Replies

I love it. This loser can't actually address the constitutional arguments made

That's the job of the SCOTUS. You may have heard about their decision. Arguments on Internet forums about the constitutionality of Obamacase are pointless. Basically, the arguments now are, "We lost, they must have cheated." That'll go a long way on a middle school playground, but not in the real world.

“That’s the job of SCOTUS”

Says who? Not the Constitution. I realize it’s become a so-called “informal amendment,” but it is productive of all manner of evil. Think egotism instance, of Bush the Younger’s refusal to veto the incumbency protection act (McCain-Reinhold) on the trust that SCOTUS would faithfully execute its responsibility. Not that it wasn’t a lie and an evasion of responsibility on Bush’s part. Nevertheless he could have used the veto power as presidential review and didn’t. SCOTUS is not the only body capable of blocking unconstitutional laws.

State nullification and jury nullification don’t as obviously exist because they’re not talked about as much as the equally unwritten power of judicial review. But they are ideas with a long pedigree, and I believe states are under no legal obligation to follow laws they deem inapplicable no matter what SCOTUS says.

Well, no. The SCOTUS is not the ultimate source of sovereignty in our system - regardless of how much it likes to regard itself as such.

Sorry, but the SCOTUS itself can render unconstitutional decisions.

“the arguments now are, ‘We lost, they must have cheated.’”

Isn’t that the implicit argument whenever SCOTUS reverses itself? Take one of the Levy’s favirite cases, Brown. Didn’t it declare the court’s thumb was on the scale in Plessy? Even if only SCOTUS can correct SCOTUS people arguing against segregation between Plessy and Brown weren’t just bellyaching.

One of the things that annoyed me most about Robert’s decision was how he reduced it to “Hey you lost the vote, deal with it.” As if the legal arguments were merely superstructure to the democratic process. Which they are, I grant you. It’s no coincidence you can predict how people will read the law based on party affiliation. But that’s not all it is. There are supposed to be limits, so that not any old thing the majority—or well organized minority—wants becomes law.

Listening to Roberts I don’t get the feeling of a constitutional republic. Say he’s right about the law, just for a second. Still, the way he puts it, the thrust is elections are the thing. Get over it, loser, we’re in now. Sickens me.

“That’ll go a long way on a middle school playground”

If there’s one thing kids excel at, it’s playing. And I always found their fanatical devotion to the rules and if not fair play at least not getting screwed over. Can you remember any such spirited debate as when your honor was at stake as a child? Do you ever recall minutiae being of such moment as when winning or losing was at stake during recess?

“The ball was in.”
“No, out.”
“Was not.”
“Was too.”
“Nah-uh.”
“Uh-huh.”
“Sir, you have offended my honor! I say good day.”

That is passion. That is treating life like it matters.