From: "John D.Wentzky" 

"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?

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag