Zitat

---

Well PzLdr, since I had to look that one up, I'm posting a little history lesson on MARBURY v. MADISON for anyone similarly challenged TM

---

Thanks you save one similarly challenged from researching it.

Here's Daniel Greenfield's take on Stevens:

Repeal the Judiciary
March 28, 2018
Daniel Greenfield

John Paul Stevens, a retired Supreme Court justice, is getting plenty of attention for a New York Times editorial titled, "Repeal the Second Amendment".

The piece isn't worth linking to or challenging. It's full of the tiresome arguments you would expect. The second amendment is a relic of the 18th century and we need to get with the times and get rid of it.

And then maybe we can get to work on the first amendment.

Okay.

Stevens doesn't make a compelling case for repealing the second amendment. He does make a compelling case for repealing the judiciary. Judicial supremacism and activism has long since supplanted the constitution. But the judiciary is there to serve the constitution. Not the other way around.

When an institution inhibits, poisons and outright attacks that which it is meant to serve, it becomes the problem.

The Bill of Rights is not the problem. Stevens is. A judiciary in which unelected officials base laws on their political views and invent their own legislation is a threat to the constitution.

Gun violence is not an institutional threat to the United States. Judicial supremacism is. If we're going to repeal anything, it won't be any element of the Bill of Rights. But if Stevens hadn't retired, he would be on the bench right now pursuing his conviction that a major part of the Bill of Rights should not exist.


https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/26973...niel-greenfield