From: No One 

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

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag