From: "Anlatt the Builder" 

On Mar 22, 10:35 pm, "John D.Wentzky"
 wrote:
> "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.-

It's as settled as any Supreme Court decision. Why do you hate the U.S. legal system?

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag