To All Our Supposed Constitutional Scholars and Their Limited Understanding On Checks and Balances🧨🧨🧨

[Trumpetman]

Nonsense.

They can write a new law. Or they can ammend the constitution, but they cannot change or disobey the judicial decision about the specific law that was ruled on.

On top of your poor spelling, you've shown poor reasoning.

Some courts have ruled that trans women are under Title IX. Some have ruled they aren't under it. The Supreme Court can rule tomorrow that Title IX means women and that means trans women. The Congress can simple IGNORE their bad ruling by passing clarifying legislation that IX only applies to biological women.

The ruling is a decision based on what is presented before the courts. You change the baselines, you change the decisions.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Explain how that decision could not be changed and had to be obeyed. The judicial activism there basically led to Civil War.

 

[NolanVoyd]

On top of your poor spelling, you've shown poor reasoning.

No poor reasoning. Just the facts.

Some courts have ruled that trans women are under Title IX. Some have ruled they aren't under it. The Supreme Court can rule tomorrow that Title IX means women and that means trans women.

yes

The Congress can simple IGNORE their bad ruling by passing clarifying legislation that IX only applies to biological women.

that would be adressing their ruling, not ignoring it, and they would have to actually change the languagebof title IX to specify women only.

they cannot just ognore the ruling.

its binding

The ruling is a decision based on what is presented before the courts. You change the baselines, you change the decisions.

ypu would have to actually change the law, which congress can do, they cannot change the ruling

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Explain how that decision could not be changed and had to be obeyed. The judicial activism there basically led to Civil War.

It was binding until the constitution was amended by the 13 and 14th ammendment (like I have been saying all along)

That example proves my point.

 

[Trumpetman]

No poor reasoning. Just the facts.

yes

that would be adressing their ruling, not ignoring it, and they would have to actually change the languagebof title IX to specify women only.

they cannot just ognore the ruling.

its binding


ypu would have to actually change the law, which congress can do, they cannot change the ruling


It was binding until the constitution was amended by the 13 and 14th ammendment (like I have been saying all along)

That example proves my point.

Lots of repetition, and spelling errors. Enjoy.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Lots of repetition, and spelling errors. Enjoy.

Of course I am repeating the facts that you are struggling with.

As for spelling errors, I am writing on a phone, this isn't a term paper or work product.

And you have No valid response.

You are wrong. You obviously can't refute what I said.

You need an American civics class.

 

[Trumpetman]

Of course I am repeating the facts that you are struggling with.

As for spelling errors, I am writing on a phone, this isn't a term paper or work product.

And you have No valid response.

You are wrong. You obviously can't refute what I said.

You need an American civics class.

 

[NolanVoyd]

View attachment 67562551

More proof you know I'm right