Public
- Public
- Network
- Groups
- Featured
- Popular
- People

Conversation

Notices

Embed this notice
FED Enjoyer (red_hat@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:08:37 JST FED Enjoyer
Bringing in the bug trunk, @Humpleupagus

In conversation about 7 months ago from nicecrew.digital permalink
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:08:36 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority....
  
  In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
  
  U.S. Constitution Art. III, Sec. 2
  
  The "all other cases before mentioned" refers to the cases falling under the first paragraph quoted, excluding where scotus was granted original jurisdiction. I omitted the paragraphs granting original jurisdiction.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:12:14 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  Scotus is clearly vested with appellate jurisdiction, subject to legislation limiting the jurisdiction, e.g. creating intermediate courts that have to be transversed before arriving so scotus.
  
  I mean what's the alternative theory to judicial review? That there is none and the constitution is just a political doctrine without remedy for violation other than voting harder? Ok.... I hope you get that you wish for. 🤷♂️
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:16:10 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  Also judicial review precedes Marbury. Read Chisholm v. Georgia.
  
  The real issue we should have with Marbury is that Justice John Marshall was the person who failed to deliver the commission that Marbury was suing Madison to deliver.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:19:27 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  Is the constitution a legal document? Is it a law?
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:19:28 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  > I mean what's the alternative theory to judicial review?
  
  In the actual Constitution? There's no judicial review mentioned. At all.
  
  > other than voting harder?
  
  That's pretty much it, until Marbury v. Madison and the Supremes decided they were it.
  
  There are all kinds of gaping holes in the Constitution, and while some of them have been filled by amendment, some of them are just ignored and others, like judicial review, are taken care of by judicial fiat.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:21:29 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  Let's me answer that...
  
  Yes.
  
  See Article VI
  
  This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:22:55 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  Does scotus have jurisdiction over cases at Law? Yes.
  
  Can it interpret law? Yes. That's what courts do. And scotus has the jurisdiction.
  
  Do I think you're pieces are there.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:24:48 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  The civil rights amendments and 17A fucked everything. It gave scotus power to review state law and for states to be sued in federal court. See 11Am.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ArdainianRight (ardainianright@detroitriotcity.com)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:24:49 JST ArdainianRight
  in reply to
  @Humpleupagus @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Red_Hat @Rose @WilhelmIII @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @FreeinTX @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf
  
  The real problem with judicial faggotry is that the Civil Rights Act was more or less an Enabling Act for the Jews, and so they can basically make up whatever they want if they can tie it in to "muh racism." Judicial Review as a way to strike down unambiguously anti-free speech legislation is a good thing.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:26:29 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  But the Constitution does NOT say that the courts have the power to declare laws void.
  
  The Constitution is a list of things that government may do. Everything else, per the 10th amendment, belongs to the states.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:26:29 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  If the constitution is Supreme and an inferior law is in violation, it can be stricken in the sense that it's unenforceable.
  
  What I don't think scotus has your authority to do is rewrite law. See Iowa gay marriage case.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:33:37 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  I think one problem is that people tend to elevate the judiciary into a higher position than it has. Scotus only pronounces, opines, or declares. There are a litany of social pressures upon it, including games played by congress, the executive, the states, and even the lower courts. What it can decide or get away with deciding is quite limited.
  
  I think our education system has lead people up believe otherwise by misinforming students about the Civil rights era.
  
  It's really the weakest of the branches.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:33:38 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  It says it is.
  
  > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  brokeassredneck (brokeassredneck@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:33:38 JST brokeassredneck
  in reply to
  @WilhelmIII @Humpleupagus @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Red_Hat @Rose @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @FreeinTX @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf the Bible , then the Constitution of the United States of America .. so it shall be
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:35:41 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  > If the constitution is Supreme and an inferior law is in violation, it can be stricken in the sense that it's unenforceable.
  
  That is not the debate.
  
  The debate is the mechanism by which the striking is done.
  
  Which is not in the Constitution.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:35:41 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  The mechanism is that scotus says... this law does not apply to these particular litigants before us (holding) and then says it's unconstitutional (dicta). Then people and states and judges can decide if they want to go against the dicta in light of stare decisis.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:39:36 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  Here's my sage advice though... don't go to court. Just do what you're going to do and never speak of it again. 😏
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Växẍ Säbbäth (vaxxsabbath@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:47:47 JST Växẍ Säbbäth
  in reply to
  @Humpleupagus @BattleDwarfGimli @KennyWhitePowers @Red_Hat @Rose @WilhelmIII @bobbala @feralphilosophernc @jb @lovelymiss @Escoffier @FreeinTX @Liquid_Boss @Spingebill @UnCL3 @dictatordave @graf "Stare decisis? That's really cool, like Latin and shit.
  Say, are those Level 4 plates?"
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 05:47:47 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  expressio unius est exclusio alterius. 🤷♂️
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 07:25:58 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  I suspect that a new Nullification Crisis is forthcoming.
  Only instead of passing something like the Compromise Tariff of 1833, FedGov will just shoot people.
  
  Because they have become that arrogant and drunk on power.
  
  Texas is already saying that the current changes to Title IX are going to be ignored in Texas. A number of states have passed laws saying that certain provisions of the NFA and GCA are not valid in-state.
  
  To date, FedGov has not forced the issue, but it's coming.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
  
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? likes this.
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 07:32:52 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  I think the fed will have an issue enforcing law if nullified. With today's political environment and communication systems, the mass violence necessary to enforce law against state nullification will not play well to the public, and I'm not convinced that modern media can spin it so it does.
  
  In reality, the system is a naked king. It really only holds together based on a gentleman's agreement, and otherwise, pure physical power. No branch or state is really "required" to follow any law in the big scheme. The founders understood this, but they also understood the power of myth, and the constitution and all the theorizing that surrounds it is just that. It's just a myth.
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. Untitled attachment
    https://eveningzoo.club/media/dcf618ececc497d7b320df51c926142482d8841081f253da490e5178224e55e5.png
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 07:37:09 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  BATFE and FBI have a history of bloody enforcement actions, so I expect the violent part will be around guns. Some suppressor manufacturer in Montana will get raided and people will die. Something like that.
  
  If the state where it happens charges the FLEAs with murder, then it gets interesting.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
  
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? likes this.
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 07:43:54 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  I'm thinking a state governor is held in contempt for violating a court order re immigration. They send in a Marshal to arrest him. The state police arrest tail the marshal and arrest him on some state charge, wash, rinse repeat.
  
  Stuff like this preceded the civil war.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 07:55:01 JST WilhelmIII
  in reply to
  Also plausible.
  
  History does rhyme.
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
  
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? likes this.
- Embed this notice
  ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 17:23:00 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??
  in reply to
  I'm an elephant, retard. 😒
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink
- Embed this notice
  Starprophet1 (starprophet1@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 03-May-2024 17:23:01 JST Starprophet1
  in reply to
  "Stare decisis"
  That's really cool, officer pig. Did you know that liquid spraying on you is acid?
  
  In conversation about 7 months ago permalink

Feeds