judiciary to be supreme above both is the answer. If you read their letters, the founders were keenly aware of this issue and left us with what they thought the best solution was. We're always free to change it, but letting the courts change the constitution as well is also dangerous.
For example, let's say there's a law passed by Congress to fund the military to the tune of $800 billion annually, for the common defense of the nation. The defense of the U.S. is inherently part of the executive's authority as per the constitution. This funding law is generic and "defense of the nation" is open-ended, giving the president wide latitude to decide where and how to spend the money.
In the past, previous president all followed a similar pattern and used it for foreign wars, anti-terrorism efforts overseas, procurement of new weapons, etc. All pretty standard stuff. Then Americans get upset about a new issue (eg. illegal aliens pouring across the border) and elect a new president based on a policy of stopping that. This is seen as a national security threat so the new president uses these allocated defense funds for a border wall & increased border presence instead of for buying more Raytheon missiles. Additionally, he cancels previous executive orders that de-prioritized prosecution of illegal aliens (eg. DACA). Under these conditions, these executive actions are completely in line with the constitution, the law, and are simply a change in priorities. In this case, I don't see how the courts can supersede the executive's actions, and if they attempt to do so, they should be ignored.
If instead the situation is that Congress allocated funds in the defense budget very specifically with no room for leeway (eg. $100 Billion for Raytheon missiles, $100 Billion for food, $100 Billion for maintenance of vehicles, etc.) and the new president tries to re-allocate the $100 Billion earmarked for Raytheon missiles to a border wall, then in this situation the legislative and the courts would side against the executive and overturn his action as being against the law.
This is all complicated by the fact that we're dealing with politics, and even if the president's actions are lawful and follow the constitution, if his opposition controls the judiciary and legislative, then anything he does could be said to be against the law and therefore nullified. Because of this I think that even if you have a perfect solution politics could always corrupt it. But clearly the solution isn't to have the courts supreme above both the legislative and executive branches.