Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next


From figg and cairmen

As evidenced by Katie Couric, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe v. Wade.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.) For those who see this on your f-list, take the meme to your OWN lj to spread the fun.

Let's go for the big one: Marbury v. Madison. Why? Because it contains this defining gem:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].

This decision is thus the foundation of judicial review, the very understanding that laws that are unconstitutional aren't valid laws.



( 7 informants — We want information! )
Oct. 1st, 2008 03:12 pm (UTC)
Now to be perfectly fair, I'm sure our current President can't name any case. She can at least name one! :P That's a 100% increase if my math is correct.

I assume you read Sinfest? There's been some real funny ones as of late.

That last one is the best by far.
Oct. 1st, 2008 03:29 pm (UTC)
Your maths is incorrect. How many nothings equal one?
Oct. 1st, 2008 03:32 pm (UTC)
Well if you have nothing, then someone gives you one something, that puts you at having one more than nothing. I say that's a 100% increase right there! :D I think you just forgot to carry the Moose.
Oct. 1st, 2008 05:43 pm (UTC)
One day, you colonials will learn mathematics. Apparently, today is not that day.
Oct. 1st, 2008 07:15 pm (UTC)
You judge a percentage change in relation to the former figure, not the latter. So 2 to 3 would be a 50% increase ((3-2)/2 = 0.5). 3 to 2 would be a 33% decrease, etc. ((2-3)/3 = -0.33..).

So 0 to 1 is ((1-0)/0); divide by zero error. Or perhaps an "infinite percentage", (though my high-school maths teacher seemed to have something against infinities, for some reason...)
Oct. 1st, 2008 07:46 pm (UTC)
Now Spud. You should know better than trying to explain things using sense and logic. This is Myth, who has never had much truck with either.

He's still wrong, but that's just part of his charm.
Oct. 1st, 2008 08:24 pm (UTC)
I know not this person...
( 7 informants — We want information! )



Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner