Replies

“That is blatantly incorrect — for if the Constitution is what the [majority of] the Supreme Court says, then any dissent listed is contrary to the Constitution, and any decision based on a prior dissent is therefore also contrary the Constitution. — Furthermore, the if the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, then any restrictions placed upon the Supreme Court by the Constitution are meaningless, precisely because the court says what the Constitution means.”

It sounds like you are saying that it is NOT the Supreme Court’s job to decide which laws are constitutional and which are not. Its hard to take that argument seriously since for the last 100 years that is exactly what they have been doing. Like it or not they do it based on precident and on how they interpret it’s meaning. If that is not their role, what is? Some of their recent decisions seem to ignore the obvious meaning such as McCain Feingold, or the Healthcare law. So despite how you think the court should act, we have to deal with he reality.

“Your statement advocates not a rule of law, but a rule of men.”
I didn’t advocate any such d@mn thing, I’m just saying that given the opportunity Obama will pack the court with justices who like him, who don’t give a d@mn what the constitution says.

It sounds like you are saying that it is NOT the Supreme Court’s job to decide which laws are constitutional and which are not.

That's not what I'm saying -- what I'm saying is that the Constitution is not what the Court says it is.
There's a huge difference there, one that ultimately comes down to authority, and as Jesus said the one who is sent is under the authority of the one sending. In the one scenario the Constitution 'sends' the court, in the other the court declares what the Constitution is.

Further, just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional doesn't mean that they are right. Dread Scott, Raich, Wicard are all examples:

Dread Scott: The court made up its ruling held that black Americans were not citizens and could not be made such by any state.
Depriving States of sovereignty, as well as denying slaves the protections afforded in the Bill of Rights.
Wicard: This decision was made so as to keep entire sets of federal laws/mandates from being repealed, and incidentally retroactively validate Federal assumption of powers. -- The Filburn [mis]-construction of the Commerce Clause is so prevalent that I must explain, the clause is as follows:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Note how "the several States" is betwixt "foreign Nations" and "Indian Tribes" (which might be thought of as 'Native Nations'), to assume the level of power [regulation] the Wicard case does upon foreign nations (or Indian Tribes) would be nothing less than an act of war -- and to enforce it would be the waging of war. This is the very definition of treason given in the Constitution.
So it is entirely possible for the court to render literally treasonous rulings.
Raich: This case is so logically absurd that it should have resulted in the court being forced out of office. In it they claim that the federal government is able to regulate personal growth of marijuana, even if there is no sales, because growing it impacts the interstate market that doesn't exist (but would if it wasn't prohibited).

Its hard to take that argument seriously since for the last 100 years that is exactly what they have been doing.

Just because they've been doing it doesn't make it right; the TSA is a perfect example (as they blatantly disregard the 4th Amendment).

Like it or not they do it based on precident and on how they interpret it’s meaning.

Precedent! *spit!* Precedent is nothing more than the judiciary playing the Children's game of Telephone with your [legal] Rights.
If Precedent meant anything, then this case would castrate the ban on full auto weapons.

If that is not their role, what is? Some of their recent decisions seem to ignore the obvious meaning such as McCain Feingold, or the Healthcare law. So despite how you think the court should act, we have to deal with he reality.

And isn't that the exact reason why we should expect them to be for a ban on weapons? To their thinking: It cements their place of power, and they won't have to worry about a popular uprising demanding they end their term.