To believe the judicial supremacist lie, that the courts rule over us, no matter how immoral or unconstitutional their opinions, you have to believe some really unbelievable, ridiculous, and even frightening things.
You have to believe that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo were wrong. They should have gone ahead and bowed down to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden idol.
You have to believe that the Apostles were wrong. They should have shut up about the Gospel of Jesus Christ when they were told by civil authorities to do so. .
You have to believe that the great Roman statesman Cicero was wrong, that there is no universally-applicable natural law which binds all men everywhere, throughout time.
You have to believe that Augustine was wrong when he said that, “an unjust law is no law at all.”
You have to believe that Thomas Aquinas was wrong when he said that, “Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.”
You have to believe that William Blackstone was wrong when he said, “this natural law, being as old as mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, from this original.”
You have to believe that Samuel Adams was wrong when he said that, “[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator.”
You have to believe that Alexander Hamilton was wrong when he said that, “The Sacred Rights of Mankind...are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power,” and that “the judiciary... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
You have to believe that Thomas Jefferson was wrong when he said that, “it is a very dangerous doctrine to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
You have to believe that all of America’s founders were wrong when they challenged and defeated the supreme civil authority of that old tyrant King George III.
You have to believe that Abraham Lincoln was wrong when, in his first Inaugural Address, he said that, “if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers...”
You have to believe that Justice Taney should have been obeyed into perpetuity when he pronounced in the infamous Dred Scott opinion that black men were not human beings.
You have to believe that it was fine for a tinpot probate judge to pronounce a literal death sentence by dehydration and starvation on a helpless disabled woman, and that is was acceptable to have the entire legal and political establishment of Florida and of the United States stand passively by as her tormentors tortured her to death by cruel and unusual means.
You have to believe that it’s just fine that, by judicial decree, and through the passive connivance of a whole generation of American lawyers and politicians, more than fifty-five million defenseless babies have been brutally slaughtered, even though those same politicians swore a sacred oath to God to provide equal protection for the right to life of every person under their jurisdiction
You have to believe that nobody can do a thing when judges, in gross violation of the laws of nature and nature’s God, and contrary to every single clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution of the United States, invent an imaginary “right” for a man to “marry” a man, or for a woman to “marry” a woman, even though such a perverted thing is physically, naturally, impossible.
You have to believe that our Constitution, and our republican form of government, with its necessary checks and balances, is a dead letter.
You have to believe that the sacred oath of office is nothing more than a formality or a photo op.
Please, quit believing nonsense. It’s killing people, and destroying American self-government in liberty.
— Tom Hoefling
“Has a Supreme Court decision every been overturned?”
Justice Kennedy’s embrace of sodomy as a sacred constitutional right in Lawrence v. Texas (2002) overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). The decisions were directly opposite and Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers.
The the federal boys and girls in robes decide they are going to re-engineer America’s defective morality to make the Ruling Class feel better about themselves, they never go half way.
Yes, congress can pass an amendment taking something out of the courts jurisdiction. It can remove the courts bility toule on something this way. Further the court has zero enforcement mechanism.
The short answer is "no." Our original Constitution could not conceive that rational homo sapiens could claim validity for two opposing decisions, by the identically same members on the same subject, as a final answer. That should be self evident.
I am not a lawyer, Constitutional or otherwise. Nor have I played one on TV.
But I do know for a fact, (mistakenly perhaps, and I stand ready to be corrected) that the Supreme Court can, and has, as an institution, reversed itself!
Not the same Supreme court with the identically same members. That would make our judicial system joke!
That would be creating a totally new and different Constitution. The original Constitutional is not a suicide pact, and cannot be amended such as to oppose any part of the Bill of Rights, either by amendment, by legislative action or by executive order.
Common sense..
But that tired , silly and nonsensical question keeps being asked over and over.
The important point about any case is money. Getting to SCOTUS is a very expensive proposition. Once the ruling is made, it is up to the lower courts to abide by and enforce that ruling.
If a lower court does not like the SCOTUS ruling, they can and have ignored it successfully - because of rule one: money - the plaintiffs lack the funds to either bring a case or to pursue it; thus, SCOTUS is over-ruled by a lower court and an onerous law stands.
Read the 11th amendment!
Yes, it was called “The Civil War”
So there ya go, only takes 600,000 dead and a ruined country to undo the Supreme Court