The Left Loses Ground...

[Lumpy 1]

Nothin' comin' to mind there, Gilligan?

YA see, THAT is what I meant when I noted that you're a LIAR!

Now... do ya see how easy that was?

(Reader, Gilligan is presently pouring over Google in desperate search for how many Catholics use contraception. Which > IF < it came back with the names and addresses, with accompanying photos of every single Catholic in Catholic History buying contraception, that would not change the fact that it lied when it advised you that most catholics disregard the rules of their church. And what's more, that it is presently groping its way through google, proves that it KNOWS that it was lying when it advised you that something that it did NOT KNOW TO BE TRUTH, was truth. OKA: A LIE)

Hey pea brain, why don't you save yourself the embarrassment of showing everyone how stupid you are? All you have to is READ the thread.

Post # 100


Majority of U.S. Catholics’ opinions run counter to church on contraception, homosexuality

Pope Francis already has made headlines for several reasons in his six months as pontiff, but an interview that became public Thursday may contain some of his most attention-grabbing comments.

The pope said that the Roman Catholic church cannot be “obsessed” with imposing certain doctrines and that he wants to “find a new balance.” Although he did not directly mention abortion, gay marriage and contraception in that immediate context, he had referred specifically to those three issues earlier.

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible,” Francis told Antonio Spadaro, editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal.

The church teaches that abortion, artificial contraception and homosexual activity are wrong. However, majorities of American Catholics have opinions on contraception and homosexuality that run counter to church doctrine.

A Pew Research poll conducted in March, just after Francis’ election, found that three-quarters of U.S. Catholics (76%) say the church should permit birth control. About half (54%) of U.S. Catholics favor same-sex marriage, according to aggregated Pew Research data from this year, and just a third (33%) say homosexual behavior is a sin, according to a May survey.

He's playing the RWnut game of pretending that polls aren't evidence.

And dum-dum gets his ass handed to him. Again.
Polls are evidence of what pollsters want them to be. Let me word the question and I'll get you the results you want.

Okay then, how would you properly word a poll question on the topic of Catholics and birth control?

I'd label it who cares.

What does that really have to do with you anyway? .. unless

The death of Catholicism is a victory for your perspective?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Most states didnt pass laws legalizing SSM, dum-dum. It was forced on them by activiist homosexual judges.

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

 

[PoliticalChic]

...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...

So I'm not going to address the fact that no such war exists, and I'm not going to address that many members of the American left are Christian and that many Christians support gay rights.

Let's instead say you are completely correct that there's a war between the secular left against religion, especially Christianity. In that case, you picked an absolutely terrible time to claim that the left is losing while Christianity is winning. The most recent Pew study on religion showed a continuing decline in the fraction of Americans who self-identify as Christian. The actual study can be found here. The study showed that in percentage of total population every major Christian group is down over the last few years, and that for most of them, the absolute numbers are also down. Meanwhile, the percentages identifying as either no religion, atheist or agnostic, have all gone up and continue to increase. There's a decent argument that the level of decline of Christianity is being overstated in the popular press but even those making that argument acknowledge a real decline.

Bottom line: if there is any such war, the side that is losing is Christianity.

The reason that the Pew study was created was exactly because the culture war is losing steam.
It is there to convince you that the Left is winning.

If it was.....why would judges be needed to keep changing what voters choose?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nothin' comin' to mind there, Gilligan?

YA see, THAT is what I meant when I noted that you're a LIAR!

Now... do ya see how easy that was?

(Reader, Gilligan is presently pouring over Google in desperate search for how many Catholics use contraception. Which > IF < it came back with the names and addresses, with accompanying photos of every single Catholic in Catholic History buying contraception, that would not change the fact that it lied when it advised you that most catholics disregard the rules of their church. And what's more, that it is presently groping its way through google, proves that it KNOWS that it was lying when it advised you that something that it did NOT KNOW TO BE TRUTH, was truth. OKA: A LIE)

Hey pea brain, why don't you save yourself the embarrassment of showing everyone how stupid you are? All you have to is READ the thread.

Post # 100


Majority of U.S. Catholics’ opinions run counter to church on contraception, homosexuality

Pope Francis already has made headlines for several reasons in his six months as pontiff, but an interview that became public Thursday may contain some of his most attention-grabbing comments.

The pope said that the Roman Catholic church cannot be “obsessed” with imposing certain doctrines and that he wants to “find a new balance.” Although he did not directly mention abortion, gay marriage and contraception in that immediate context, he had referred specifically to those three issues earlier.

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible,” Francis told Antonio Spadaro, editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal.

The church teaches that abortion, artificial contraception and homosexual activity are wrong. However, majorities of American Catholics have opinions on contraception and homosexuality that run counter to church doctrine.

A Pew Research poll conducted in March, just after Francis’ election, found that three-quarters of U.S. Catholics (76%) say the church should permit birth control. About half (54%) of U.S. Catholics favor same-sex marriage, according to aggregated Pew Research data from this year, and just a third (33%) say homosexual behavior is a sin, according to a May survey.

He's playing the RWnut game of pretending that polls aren't evidence.

And dum-dum gets his ass handed to him. Again.
Polls are evidence of what pollsters want them to be. Let me word the question and I'll get you the results you want.

Okay then, how would you properly word a poll question on the topic of Catholics and birth control?

I'd label it who cares.

What does that really have to do with you anyway? .. unless

The death of Catholicism a victory for your perspective?

You haven't followed the conversation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...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...

So I'm not going to address the fact that no such war exists, and I'm not going to address that many members of the American left are Christian and that many Christians support gay rights.

Let's instead say you are completely correct that there's a war between the secular left against religion, especially Christianity. In that case, you picked an absolutely terrible time to claim that the left is losing while Christianity is winning. The most recent Pew study on religion showed a continuing decline in the fraction of Americans who self-identify as Christian. The actual study can be found here. The study showed that in percentage of total population every major Christian group is down over the last few years, and that for most of them, the absolute numbers are also down. Meanwhile, the percentages identifying as either no religion, atheist or agnostic, have all gone up and continue to increase. There's a decent argument that the level of decline of Christianity is being overstated in the popular press but even those making that argument acknowledge a real decline.

Bottom line: if there is any such war, the side that is losing is Christianity.

The reason that the Pew study was created was exactly because the culture was is losing steam.

lol, more alphabet soup.

 

[Kondor3]

...So, as I pointed out, it must then be significant that most Catholics vote Democrat in presidential elections.

Large numbers do.

Large numbers don't.

And large numbers oscillate between the two poles, depending upon the era, and the players, and the circumstances.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most states didnt pass laws legalizing SSM, dum-dum. It was forced on them by activiist homosexual judges.

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Most states didnt pass laws legalizing SSM, dum-dum. It was forced on them by activiist homosexual judges.

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

You don't understand the Constitution.

Name something the Supreme Court did to change the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...So, as I pointed out, it must then be significant that most Catholics vote Democrat in presidential elections.

Large numbers do.

Large numbers don't.

And large numbers oscillate between the two poles, depending upon the era, and the players, and the circumstances.

Catholics have voted majority or plurality for the Democratic candidate for president every election since 1988.

Why?

 

[The Rabbi]

Most states didnt pass laws legalizing SSM, dum-dum. It was forced on them by activiist homosexual judges.

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

You don't understand the Constitution.

Name something the Supreme Court did to change the Constitution.

You're kidding, right dum-dum?
Judicial Review
Right of abortion
Right to privacy
Miranda
etc

 

[The Rabbi]

...So, as I pointed out, it must then be significant that most Catholics vote Democrat in presidential elections.

Large numbers do.

Large numbers don't.

And large numbers oscillate between the two poles, depending upon the era, and the players, and the circumstances.

Catholics have voted majority or plurality for the Democratic candidate for president every election since 1988.

Why?

Because most Catholics live in the northeast where Dem politics abound. Watch for that to change in the next election. Much as most Jews vote Democrat and that will change in the next election.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

And I know you've lost because you are putting words un my mouth, dum-dum.
Stick to the topic. You are simply wrong. And look stupid doing it.

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Of course you are correct.

The arbiters of justice stole justice.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation.


1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792,Virginia had refused to respond to the Courtat all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia)(Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.

2. But, in 1793,the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state(Chisholm v. Georgia).



a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism



3. The 11th amendmentexplicitly denies the federal courts jurisdictionover lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was tolimit federal courtsto the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman



4. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

You don't understand the Constitution.

Name something the Supreme Court did to change the Constitution.

You're kidding, right dum-dum?
Judicial Review
Right of abortion
Right to privacy
Miranda
etc

You've already agreed that judicial review is legitimate. You and PC are flipflopping every other post.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

Which part of the Constitution protects privacy, dum-dum?

 

[The Rabbi]

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

You don't understand the Constitution.

Name something the Supreme Court did to change the Constitution.

You're kidding, right dum-dum?
Judicial Review
Right of abortion
Right to privacy
Miranda
etc

You've already agreed that judicial review is legitimate. You and PC are flipflopping every other post.

You dont understand the difference between legitimate and something not in the Constitution, do you, dum-dum?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

And I know you've lost because you are putting words un my mouth, dum-dum.
Stick to the topic. You are simply wrong. And look stupid doing it.

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Of course you are correct.

The arbiters of justice stole justice.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation.


1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792,Virginia had refused to respond to the Courtat all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia)(Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.

2. But, in 1793,the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state(Chisholm v. Georgia).



a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism



3. The 11th amendmentexplicitly denies the federal courts jurisdictionover lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was tolimit federal courtsto the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman



4. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.

So now you're back to claiming that judicial review is illegal?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

Stop lying.

What courts don't have is the right to change the Constitution, or to make up things that aren't in it.

And that's what Liberals do.

And who decides whether or not a court has 'changed' the Constitution?

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

Which part of the Constitution protects privacy, dum-dum?

Oh please. You really think the government can come into your house any time it pleases?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're an idiot, dum dum.
How do you go about repealing case law? Yeah, ponder that for a while.
You might be the stupidest poster on this site. And that includes Billy Triple Zip.

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

And I know you've lost because you are putting words un my mouth, dum-dum.
Stick to the topic. You are simply wrong. And look stupid doing it.

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Don't ask me questions until you've answered mine.

And while you're at it, prove that all the judges who upheld same sex marriage were homosexuals.

I'll wait.

"California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld: Court Won't Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay"
California Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Upheld Court Won t Overturn Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Was Gay

 

[The Rabbi]

So you're another one who thinks courts don't have the power of judicial review. Goddam you're as retarded as PoliticalChic.

And I know you've lost because you are putting words un my mouth, dum-dum.
Stick to the topic. You are simply wrong. And look stupid doing it.

I'll use your own words then:

"Judicial review is not part of the constittuion and is a power the Court dreamed up in Marbury."

Happy now? Need a link to you saying that?

lol

Are you disputing that fact? Please show me where judicial review is mentioned in the COnstitution? I want to see you double down on stupid.

Of course you are correct.

The arbiters of justice stole justice.
The courts have taken for themselves what did not belong to them: they pillaged the Constitution and the nation.


1. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792,Virginia had refused to respond to the Courtat all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia)(Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.

2. But, in 1793,the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state(Chisholm v. Georgia).



a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism



3. The 11th amendmentexplicitly denies the federal courts jurisdictionover lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was tolimit federal courtsto the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman



4. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power.Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.

So now you're back to claiming that judicial review is illegal?

lol

Please try to follow the conversation, dum-dum.