That's what nullification *IS*. It is State refusal to obey, or cooperate with, Federal law.

You aren't getting it. Nullification is not a "defense" in court. That isn't the way it works.

"State nullification" refers to States refusing to comply with, cooperate with, or obey Federal laws that they believe to be unconstitutional. As in the example I gave earlier: Washington and Colorado legalizing marijuana for "recreational" use. This is very, very much against Federal law. The States are doing it anyway. That is a textbook example of "nullification".

YOU are referring to some kind of "official" vote of the states to formally somehow "nullify" Federal law. But that's not the way it has ever been done.

The main point here, however, is that while it might not be the "formal" process you envision, it IS done. Frequently. And successfully. And has been done that way (as I mentioned before) repeatedly and successfully for 200+ years.

"The victors write the history books" was a comment about wars. The point there was that the losers aren't around to write the books.

I don't think it really applies to Supreme Court decisions.

And that's called "moving the goalposts". The question I was responding to was whether the President could do anything, not whether I think (or he thinks) he should do something. Those are two completely different things.

Huh? Where would you get that idea? And what does it have to do with the subject at hand?

Wait. I think I see what you mean. Maybe the President is being blackmailed?

I suppose it's possible, but if so, it just shows yet again that he's the Ball-less Wonder In Chief.

Nice way to try to pretend it wasn't a "WHOOSH" moment, eh?

It's not my fault you misunderstood what I wrote. It was pretty plain English. The context was pretty clear.

States "nullify" Federal laws all the time. Just recently, Washington and Colorado gave a big "Fuck You" to Federal marijuana laws... and there isn't anything the Feds can do about it.

This State nullification has a long and successful history. So laugh all you like. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference.

Hahahaha! This is the funniest thing I've read today. And like many other people, you have a false impression of what effect slavery actually had on the issue.

State nullification has been used, successfully, every year of our 200+ year history as a country.

It was used -- successfully -- by the North to nullify the Fugitive Slave laws. In its Declaration of Secession, this was the very first thing South Carolina listed as reasons for seceding. Other states also listed it, but none of the others listed it as the first reason.

It has been used MANY times since, and is in active use today. What do you think State "medical" marijuana laws are? They are EXAMPLES of SUCCESSFUL State nullification of Federal laws.

It has been used to nullify Federal marijuana laws. It has been used to nullify Federal firearms laws. It has been used (by 26 states!) to nullify the Federal "Real ID Act".

To say that it is "not allowed" is just laughable. It is done ALL THE TIME, and there isn't a damned thing the Federal government can do about it.

Do you know what the word "corrected" means?

You say something that is incorrect.

I correct you.

What about that do you not understand? It doesn't imply that I want to completely get rid of you. This whole argument is silly.... over something I didn't even say.

"Corrected" by legal scholars, and later by the history books. And probably by a later Supreme Court.

That's all I meant. Sorry if you thought I meant corrected NOW.

But don't discount this. The written word has power. Supreme Court justices do not want to be remembered by history as idiots.

Yes, I had an actual argument, I made it, and I cited a reference.

The point, which apparently went right over your head even though I stated it in plain English, was: The Supreme Court is not "immune" from politics. And I gave you a link which proves that point.

Do YOU have any actual argument?

Spoken like someone who is truly ignorant of history. Nothing personal meant. That is the same bullshit that I learned in public school. But when I started to actually study history, OUTSIDE of school, I learned many things that opened my eyes.

There *IS* an authority to fall back on, outside Supreme Court decisions. That authority is the States. The States delegated this authority to the Supreme Court. They did not set the court up as the "final" arbiter of Constitutionality. That power is reserved to the States.

James Madison, in his Report of 1800 before the Virginia legislature (in which he explains the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, emphasis mine):

In other words, the States can decide that even the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds, and nullify laws passed by Congress even if the Supreme Court has not struck them down. Any other idea is a logical falsehood. Many writings by the founders, and the debates prior to ratification of the Constitution, verify this. The States did not give "ultimate" power to the Supreme Court. That, they reserved for themselves.

Amazing how my plain words went right over your heads. How many of you tried to argue about something I didn't even say? So far I count 4.

So just to put things back in context:

I did NOT write (as you seem to think, somehow) that everybody would "make them pay" or "try to remove them from office". I wrote "everybody will correct them".

They already have a bad reputation. Whether they are in danger of "being removed" is a completely different matter. If they were to make a decision like that, they'd get a hell of a lot of bad press, and history would certainly take note of it.

My comment about "good behavior" was just a historical note. Many people think they are appointed for life. they are not. It might work out that way in practice (so far, anyway), but there is no law that says so.

That isn't what I wrote. Maybe try working on your reading comprehension?

GP: "Who will correct them?"

Me: "Everybody"

I did not write that everybody was "going to make them pay". I wrote that "everyone" would correct them.

People do write about Supreme Court decisions, you know. And some of them have been famously bad. Today's SCOTUS already has a bad reputation, for making bad decisions. They probably can't afford another of same.

WHOOSH

It is the kind of decision I was replying to that is unfeasible.

They simply dare not do that. The public is fed up with them as it is. They really would be putting themselves in a very bad position if they were to make yet another decision that was both unpopular and obviously incorrect.

*I* am naive? That's hilarious.

Try this on for size.

As James Madison famously wrote about in his Report of 1800, the Supreme Court is no more "immune" from politics than any other branch of the Federal government. Asserting otherwise is just plain ignorant.