Replies

"If SCOTUS is the final authority on the meaning of the law, who is anyone else to say that they're wrong?"

I seem to recall that FDR had a plan to deal with the USSC.

"That is circular reasoning."

It was an explanation, not a reason. Marbury occurred in 1803, 14 short years after the Constitution was ratified. The signatories were still around, yet not a peep on the ruling (other than Jefferson). It's worked for 200+ years.

"So you were attempting to describe what is, not whether it ought to be."

Yep. Now, for the third time, please tell me how it "ought to be".

"If SCOTUS is the final authority on the meaning of the law, who is anyone else to say that they're wrong?"

I seem to recall that FDR had a plan to deal with the USSC.

So who was the final arbiter of the law in that instance, FDR or SCOTUS?

Marbury occurred in 1803, 14 short years after the Constitution was ratified. The signatories were still around, yet not a peep on the ruling (other than Jefferson).

And as I explained to you, Marbury did not hold that SCOTUS is the final authority on the Constitution. More recent commentators may have used Marbury in order to make that claim, but there's no justification of it from the ruling itself.

Yep. Now, for the third time, please tell me how it "ought to be".

That hasn't even been the subject of the conversation. I'd hope we can both agree in the abstract that the Constitution "ought to be" followed. It's the meaning of that statement that's the subject of dispute. Hence, the dispute centers around what is, not what ought to be.