[Yulee]

The Supreme Court itself has crippled freedom, writing laws by 5-4 votes of unelected Supreme Court justices who have lifetime tenure.

---

Did the Supreme Court itself set its own rules? What entity determined that there did not have to be a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court, rather than a split decision, to determine the legality of a law.

It takes a unanimous decision to convict a man. Why not a unanimous decision to determine if a law is Constitutional. Where there is a dissenting opinion, there is doubt.

What happens when five of the nine believe that cannibalism, polygamy, bestiality,theft, murder, Shariah Law, wife beating, or any other activity considered immoral by most of our population is legal?

[DJ Taylor]

I find it unbelievable that the good professor could complete a five minute dissertation on the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional usurpation of power and not even mention Marbury V. Madison of 1803.

[Let_It_Be_So]

“It takes a unanimous decision to convict a man. Why not a unanimous decision to determine if a law is Constitutional. Where there is a dissenting opinion, there is doubt.”

Interesting. On the other hand, what if
1. a state (say, Massachussets) passed a law banning personal ownership of firearms,

2. it is appealed to the federal bench based on the assertion that it violates the US Constitution’s 2nd ammendment,

3. Federal judge upholds the state’s law

4. it is appealed to the USSC and it is also upheld because the vote was 8-1 (only one Justice ruled that the state’s ban on firearms was constitutional)

5. and since it wasn’t unanimous, the state’s law stands and firearms are banned. other states follow suit, etc.