Let's make miscarriages illegal.

[Thorn]

Well there is a new SCOTUS trial in progress, not related to this, but will have far reaching reprecussions. "Are politicians that are out of office immune from prosecution from wrongdoing?" - essential a torture case (note torture not tort lol).

[Darius871]

Someone doesn't understand the history of the common law.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. It may well be his recognition that higher authorities came to regularly supplant the common law with statutes, administrative regulations, and constitutions, leaving only whatever snippets of the common law did not directly conflict. More likely he was correct by accident, however.

[Thorn]

So Darius god regularly made statues lol?

[Darius871]

You're 100% cool with this? Nine people that none of us voted for, nine people who have lifelong terms, nine people who aren't even held to the same ethical standards as other federal judges, are the people that you trust with defending the Constitution?

Just out of curiosity, what specific alternative would you recommend? Vague fluff like "the democratic process" just doesn't cut it once you get down to the day-to-day practicalities of the administration of present litigations. Suppose that tomorrow an elected majority of the Maryland legislature passes the exact same handgun ban Chicago had before McDonald, with the sole exception of adding that anyone who can hit a dime-sized bullseye at 50 yards is exempt. Then you, missing by an inch, file suit to enjoin enforcement of this obvious violation of the Second Amendment. Are you seriously proposing that the Court should dismiss, saying "unconstitutional or not, we're just unelected civil servants with no constitutional authority (or even jurisdiction for that matter) to invalidate any legislation enacted by elected representatives, so this should be left up to the 'democratic process'"? The very same democratic process that went ahead and violated the Constitution in the first place? If so, do you propose that you then wait around several years for an election cycle with which to maybe - just maybe - convince enough of your fellow constituents to throw out their representatives on a single issue when there are plenty of other issues out there that they may consider more important? How many single-issue voters do you know?

And when the voters do inevitably prioritize issues X, Y, and Z over some mundane constitutional violation they don't care about and that advocates failed to get them to care about, what should happen then? Leave it be, and let the voters languish under the violation they tolerated? Or should some other non-judicial entity - like the military, police, or other executive authorities - step in and force the local firearms authorities back into compliance? Because we all know how well sort of thing's worked in Latin America and elsewhere...

Repeat the same scenario with the gazniznillion different ways in which any two laws may come to conflict, and it may make more sense why an enormous appellate court system with the ability to subordinate one law to another may be an unfortunate necessity in a society as infinitely complex as ours. It's not that voters aren't to be "trusted" because they're "too stupid," but rather that there is too much numerosity of issues relevant to a voter's choice for a mere constitutional violation here or there to be outcome-determinative. Plenty of voters would be willing to forego remedying this or that constitutional violation if they afford the economy, the budget, health care, foreign policy, etc. etc. etc. a higher priority, assuming that they're even aware of the constitutional violation, which itself is rarely a given. Elections are a "big picture" game at best or a popularity contest at worst, but in either case not a place to pedantically pick apart what literally are thousands of arguable conflicts between laws that occur on a daily basis.


[P.S. If your answer is that the 14th Amendment's incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states is sufficient authority for the Court to act in this scenario, then A) **** that noise, it's still the very unelected "judicial review" you dislike, and B) in any event, you can feel free to replace "Maryland legislature" with Congress, "Chicago" with "D.C.," "McDonald" with "Heller," and "local firearms authorities" with "the ATF," as the issue would remain the same.]

[Darius871]

So Darius god regularly made statues lol?

No, just authorities with much more say over the monopoly on the use of force than the wittle bitty judges did, namely monarchs, legislatures, administrative agencies, and constitutional conventions. Whoever's got the guns, or whoever the guys with the guns tend to listen to. That's all that law is, after all.

[Thorn]

So Darius god regularly made statues lol?

reference about "It may well be his recognition that higher authorities came to regularly supplant the common law with statutes..."

[Darius871]

I gathered that; I'm saying whoever's got the monopoly on the use of force (or whose commands are followed by those with the monopoly on the use of force) is the higher authority. Hell, the highest authority even.

[Thorn]

Darius you are making it too easy.

Hell, the highest authority.

thank you Satan.

[Wezil]

Accidental humor.

[Darius871]

Darius you are making it too easy. thank you Satan.

Heck, I think God would win in the force department if you want to go that far. Unless he's like a yin to his yang or something.

[Thorn]

Sorry i'm in a teasing mood today, you can beat me later (So long as you don't enjoy it)

[Wezil]

Heck, I think God would win in the force department if you want to go that far. Unless he's like a yin to his yang or something.

Really? I think Satan is a cinch for the rematch.

[Thorn]

Unless he's like a yin to his yang or something.

Is that what they call that these days, in church? ie: my yang is big too!

LMAO, ok i stop.

[Darius871]

Really? I think Satan is a cinch for the rematch.

So I thought until I was vacationing in Patmos when this crazy old man calling himself the "first and the last" hopped out of a DeLorean with this book saying the Angels will eke by in the bottom of the 9th. I've already got three large down with this guy I know.

[Wezil]

Can't argue with that.