Ambulance Chaser:
I don't think you get this. Although I believe there are constitutional grounds for judicial review, and we've been over it already, that's not the point.

I'm not interested in debating whether or not there SHOULD be judicial review. That's above my pay grade.

All I know is that there is, it's an indisputable fact, and it's the basis of American law. I simply don't care to debate the esoteric nuances of early constitutional history. That's for professors and historians to duke it out. I practice law, I don't write or theorize about it.

Oboehner:
You can believe the moon is made of green cheese too if you want, doesn't make it any more factual.
Consider this, how can we have government by the people for the people if some judge can insert his/her opinion as law with no recourse? What would make the Supreme Court any different than the Communist Party in China? I see no difference other than the illusion of freedom with representation if courts can make binding (law) decisions.

Ambulance Chaser:
Again, you fail to listen. I'm not arguing what SHOULD BE. I'm telling you how it works.

I know you don't like it. You've made that abundantly clear. It doesn't matter. Your dislike for the system won't change it.

Oboehner:
Could have fooled me.
There are many things wrong with this country, that is just a fine example. What is even more disturbing is that the masses are completely ignorant, even defending the wrongs (even as far as flagging my posts for whatever reason).

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, as we've gone over before: every lawyer, judge, law professor, elected official and civil servant in America is wrong about how judicial review works. Only you are correct.

Makes perfect sense.

Oboehner:
Resorting to that now? Sad. When you have the inmates running the asylum, what do you expect?

Ambulance Chaser:
Here's the long and the short of it. There are two questions here. One is whether the courts HAVE judicial review powers and the other is whether the SHOULD HAVE judicial review powers.

To the first question, yes, obviously they do. That's not disputable. It would be like denying that the sky is blue.

To the second question, I think they should but simply don't care enough about it to argue. It doesn't interest me, has no real-world implications, and I simply can't be bothered to argue it.

Oboehner:
The question is whether that "power" is legal or not, it is not and that is not disputable.

"has no real-world implications" Usurping power and violating the Constitution has no real-world implications? There's one.

"I simply can't be bothered to argue it." I suppose that's as good a cop out as any.

Ambulance Chaser:
"The question is whether that "power" is legal or not, it is not and that is not disputable"

Of course it is. I've told you that Article 3 Sec 2 gives the courts the power of judicial review. There, I disputed it. However, I'm not going to debate this any further because it's a pointless argument

"Usurping power and violating the Constitution has no real-world implications? There's one"

No, debating whether that happened or not had no real-world implications because we can't change anything even if it did (which I'm not conceding).

Oboehner:
(Posts the entirety of Art. 3, Sec. 2)
Not seeing the striking down of laws anywhere in there, guess you were wrong, and the courts are acting illegally. But we can't change that so we'll just have to bend over, right?

Ambulance Chaser:
We've already been over this, and I said I was done with this stupid argument, so I'm not going to do it again. We obviously have differing views on this.

The only difference is that mine is the view held consistently by the entire legal system for 200 years, but by all means, don't let that stand in your way.

Oboehner:
We obviously do have differing views, mine is constitutional, and yours is based on an out of control judiciary.
But by all means let popular opinion and tradition rule over what's right. Viva oligarchy!!