[Bonaparte]

So let me get this straight, just so I know what you're saying. If the USSC accepts a case for review and makes a decision, do you believe it's only optional whether we abide by that decision or not? Do you believe it's optional for judges in lower courts to abide by that USSC decision? Do you not recognize the principle of judicial review?

And, btw, I never said the 10th was "irrelevant," only that in specific contested instances, the USSC is the arbiter of its relevance as provided for in the Constitution. You do believe in the Constitution, right?

[TigersEye]

You are dissembling.

Of course it is not legally optional to abide by the law, Constitutional or not. (There is such a thing as civil disobedience and to paraphrase T. Jefferson "Disobedience to tyrants is obediance to God.") I have simply pointed out that the law as it stands in this case is unConstitutional. And you seem to oppose that position.

Jury nullification is legal and informing a jury of that is not only legal but a duty of the court. The judge in this case has flouted both his duty and the law by suppressing that information when the defense attorney tried to introduce it. You seem to be applauding his unlawfullness.

[dcwusmc]

The Supremes were NOT handed that authority by the Constitution. They snatched it in Marbury v Madison in about 1803. The Founders wrote a Constitution so simple that even a retired old mud Marine like me can understand it. If I can comprehend it, most surely YOU can... and so should our congress critters. But they don't even bother to READ it anymore... except to parse it for the meaning of "is!"