In response to:

Our Black-Robed Rulers

DagNabbit Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 11:26 PM
So Shapiro doesn't believe in judicial oversight, despite the fact that it's been codified since Marbury v Madison. So, Ben, what system do you propose? Pure democracy? Someone writes a bill stating "separate but equal", and if a majority approve, so be it? If the SC isn't the final arbiter of the Constitution, who is?
The Texas Eagle Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 11:32 PM
What if they got it wrong with Marbury v Madison? They have gotten it wrong before. Your own example of separate but equal proves the point.
The farce that is the Supreme Court of the United States has now taken up a new cause: same-sex marriage. To push that cause, the anti-Constitutional members of the Supreme Court prepared to declare that the federal government cannot define marriage for the purpose of federal benefits under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This is the same Supreme Court that declared last year that the federal government can force individuals to buy health insurance. To simplify, then: The federal government can't define how federal cash gets spent, but it can define how your cash gets spent.

There is no logical principle...