How do you spot a Biased SCOTUS, oh that's how....

[Kokolums]

Literally Article III, Section 2. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States," etc.
Cases are questions about what the law means and how it shall be applied. The Supreme Court is Constitutionally declared to be the ultimate arbiter of those decisions.

Also a bit of Section 1, in that "the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In other words, all the capacity to judge and rule the meaning of law is invested solely in the courts, and is specifically absent from Congress or the Executive branch. Which is why Congress can pass an unconstitutional law, and SCOTUS can say "NAWP" and render it unenforceable by virtue of that unconstitutional nature.

You're just flatly wrong about this. Not surprising, since for you to be right, basically every single legal scholar of the past 250 years in the USA would've had to be wrong about this pretty damned basic point.

The 10th amendment AMENDS the Constitution. Which means it strikes out anything prior. You no longer GET to say "In other words, the Constitution says x, y and z". The 10th clearly states "a power not SPECIFICALLY delegated". Because of the 10th amendment, the Constitution must now SPECIFY judicial review. It has to actually say it. It cannot be inferred nor implied.

That's where you are getting it wrong.

BEFORE the 10th amendment passed, what you are saying makes sense. But the 10th actually forbids it.

The entire POINT of passing the 10th amendment is to PREVENT what you are doing. It is why it exists at all.

[Lynarii]

The 10th amendment AMENDS the Constitution. Which means it strikes out anything prior. You no longer GET to say "In other words, the Constitution says x, y and z". The 10th clearly states "a power not SPECIFICALLY delegated". Because of the 10th amendment, the Constitution must now SPECIFY judicial review. It has to actually say it. It cannot be inferred nor implied.

That's where you are getting it wrong.

BEFORE the 10th amendment passed, what you are saying makes sense. But the 10th actually forbids it.

The entire POINT of passing the 10th amendment is to PREVENT what you are doing. It is why it exists at all.

You're actually fundamentally misunderstanding what the 10th amendment even deals with. It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with how the three branches of the federal government interact with each other. It doesn't say anything about what branch of the government does what, or anything of the sort.

It's all about is the interaction between the States and the Feds, saying that things that are not explicitly said to be Federal matters are State matters. Which was always the way the Constitution was meant to be, they made the 10th Amendment because they realized that when they wrote the Constitution it was generally understood the intent for how powers would be split between Feds and States, but it was better to have it spelled out in no uncertain terms than to assume that people would just 'get it' later on.

And to be clear, the States WERE given a pathway to change Supreme Court decisions, that's what constitutional amendments are for. A case can be made for the US being too polarized for the states to ever cooperate to that degree, and perhaps that's true now, but it's happened more than a few times in the past.

[Saltysquidoon]

The 10th amendment AMENDS the Constitution. Which means it strikes out anything prior. You no longer GET to say "In other words, the Constitution says x, y and z". The 10th clearly states "a power not SPECIFICALLY delegated". Because of the 10th amendment, the Constitution must now SPECIFY judicial review. It has to actually say it. It cannot be inferred nor implied.

Even I learned about Marbury at law school and I'm not even American.
If you didn't want the Supreme Court's inherent jurisdiction to cover being the superior court of record, your founding fathers wouldn't have just copy/pasted the British judicial system.

Further, even if the power was reserved to the states (which seems untenable shakey but let us go with it) if not through judicial review what specific mechanism would the states use to strike down unconstitutional laws? What about unconstitutional state laws? I mean a state wouldn't strike out its own law.

[Edge-]

Which means it strikes out anything prior.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

ARTICLE III

SECTION 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

The SCOTUS is specifically delegated, and the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with this. Section 2 further specifies the roles for the SCOTUS and lower level courts and creates jury trials.

The 10th Amendment didn't magically invalidate everything that came before it when the Bill of Rights was ratified a year after the Constitution was.

This is a Sidney Powell-esque legal theory that would literally overturn the entirety of the SCOTUS rulings on Constitutional issues, while also indicating that there is no body capable of ruling on the Constitutionality of laws.

[Endus]

The 10th amendment AMENDS the Constitution. Which means it strikes out anything prior. You no longer GET to say "In other words, the Constitution says x, y and z". The 10th clearly states "a power not SPECIFICALLY delegated". Because of the 10th amendment, the Constitution must now SPECIFY judicial review. It has to actually say it. It cannot be inferred nor implied.

That's where you are getting it wrong.

BEFORE the 10th amendment passed, what you are saying makes sense. But the 10th actually forbids it.

The entire POINT of passing the 10th amendment is to PREVENT what you are doing. It is why it exists at all.

1> Here's the 10th in full; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." No "specifically" in there at all; you're making that shit up.

2> The existence of the 9th Amendment contradicts the idea that the 10th could ever be interpreted that way; "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

3> Again, Article III, Sections 1 and 2, specifically delegates this particular power to the Supreme Court. So even if you were right about the reading of the 10th Amendment (and you're not), you'd still be completely wrong about this particular point.

4> Even if there were some kind of question on this point, as indicated above by SaltySquidoon, Marbury v. Madison settled it back in 1803. If Congress disagreed, they've had better than 200 years to change it, and haven't.

[Valdhammer]

And how many people voted for Jill Stein and Ron Johnson because they just didn’t like Hillary? This is why Republican Presidents have nominated 15 of the last 19 Supreme Court justices.

[Edge-]

And how many people voted for Jill Stein and Ron Johnson because they just didn’t like Hillary? This is why Republican Presidents have nominated 15 of the last 19 Supreme Court justices.

I assume you mean Gary Johnson for 2016, but he didn't exactly eat into the Hillary vote. Greens and Democrats drink from similar troughs, Libertarians and Republicans drink from a separate set of similar troughs.

[Valdhammer]

I assume you mean Gary Johnson for 2016, but he didn't exactly eat into the Hillary vote. Greens and Democrats drink from similar troughs, Libertarians and Republicans drink from a separate set of similar troughs.

Apologies, yeah Gary. And normally that’s correct but 2016 was an odd year. I know at least 6 Obama voters who went for Johnson.

[beanman12345]

I assume you mean Gary Johnson for 2016, but he didn't exactly eat into the Hillary vote. Greens and Democrats drink from similar troughs, Libertarians and Republicans drink from a separate set of similar troughs.

Also it's not exactly clear that if Gary or Jill were not on the ballot it would have changed the result. Like, there is a hardcore libertarian who regularly posts on this forum who really hates trump(for all the obvious reasons) and still wasn't gonna vote for Biden, so maybe if there wasn't another option he just wouldn't have voted at all, or wrote in a vote or something. some like to argue ross perot or ralph nadar were spoilers, but if you dig deeper, looking at exit polls and such, it's not clear cut and dry, and I'm simply not convinced of the spoiler candidate theory.