From: "John D.Wentzky" 

"No One"  wrote in message
news:87odmkiq20.fsf{at}nospam.pacbell.net...
> "John D.Wentzky"  writes:
>
>> "No One"  wrote in message
>> news:87k5x81zdp.fsf{at}nospam.pacbell.net...
>> > "John D.Wentzky"
 writes:
>> >
>> >> "No One"  wrote
in message
>> >> news:87fy7xiaj4.fsf{at}nospam.pacbell.net...
>> >> > "John D.Wentzky"
 writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "thomas p."
 wrote in message
>> >> >>
news:1174542611.921031.259270{at}l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> > On 21 Mar., 18:23, "John D.Wentzky"
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > And your point would be?  Nobody argued
that they agreed with
>> >> >> > every
>> >> >> > decision the court makes, only that the
court has the right to
>> >> >> > determine the constitutionality of laws in
cases brought before
>> >> >> > it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They can only determine something to be
unconstitutional if it
>> >> >> violates the Constitution.  Check the Separation of powers
>> >> >> requirement that was violated by the USSC in
1973 in roevwade.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Separation of powers" does not mean
"Wentzky agrees with the
>> >> > decision."
>> >>
>> >> It means the USSC had no authority to override Texas' or any other
>> >> State's
>> >> non-roevwade position.
>> >
>> > "Separation of powers" means no such thing.
>>
>> RoeVWade-speak?
>
> No, "Marbury v. Madison" speak.

Are you always so easily detected when you participate in suberfuge.

>  As "The Chief Instigator" pointed
> out, the issue was settled 200 or so years ago.

It wasn't settled by a roevwade court. And, roevwade isn't settled.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag