Skip to main content

View Diary: Banks "Personhood" Greater than Citizens: The Case of Sharon Henry (16 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually, it is (0+ / 0-)

    The Supreme Court is, under our Constitution, the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not the law of the land, subject to the Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

    If we don't like the Court's interpretation, we can have the laws rewritten to achieve the desired end without running afoul of the law as defined by SCOTUS, or we can seek a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the Court's reading. But yes, anything five Supreme Court justices (corrupt or not) say is the law of the land is, by definition, the law of the land.

    It does us no good to claim that things are not as they are. All that does is set us up to rail against the wrong problems, and thus to fail in our efforts to correct them.

    "Do it in the name of Heaven; you can justify it in the end..." - Dennis Lambert & Brian Potter

    by pragmaticidealist on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:18:45 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site