[Looking for Diogenes]

1. The Supreme Court has refined the Consitution into meaning what ever current leftist orthodoxy demands. Read origional intent and early decision and then compare these to the novel approaches (read pure revisionism) of current decisions.

Sandra O'Connor is a leftist?

The point of citing the Danbury Baptist letter is to try to understand original intent.

There is no requirement for a Supreme Court to acknowlege any previous decision.

A couple of sentences ago you were complaining about novel approaches and revisionism. Now you're saying that's OK. Make up your mind.

In the 1950's teh USSC did so when it banned teacher-led prayer in Public Schools.

Oh yeah? And what case was that? No to be unfriendly, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Given that the Senate came within a few votes of convicting Justice Chase because of this decision, I must disagree.

First, his impeachment had nothing to doing with Marbury v Madison. It had to do with enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Act. Second, he was impeached by the House, but not by the Senate. The Senate has 'almost' done many things. 'Almost' doesn't count for much.

[RonF]

Did the Supremes ban school-led prayer in the '50's? I distinctly remember leading my classmates in prayer in the early '60's when I was in grade school. Of course, in my old home town we were very diverse; we had both Catholics and Protestants.