Replies

the opinions of smug supercede decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court ruled that a small dog was a cat, or Christianity was the only religion that could legally be forbidden by law, would you have no problem with that? Are they infallible? If the rules on the Barn wall were yesterday read "Four legs good, two legs bad." And today it reads "four legs good, two legs better." would you just shrug you shoulders and say to your self, guess my memory of yesterday was mistaken? We, that's me and you live in the greatest nation ever conceived, but only by half it's potential. A nation without firm rules; without which the Supreme Court can expanded by whimsy or with attention to the ""penumbra" is a nation at risk's" It matters today very little whether West Virginia was legally formed or not. What matters is that we the people should not be sheeple and except a Supreme Court decision that is only responsible to political party or philosophical bents. A Supreme Court that has no challenges to a decision that is obviously constitutionally unsound is a threat to all. Would you play poker at a house that had rules that were open to interpretation. If so, pack up you stocks and bonds, hard cash and deeds, and come to smugs house and play. If you think that it not a threat ask the people that have been adversely effected by the Kelo decision. Where the constitution of Connecticut was changed by fiat. (redefining a word in the state constitution to change it's meaning as it was known and used; rather than the lawful way, by amendment.) Our forefathers creating a government of checks and balances left out one thing a check on the Supreme Court that can be effected quickly, before the horse leaves the barn.