"Opinions are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. But they aren't law."

TomHoefling.com ^ | 9-7-2015 | Siena Hoefling

[EternalVigilance]

Opinions are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. But they aren't law.

In the early days of our government, Supreme Court opinions were so insignificant that Congress didn't bother preserving them. Opinions were left to individuals to keep track of, and were not congressionally-funded into official records until 1874, almost a century after our independence. Before Congress stepped in, Court records were printed and kept under copyright by private citizens and reporters, who sold them for profit.

Opinions of the Court were kept "loosey-goosey" for decades, and not preserved with certified integrity. Actual statute was held officially and carefully, in order to preserve its certainty as law. In 1874, when Congress had decided to finally begin funding and overseeing the printing of Supreme Court opinions, while leaving their actual production to be handled privately, it moved its own code away from private printers to be solely handled by the U.S. government.

To this day, the actual production of Court opinions is done by contract to private entities. (You are apparently even invited, as a private citizen, to help out with any errors before the official printing!) By contrast, actual federal code, the statute that is "on the books" because it went through the constitutional process of lawmaking, remains meticulously and faithfully produced by the U.S. government, start to finish.

Supreme Court opinions have always been treated as inferior to the United States code--because they are not the "law of the land."

[Vermont Lt]

Just wanted to copy you to my answer to Knarf.

[EternalVigilance]

That’s not what Marbury says. Nowhere in the opinion does the court lay claim to superiority to any other branch.

Its whole point, summed up, is that no matter what anyone else does or does not do, the court, and every other department or branch, must follow the Constitution. That’s it.

[EternalVigilance]

I agree that Obergefell MUST be ignored. It is null and void.

[EternalVigilance]

The whole modern judicial supremacist lie is built on one sentence in John Marshall’s 1803 Supreme Court opinion in Marbury vs. Madision. A sentence that has been turned inside out and backwards, making it mean the exact opposite of its true meaning, in context. In fact, nowhere in the opinion does the court lay claim to superiority to any other branch. Marshall’s whole point, summed up, is that no matter what anyone else does or does not do, the court, and every other department or branch, MUST follow the Constitution they have sworn to support and defend. That’s it. Read and comprehend it for yourself, and quit buying the lies.

The summation of Marbury:

“Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that COURTS, AS WELL AS OTHER DEPARTMENTS, are BOUND by that instrument.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137

[wagglebee]

You are correct. I wasn't clear enough in what I was trying to say. What I meant was that Marbury v. Madison has been USED to usurp power for SCOTUS.

[EternalVigilance]

Thank you.

I’m sure you’ll forgive me for being so adamant about this crucially important matter.

You’re awesome, wagglebee. One of the most important and effective FReepers, as far as I’m concerned.

[wagglebee]

I'm working on about three hours of sleep, it made sense when I wrote it.

Thanks for the kind words.

[mbj]

You are to be congratulated! :-)

[EternalVigilance]

Thank you!