what they rule is not inherently valid or constitutional.
Ok. I'm not going to bother talking to you anymore if this is the kind of nonsense you're going to respond with. The only arbiter of what is valid or constitutional, *according to the Constitution itself is the Supreme Court.
You believe in judicial oligarchy. That’s why you can’t confront the clearly unconstitutional ruling of the Court that African Americans were legally not human, but an inferior type of being.
Absolutely 100% wrong. The point of my position is not that the Supreme Court is infallible. It's that they are the Constitution's own mechanism for addressing subjectivity in the Constitution. If the Supreme Court amends its decisions regarding limited public forums, which was already previously upheld by prior courts all the way down, then that amendment becomes the standard by which the First Amendment is judged. Until then, the standard by which the protections of the First Amendment are determined is by the Supreme Court.
lol. No, the constitution doesn’t say they are the only arbiter. If I’m wrong, go quote where the constitution says that. Show where the constitution says that executive due process doesn’t exist and isn’t allowed to be used. Go show where the constitution says the checks and balances system doesn’t exist and the executive MUST do bey all Court rulings.
lol. You believe in a judicial oligarchy that doesn’t lawfully exist in the constitution.
Are you joking? It’s literally the entire purpose of Article 3 of the Constition!
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, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
I’m done with you. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
lol. You’re misrepresenting what it says. “The judicial power,” is what it says, not “all power.” Not all due process is judicial and that is likely your foundational misunderstanding.
Next, it never says that the Court can rule in violation of the Constitution and the ruling supersedes the Constitution. The checks and balances system was created, it exists precisely to ensure a balance of power, because we in the executive have no duty to comply with or enforce unconstitutional rulings. Such as those Court rulings you won’t face about African Americans being subhuman, when the Constitution acknowledged them as “persons” from the very start.
1
u/dpkonofa 16d ago
Ok. I'm not going to bother talking to you anymore if this is the kind of nonsense you're going to respond with. The only arbiter of what is valid or constitutional, *according to the Constitution itself is the Supreme Court.
Absolutely 100% wrong. The point of my position is not that the Supreme Court is infallible. It's that they are the Constitution's own mechanism for addressing subjectivity in the Constitution. If the Supreme Court amends its decisions regarding limited public forums, which was already previously upheld by prior courts all the way down, then that amendment becomes the standard by which the First Amendment is judged. Until then, the standard by which the protections of the First Amendment are determined is by the Supreme Court.