"Income Inequality"...

Oh, boy.

Marshall didn't invent the concept of judicial review, he invented the power. He found a power in the Constitution where there is not one. If he didn't invent the power then who did? He was Chief Justice at the time, he wrote the onion, I can't think of anyone else who could be responsible.

Again, focusing on this detail misses the point completely, but do go on.

Except the power is there to anybody who doesn't need to see the precise words, "judicial review." Marshal understood, as do most, that the power to adjudicate laws infers a power to overturn laws in whole or in part that conflict with other laws. It isn't the two word phrase that establishes this power, it's the entirety of Article III, section 2.

By the way, did you know that the Constitution doesn't establish appeals courts?

That's called implied powers, something that Hamilton, Marshall and liberals love to claim exists in order to expand federal power and continue their stranglehold over the people. Article III doesn't establish judicial review, I don't see those words anywhere written in the Constitution. Talk about opinion vs. fact. Where's the limit on the government if I can have the opinion that powers are implied? I'm not surprised that a statist would trot out that old horse though. I'm sorry, but if it's not written into the Constitution then you can't, as Jefferson said, "rest it upon inferences", that would allow for zero accountability and no limit to what the government can do. But hey, if Gul doesn't believe it, then it must not be true.

So you're saying that unless the precise words are there, judicial review does not exist. Therefore once a law is enacted, it can never be reviewed, rewritten, or overturned? Really?

Before Marshall, SCOTUS didn't review many laws for constitutionality. Judicial review was accepted as a legitimate function of SCOTUS, however it was questionable that the power actually existed in the Constitution. So when Jefferson and Madison for instance, wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, they asserted that the states also had the power to judge the constitutionality of a law. In other words, SCOTUS was not the sole arbiter of the Constitution.

Since this discussion began with the tenth amendment, I think it's appropriate to continue in that vein. Jefferson and Madison came to that conclusion because judicial review was not a power written into the Constitution and the states were not prohibited from it either, thus, the states had the power of judicial review as well.

Let me just quote this back at you:

"...when Jefferson and Madison for instance, wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, they asserted that the states also had the power to judge the constitutionality of a law. In other words, SCOTUS was not the sole arbiter of the Constitution."

Now, perhaps you can find someone somewhere arguing that SCOTUS is the sole arbiter, but you certainly won't find it in the Red Room.

Do you even remember what you're arguing anymore, or is it just "Libruls Bad"?

And?

And, do you even remember what you're arguing anymore?

No one here is disagreeing with the bolded part. No one.

That is precisely what he said. Divining his intended meaning, well that's a bit trickier.

I don't particularly dispute any specific point you just made, but let me illustrate how your answer didn't really resolve my question:


The overwhelming majority of both medical and mental health scientists and professionals agree that transsexualism is a biological condition that cannot be correctly termed a "mental illness" in any sense. A comparatively TINY handful of those people,virtually every single one with a background heavy in religious influence which potentially would color their views, disagree and argue it is a mental illness which is treatable and reversible.

By contrast, the majority of skilled theologians would contend that transsexual transition is incompatible with God's word (despite objectively obvious evidence that there is almost nothing directly on the subject appears there) and a minority of expert theologians hold the contrary view.

Now, in light of this conflict, some of us assert that transition doesn't have a theological or moral aspect to it, nor does it reflect a mental health issue, and cite as support for that opinion the experts mentioned in the former paragraph above. Others, aware of the same set of expert opinions (in both paragraphs) argue it is sin based on the expert opinions offered in the latter paragraph.

So which is "reality"? Two contrary points of views, informed by two contrary sets of "expert opinions" referring to an objective set of facts.

As you noted, both the "expert" and the person who's opinion derives from the opinions of the experts are very susceptible to allow their preferred "reality" affect which opinion seems more reasonable to them.

When a third party looks into this dilemma, they see two sets of folks arguing over "truth" both of whom cite "experts" to inform their view of reality.

Ultimately, then, you cannot in my view simply assume that an opinion informed by expert analysis REALLY reflects objective reality.