The Left Loses Ground...

[Luddly Neddite]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Its a foreign concept to her...biting off more than she can chew. The only threat is to her bedsprings and those in the lower floors of her tenement buildings.

Coming from some idiot who as a avatar of a person who cant seem to be able to buy her own birth control without help from the federal government

This is how the right works.

They keep telling the same lie until it becomes fact.

And the RWs never know they've been had.

Would this statement hold true for me? I voted Republican last time around. Not all of them watch FOX -- very few of them do.

I can't answer that question.

Yes, Fox told and retold that lie but, if I remember correctly, it was really Limbaugh that gave it legs and turned the lie into a fact.

 

[Bfgrn]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Branding The Youth Vote Social Justice US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, how is the full-court press by the Leftist fascists working out?

Everyone buckling?


Hardly.


6. ".... not a single major orthodox Christian denomination is reconsidering its stance on sexual revolution issues. While the media reports on the “progress” of the gay rights movement in mainline denominations—for example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) recently changed its definition of marriage to include same-sex unions—


...this movement is irrelevant to the much larger Evangelical and orthodox Catholic communities.




None of the large orthodox Protestant denominations are changing their stance on human sexuality. Neither is the Catholic Church. Neither are the various branches of Orthodoxy.


And these institutions collectively dwarf the liberal, mainline churches when it comes to churchgoing adherents."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

According to the Constitution, power originates from the people — individual citizens.

Let's remember that when judges throw out the votes of the people.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

PC-- calling democrats "leftist\fascists" does nothing to help pull in voters to help cut spending, lower taxes, create jobs, tame out of control government tyranny, etc. It does make people vote for guys that you hate.

Social issues are changing in favor of millennial type values; there is no going back to days of yore when women could not vote and drinking fountains were "white only."

Its a new world ... evolve.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC-- calling democrats "leftist\fascists" does nothing to help pull in voters to help cut spending, lower taxes, create jobs, tame out of control government tyranny, etc. It does make people vote for guys that you hate.

Social issues are changing in favor of millennial type values; there is no going back to days of yore when women could not vote and drinking fountains were "white only."

Its a new world ... evolve.

It's a curse!

I'm compelled to speak only the truth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, how is the full-court press by the Leftist fascists working out?

Everyone buckling?


Hardly.


6. ".... not a single major orthodox Christian denomination is reconsidering its stance on sexual revolution issues. While the media reports on the “progress” of the gay rights movement in mainline denominations—for example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) recently changed its definition of marriage to include same-sex unions—


...this movement is irrelevant to the much larger Evangelical and orthodox Catholic communities.




None of the large orthodox Protestant denominations are changing their stance on human sexuality. Neither is the Catholic Church. Neither are the various branches of Orthodoxy.


And these institutions collectively dwarf the liberal, mainline churches when it comes to churchgoing adherents."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

According to the Constitution, power originates from the people — individual citizens.

Let's remember that when judges throw out the votes of the people.

So more instead of fewer Christian denominations giving their blessing to same sex marriage represents a victory for the anti-gay marriage bigots?

lol, where did you learn math.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Most of them had it forced onto them on the by a judge. Even your California rejected same sex marriage you're a moron

Like judges that overturn unconstitutional gun laws? Those judges?

If you are suggesting that the corrupters in black robes don't obviate the will of the people with metronomic regularity, well...

...let's count that as your first lie of the day, NYLIar.

So you object to anti-miscegenation laws being ruled unconstitutional?

Amazing.

Beginning with the word 'So' implies that what follows is the logical conclusion of what has come before.

It is really a third graders technique.

And you are.


Let's remember that all the iterations of Jim Crow were examples of Democrat big government in action.

Oh for fuck's sake here we go again.

Southern Democrats were conservatives. Like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you trying to tell us that judges should not have the power to overturn gun laws that are found to violate the 2nd amendment?

every anti-gun law is a violation of the Second Amdt.

But without a Court with the power to rule such laws unconstitutional they would stay on the books.

The fallacy is the suggestion that Liberal judges actually refer to the Constitution.
They don't.
Like you.....they lie.

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’
      "Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate," by Steven G. Calabresi and Antonin Scalia

What does that have to do with your claim that the Supreme Court should not have the power to overturn gun control laws?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, how is the full-court press by the Leftist fascists working out?

Everyone buckling?


Hardly.


6. ".... not a single major orthodox Christian denomination is reconsidering its stance on sexual revolution issues. While the media reports on the “progress” of the gay rights movement in mainline denominations—for example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) recently changed its definition of marriage to include same-sex unions—


...this movement is irrelevant to the much larger Evangelical and orthodox Catholic communities.




None of the large orthodox Protestant denominations are changing their stance on human sexuality. Neither is the Catholic Church. Neither are the various branches of Orthodoxy.


And these institutions collectively dwarf the liberal, mainline churches when it comes to churchgoing adherents."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

According to the Constitution, power originates from the people — individual citizens.

Let's remember that when judges throw out the votes of the people.

So more instead of fewer Christian denominations giving their blessing to same sex marriage represents a victory for the anti-gay marriage bigots?

lol, where did you learn math.

It's the numbers that concern you?
Swell.

Let's move on to evidence that large numbers of people have had just about enough of the Left's carping and bullying......



7. " Browbeating Christians into submission is not a new tactic, and it is a tactic that has largely failed in the abortion arena—despite the existence of legal doctrines that are dramatically skewed against the pro-life movement. Yet the pro-life movement is as strong as it has ever been, and political outcomes are finally starting to reflect that strength,...

[And a President who supported infanticide!]



...the religious liberty movement is showing increasing, not decreasing cultural strength. While it is easy to grow discouraged in the face of events like Brendan Eich’s departure from Mozilla, the wave of threats directed at vendors like Memories Pizza, Republican politicians’ continued timidity on “culture war” issues, and the climate of intolerance that exists on campuses and in the mainstream media, the Left’s prominent failures are starting to outnumber its recent successes.



§ Cultural conservatives answered the Left’s attempted Chick-fil-A boycott with a “buycott” that swamped stores nationwide, even causing some to run out of food for customers eager to show their support for a beloved restaurant, owned by people who share their moral principles.



§ Leftist pressure against Hobby Lobby failed. Customers were either supportive of the owners or indifferent to politics, and boycotts had no effect on Hobby Lobby’s bottom line or its willingness to fight. Not only did Hobby Lobby win its Supreme Court case, its owners are set to open a massive new Museum of the Bible near the National Mall.



§ Efforts to drive Phil Robertson—of Duck Dynasty fame—off the air after controversial comments on sexual morality failed, giving cultural conservatives a victory in a medium (cable television) seen as almost uniformly hostile to orthodox Christianity. While Robertson has remained a polarizing figure (and often says things that make many of his supporters uncomfortable), there has been no serious repeat effort to remove him from the air.



§ In Houston, leftist government officials were forced to backtrack within days after issuing subpoenas requiring area pastors to turn over the contents of their sermons and other communications. The public outcry was so swift and so great that the city capitulated even before a judge could rule on motions to quash.



Even in Indiana, as Republican politicians quickly caved to corporate and media pressure, the grassroots response in support of Memories Pizza soon swamped the Left. A GoFundMe account set up to support the owners raised more than $800,000 in small donations in a matter of days (including over $200,000 in one day), putting the pizza restaurant in a far superior financial position than it had enjoyed before the controversy. The message was clear: Cultural conservatives are not, in fact, culturally isolated but rather have the support of millions of Americans who oppose leftist bullying." Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles




Those brown shirts are becoming a bit worn at the elbows, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most of them had it forced onto them on the by a judge. Even your California rejected same sex marriage you're a moron

Like judges that overturn unconstitutional gun laws? Those judges?

If you are suggesting that the corrupters in black robes don't obviate the will of the people with metronomic regularity, well...

...let's count that as your first lie of the day, NYLIar.

So you object to anti-miscegenation laws being ruled unconstitutional?

Amazing.

Beginning with the word 'So' implies that what follows is the logical conclusion of what has come before.

It is really a third graders technique.

And you are.


Let's remember that all the iterations of Jim Crow were examples of Democrat big government in action.

Oh for fuck's sake here we go again.

Southern Democrats were conservatives. Like you.

That's your standard boilerplate lie, NYLiar.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's another canard they fall back on, until the judiciary does something they like.

Canard means 'unfounded.'

But you just admitted it has happened and will again.

Try not to pretend you SAT score has more than two digits.

The canard is,

judicial review is an illegimate exercise by the courts. Rightwingers use that all the time, when they don't like court rulings.

Of course it's illegitimate.

"It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge.
Beyond the Constitution and the laws in our society, there simply is no basis other than the individual conscience of the citizen that may serve as a platform for the launching of moral judgments."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

lol, so Rehnquist, who spent how many years on the Court, engaging in judicial review, did not believe that judicial review was a legitimate exercise?

Whoa, you just won crazy post of the week.

Some people get sick with their own power which is why we need a check on the court

A post that has nothing to do with PC's insane claim that judicial review is illegitimate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, how is the full-court press by the Leftist fascists working out?

Everyone buckling?


Hardly.


6. ".... not a single major orthodox Christian denomination is reconsidering its stance on sexual revolution issues. While the media reports on the “progress” of the gay rights movement in mainline denominations—for example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) recently changed its definition of marriage to include same-sex unions—


...this movement is irrelevant to the much larger Evangelical and orthodox Catholic communities.




None of the large orthodox Protestant denominations are changing their stance on human sexuality. Neither is the Catholic Church. Neither are the various branches of Orthodoxy.


And these institutions collectively dwarf the liberal, mainline churches when it comes to churchgoing adherents."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

According to the Constitution, power originates from the people — individual citizens.

Let's remember that when judges throw out the votes of the people.

So more instead of fewer Christian denominations giving their blessing to same sex marriage represents a victory for the anti-gay marriage bigots?

lol, where did you learn math.

It's the numbers that concern you?
Swell.

Let's move on to evidence that large numbers of people have had just about enough of the Left's carping and bullying......



7. " Browbeating Christians into submission is not a new tactic, and it is a tactic that has largely failed in the abortion arena—despite the existence of legal doctrines that are dramatically skewed against the pro-life movement. Yet the pro-life movement is as strong as it has ever been, and political outcomes are finally starting to reflect that strength,...

[And a President who supported infanticide!]



...the religious liberty movement is showing increasing, not decreasing cultural strength. While it is easy to grow discouraged in the face of events like Brendan Eich’s departure from Mozilla, the wave of threats directed at vendors like Memories Pizza, Republican politicians’ continued timidity on “culture war” issues, and the climate of intolerance that exists on campuses and in the mainstream media, the Left’s prominent failures are starting to outnumber its recent successes.



§ Cultural conservatives answered the Left’s attempted Chick-fil-A boycott with a “buycott” that swamped stores nationwide, even causing some to run out of food for customers eager to show their support for a beloved restaurant, owned by people who share their moral principles.



§ Leftist pressure against Hobby Lobby failed. Customers were either supportive of the owners or indifferent to politics, and boycotts had no effect on Hobby Lobby’s bottom line or its willingness to fight. Not only did Hobby Lobby win its Supreme Court case, its owners are set to open a massive new Museum of the Bible near the National Mall.



§ Efforts to drive Phil Robertson—of Duck Dynasty fame—off the air after controversial comments on sexual morality failed, giving cultural conservatives a victory in a medium (cable television) seen as almost uniformly hostile to orthodox Christianity. While Robertson has remained a polarizing figure (and often says things that make many of his supporters uncomfortable), there has been no serious repeat effort to remove him from the air.



§ In Houston, leftist government officials were forced to backtrack within days after issuing subpoenas requiring area pastors to turn over the contents of their sermons and other communications. The public outcry was so swift and so great that the city capitulated even before a judge could rule on motions to quash.



Even in Indiana, as Republican politicians quickly caved to corporate and media pressure, the grassroots response in support of Memories Pizza soon swamped the Left. A GoFundMe account set up to support the owners raised more than $800,000 in small donations in a matter of days (including over $200,000 in one day), putting the pizza restaurant in a far superior financial position than it had enjoyed before the controversy. The message was clear: Cultural conservatives are not, in fact, culturally isolated but rather have the support of millions of Americans who oppose leftist bullying." Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles




Those brown shirts are becoming a bit worn at the elbows, huh?

The 4th largest 'Christian' church is the Mormon hocus pocus.

I take it you believe that judicial bullying is what caused them to rewrite God's word and get rid of polygamy?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Canard means 'unfounded.'

But you just admitted it has happened and will again.

Try not to pretend you SAT score has more than two digits.

The canard is,

judicial review is an illegimate exercise by the courts. Rightwingers use that all the time, when they don't like court rulings.

Of course it's illegitimate.

"It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge.
Beyond the Constitution and the laws in our society, there simply is no basis other than the individual conscience of the citizen that may serve as a platform for the launching of moral judgments."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

lol, so Rehnquist, who spent how many years on the Court, engaging in judicial review, did not believe that judicial review was a legitimate exercise?

Whoa, you just won crazy post of the week.

Some people get sick with their own power which is why we need a check on the court

A post that has nothing to do with PC's insane claim that judicial review is illegitimate.

Be accurate, Liar.....judicial review is illegitimate unless it is specifically tied to the actual language of 'law of the land,' the United States Constitution.

In that case, not only permissible....but required.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Like judges that overturn unconstitutional gun laws? Those judges?

If you are suggesting that the corrupters in black robes don't obviate the will of the people with metronomic regularity, well...

...let's count that as your first lie of the day, NYLIar.

So you object to anti-miscegenation laws being ruled unconstitutional?

Amazing.

Beginning with the word 'So' implies that what follows is the logical conclusion of what has come before.

It is really a third graders technique.

And you are.


Let's remember that all the iterations of Jim Crow were examples of Democrat big government in action.

Oh for fuck's sake here we go again.

Southern Democrats were conservatives. Like you.

That's your standard boilerplate lie, NYLiar.

They were liberals? Then what were the northern Democrats?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The canard is,

judicial review is an illegimate exercise by the courts. Rightwingers use that all the time, when they don't like court rulings.

Of course it's illegitimate.

"It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge.
Beyond the Constitution and the laws in our society, there simply is no basis other than the individual conscience of the citizen that may serve as a platform for the launching of moral judgments."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

lol, so Rehnquist, who spent how many years on the Court, engaging in judicial review, did not believe that judicial review was a legitimate exercise?

Whoa, you just won crazy post of the week.

Some people get sick with their own power which is why we need a check on the court

A post that has nothing to do with PC's insane claim that judicial review is illegitimate.

Be accurate, Liar.....judicial review is illegitimate unless it is specifically tied to the actual language of 'law of the land,' the United States Constitution.

In that case, not only permissible....but required.

That is meaningless. There is no statute or enforcement mechanism validating what you just typed.

But good work beginning your retreat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The canard is,

judicial review is an illegimate exercise by the courts. Rightwingers use that all the time, when they don't like court rulings.

Of course it's illegitimate.

"It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge.
Beyond the Constitution and the laws in our society, there simply is no basis other than the individual conscience of the citizen that may serve as a platform for the launching of moral judgments."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

lol, so Rehnquist, who spent how many years on the Court, engaging in judicial review, did not believe that judicial review was a legitimate exercise?

Whoa, you just won crazy post of the week.

Some people get sick with their own power which is why we need a check on the court

A post that has nothing to do with PC's insane claim that judicial review is illegitimate.

Be accurate, Liar.....judicial review is illegitimate unless it is specifically tied to the actual language of 'law of the land,' the United States Constitution.

In that case, not only permissible....but required.

If a judicial action is what you call impermissible, what is the enforcement ? Who reverses an 'impermissible' decision based on judicial review?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course it's illegitimate.

"It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge.
Beyond the Constitution and the laws in our society, there simply is no basis other than the individual conscience of the citizen that may serve as a platform for the launching of moral judgments."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

lol, so Rehnquist, who spent how many years on the Court, engaging in judicial review, did not believe that judicial review was a legitimate exercise?

Whoa, you just won crazy post of the week.

Some people get sick with their own power which is why we need a check on the court

A post that has nothing to do with PC's insane claim that judicial review is illegitimate.

Be accurate, Liar.....judicial review is illegitimate unless it is specifically tied to the actual language of 'law of the land,' the United States Constitution.

In that case, not only permissible....but required.

That is meaningless. There is no statute or enforcement mechanism validating what you just typed.

But good work beginning your retreat.

The lies are coming quicker...


,....means I make you nervous.


It's called 'ethics'....an unknown quality to Liberals.


Your lie seems "instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light."
Rehnquist, Op. Cit.


Get that?
"...the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted..."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course it's illegitimate.

"It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge.
Beyond the Constitution and the laws in our society, there simply is no basis other than the individual conscience of the citizen that may serve as a platform for the launching of moral judgments."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

lol, so Rehnquist, who spent how many years on the Court, engaging in judicial review, did not believe that judicial review was a legitimate exercise?

Whoa, you just won crazy post of the week.

Some people get sick with their own power which is why we need a check on the court

A post that has nothing to do with PC's insane claim that judicial review is illegitimate.

Be accurate, Liar.....judicial review is illegitimate unless it is specifically tied to the actual language of 'law of the land,' the United States Constitution.

In that case, not only permissible....but required.

If a judicial action is what you call impermissible, what is the enforcement ? Who reverses an 'impermissible' decision based on judicial review?

Question answered in Charles Murray's latest book, "By The People"

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, so Rehnquist, who spent how many years on the Court, engaging in judicial review, did not believe that judicial review was a legitimate exercise?

Whoa, you just won crazy post of the week.

Some people get sick with their own power which is why we need a check on the court

A post that has nothing to do with PC's insane claim that judicial review is illegitimate.

Be accurate, Liar.....judicial review is illegitimate unless it is specifically tied to the actual language of 'law of the land,' the United States Constitution.

In that case, not only permissible....but required.

That is meaningless. There is no statute or enforcement mechanism validating what you just typed.

But good work beginning your retreat.

The lies are coming quicker...


,....means I make you nervous.


It's called 'ethics'....an unknown quality to Liberals.


Your lie seems "instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light."
Rehnquist, Op. Cit.


Get that?
"...the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted..."

Your quote says it's 'somehow' tied. That's meaningless.

The Court has the power of judicial review. Period.

You were wrong. Get over it.