From: No One 

"John D.Wentzky"  writes:

> "No One"  wrote in message
> news:87zm647a0e.fsf{at}nospam.pacbell.net...
> > "John D.Wentzky"  writes:
> >
> >
> > That was not the important issue the case decided.
>
> You hate the 'E' in E pluribus Unum, huh?

Non sequitur (and silly besides).

> > It was instead really about judicial review, as the article I quoted
> > explicitly
> > stated.
>
> But, if you knew why those non-roevwade courts ruled as they did maybe you
> would show me that you understand the constitution and its proper
> application.

Good grief!  I just posted a long explanation of the Supreme Court ruling
in question (one that redated Row versus Wade by nearly 200 years!
>
> >> > You were talking about the ability of the Supreme Court to declare
> >> > state laws unconstitutional.
> >>
> >> What ability?  There is no way for the USSC to declare state laws
> >> unconstitutional without a constitutional provision that clearly
> >> reserves such power to the federal government.
> >
> > What is it about "judicial review" that you do not understand?
>
> A comeback like that shows me you are for criminals.

A reply like yours shows you are a complete and utter idiot.



--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag