The power of the Supreme Court in the states

[rupol2000]

In the US, local courts are not subordinate to the High Court. How, then, could the Supreme Court overturn state rulings on same-sex marriage?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Article 6 section 2 of the Constitution. Any state law that conflicts with federal law is unconstitutional...

 

[rupol2000]

Article 6 section 2 of the Constitution. Any state law that conflict with federal law is unconstitutional...

But does this apply to judicial precedents?

In any case, if state courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court, their decisions cannot be challenged in the Supreme Court, this is nonsense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the US, local courts are not subordinate to the High Court. How, then, could the Supreme Court overturn state rulings on same-sex marriage?

Democrats and their media will lie as they did in Russia Collusion, to claim that the abortion decision will lead to the overturning of the gay marriage decision and the right to birth control.

These claims represent Rule #1 Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.




9. The abortion ruling was based on the 10th amendment, it is the prerogative of the states to decide, not the federal government.

Gay marriage decision was based on an entirely different portion of the Constitution: the 14th amendment, the equal rights provision.




The Democrats will claim that the court will disallow birth control as decided in Griswold...

The Griswold Decision on allowing birth control….
Connecticut (1965) In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Supreme Court invalidated a Connecticut law that made it a crime to use birth control devices or to advise anyone about their use.
Griswold v. Connecticut | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
https://www.mtsu.edu › first-amendment › article › griswo...



…..it was based on states overstepping their authority: the states had no compelling government interest in deciding whether folks had a right to birth control.

The abortion decision would not lead to disallowing gay marriage or birth control by citizens.

But does this apply to judicial precedents?

In any case, if state courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court, their decisions cannot be challenged in the Supreme Court, this is nonsense.

Of course they are subordinate to the Constitution.


The Constitution is known as ‘the law of the land.’

The U.S. Constitution calls itself the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.

The Constitution as Supreme Law

http://www.let.rug.nl › usa › outlines › government-1991




The fact is that the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.



Wherein we find this:
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

​

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

supreme.justia.com



But....this occurred: courts altered voting rules.
“In Pennsylvania, the question was whether the state’s Supreme Court could override voting rules set by the state legislature. In North Carolina, the question was whether state election officials had the power to alter such voting rules.”
NYTimes

Sooo.....no, the election was not correctly decided, and we don't actually know who won the election.





Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law

 

[rupol2000]

Of course they are subordinate to the Constitution.


The Constitution is known as ‘the law of the land.’

The U.S. Constitution calls itself the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.

But the Supreme Court cannot challenge the decisions of the state courts, because they are not subject to them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But the Supreme Court cannot challenge the decisions of the state courts, because they are not subject to them.

A bald-faced lie.

Can't you read:
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law


What do you suppose "ratification" meant?

 

[PoliticalChic]

But the Supreme Court cannot challenge the decisions of the state courts, because they are not subject to them.

The fact is that the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.







Wherein we find this:
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”



A number of Democrat states allowed

it state governors,







election officials,







attorneys general,







state courts,







state constitutions,







sec’ys of state,







election commission......





to alter “time, place, and manner” of elections.



None of those was constitutional.

 

[rupol2000]

A bald-faced lie.

Can't you read:
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law


What do you suppose "ratification" meant?

It is about codified laws, not precedents.

 

[rupol2000]

The fact is that the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.

courts must look to precedent and law, but their decisions are not challenged by the High Court. They are their own superior authority and there is no one higher than them.

 

[rupol2000]

Similarly, the US police are not subordinate to the feds.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is about codified laws, not precedents.

Have you ever heard of the Constitution?????


When you get to America, pick up a copy.


Try to stick to subjects you know something about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

courts must look to precedent and law, but their decisions are not challenged by the High Court. They are their own superior authority and there is no one higher than them.

No they don't, you dunce.


The one and only job is to match the questions before them with the US Constitution.



"[Liberal judicial activism] 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.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely

there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal

government, and there is even less justification for a federal

legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws

enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[PoliticalChic]

courts must look to precedent and law, but their decisions are not challenged by the High Court. They are their own superior authority and there is no one higher than them.

"Precedent" is meaningless.




The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴



The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵

4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions




The Library of Congress tracks the historic list of overruled Supreme Court cases in its report, The Constitution Annotated. As of 2020, the court had overruled its own precedents in an estimated 232 cases since 1810, says the library.May 3, 2022
A short list of overturned Supreme Court landmark decisions
https://constitutioncenter.org › blog › a-short-list-of-overt..





List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_overruled_Uni...
As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases. ... The longest period between the original decision and the overruling decision is ...
‎Constitutional · ‎Article One · ‎Statutory · ‎Habeas

 

[PoliticalChic]

courts must look to precedent and law, but their decisions are not challenged by the High Court. They are their own superior authority and there is no one higher than them.

How many times a day do perfect strangers point and tell you you are an imbecile?????

 

[rupol2000]

Have you ever heard of the Constitution?????

According to my information, state courts are independent of the federal court. I read it in the legal literature.

My understanding is that the Supreme Court can only challenge federal law.

 

[rupol2000]

"Precedent" is meaningless.

In the United States case law

 

[PoliticalChic]

According to my information, state courts are independent of the federal court. I read it in the legal literature.

My understanding is that the Supreme Court can only challenge federal law.

You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be more wrong.

Let me guess....you're a government school grad..


Have you ever read a book????


Book:
a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.




Did you notice that everything I posted is linked, sources and documented?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

According to my information, state courts are independent of the federal court. I read it in the legal literature.

My understanding is that the Supreme Court can only challenge federal law.

Post what you claim you read.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the United States case law

Case law is nonsense.


Only the Constitution prevails.....unless you are a communist.....er, Democrat.



Here is your education on 'case law.'


1. Everything changed when Progressives took over law schools. They taught law students a) that there was no natural law, nor unalienable rights, and b) that the Constitution is altered by case law. This meant American lawyers interpreting the Constitution via caselaw rather than through studying the Constitution itself.

a. Roscoe Pound (1870-1964), Dean of Harvard Law School, instituted the "taught legal tradition." Pound firmly believed that the implementation of the principles of the taught legal tradition by wise common-law judges resulted in substantive change, which reflected changes in society. As the interpreters of the common law, judges had a special duty to consider the practical effects of their decisions and to strive to ensure that judging facilitated rather than hindered societal growth.” Roscoe Pound - definition of Roscoe Pound by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
What was evident in his first published book in law, common with Progressives, was his deep indebtedness to German modes of thinking.

b. Pound sought to adjust principles and doctrines of law to the realities of the human condition…. wanted to extract wisdom from German social science to apply to American law.: law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”… the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”
roscoe pound and jurisprudence and 1903 and nebraska and harvard law school

c. He was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roscoe Pound: Biography from Answers.com




2. Even before Roscoe Pound, Christopher Columbus Langdell , 1826-1906, reduced the importance of the Constitution in the law profession. In 1875 he became dean of Harvard law school. Together with J. B. Ames , who succeeded him as dean in 1895, he revised the curriculum of the school. Langdell is especially famed for the introduction of the "case method" in the study of law.

a. Langdell's theory was first adopted at Harvard, then at Columbia law school, and in time gained almost universal acceptance. Langdell prepared casebooks in the fields of contracts, equity, and sales. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Ch..._Langdell.aspx

b. Before Langdell's tenure the study of law was a technical pursuit. Students were told what the law is. However, at Harvard Langdell applied the principles of pragmatism to the study of law. Now, as a result of this innovation, lawyers are taught the law through a dialectical process of inference called the case method. The case method has been the primary method of pedagogy at American law schools ever since. Students such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. would ensure that Langdell's innovation would not go unnoticed. Christopher Columbus Langdell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

c. It is based on the principle that rather than studying highly abstract summaries of legal rules (the technique still used in most countries), the best way to learn American law is to read the actual judicial opinions which become the law under the rule of stare decisis (due to its Anglo-American common law origin). Not the Constitution...which was eaten away in increments.




. The result is that lawyers today respect and honor the view of judges opinions, precedent, over the nominal ‘law of the land,’ the Constitution.

 

[rupol2000]

Only the Constitution prevails.....unless you are a communist.....er, Democrat.

usually it's vice verse, commies use roman-german low