This has always struck me as the most absurd aspect of originalism and textualism: you have to reject them to find the power to enforce them through judicial review.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
She’s a mistake. A big mistake.
-
A mistake for whom? The right?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Is there even a word super precedent that ACB keeps repeating? I have done law n never have I come across that ‘super precedent’ term while reading tens of hundreds cases. Anyone?
-
It’s an academic term only used in legal writing as a way of expressing an idea
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The constitution does *not give the court the right to review legislation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Without Marbury there is no Brown v Board..No Roe..No Gay Marriage...be careful what you wish for Libs
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If judicial activism is a bad thing, why the continual attacks on judges who oppose it? Judicial review was not invented in Marbury, the British courts applied it for decades prior to the Revolution. How else are we to resolve conflicting law? Congress? Don't make me laugh.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Why is that every time the uber left or the media doesn’t like how things go whether through elections or laws or precedent they come up with a way to rewrite the rules or narrative? This is why nothing gets done
#termlimitsThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.