[TigersEye]

The jury was free to nullify anytime it wanted to. Guess what? It didn't.

It was free to if it knew to. But the judge lied to them.

At another point, when Eye urged jurors to use their "common sense of justice," Breyer cut him off and said, "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that is, for your duty to follow the law."

Until the USSC says...

In other words your respect for the Constitution is nil. You're arguing for acceptance and adherence to law regardless of its origin. Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land or it is not. To say that the 10th Amendment is irrelevant unless the USSC says it's relevant is to say that the Constitution is relative. The "Living Document" argument. The same legalistic moral relativism that gives us forced abortion laws.

Thanks for clarifying where you stand.

[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?