No, they are not the final arbiter of what is and isn’t constitutional, the people are.
Yes, you can, the government cannot use prior restraint to stop you.
Not based on the law and what the constitution says. The people can think one way and the SC thinks another. Which is law?
That doesn’t make them the final arbiter, they can be replaced by the people if they feel strongly that they get it wrong. The people can also change or even void the constitution and start over. They are simply not the final arbiter. The people are.
Did Reagan ban certain types of guns?
No, the people can demand their elected officials make legislative changes or change even change the constitution ‘, but they can’t do it themselves. Congress and the Senate need to take action for the people.
The power is ultimately in the hands of the people, legislators who refuse to heed their will can also be replaced. You seem confused as to who works for who.
No, I understand how government works. Yes, if legislatures don’t do what the people want, they get voted out of office and replaced.
Take the ACA. Who spoke last on the constitutionality of the law?
That they spoke last doesn’t preclude the people from overturning their ruling if they had a mind to do so. They have the tools at their disposal, making them the final arbiter, not SCOTUS. That they haven’t exercised them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
no she’s not.
Love it. And we could always ask nicely. Use carrots.
And they wouldn’t even need to do anything as cumbersome as amending the constitution to do so. If ten percent of the people decided they weren’t going to pay taxes or go to work or even stop shopping it would bring the country to its knees.
I agree, kind of.
Yes the people can demand their legislature pass a new law or change an existing one. If it’s challenged, who decides if it passes the constitutionality test?
Take Heller decision. 2A supporters point to that decision for defense of their rights? Why is that?
It says so. I’m asking how you (and the final arbiters) get from point A to B while rationalizing violations.
Again, the people on the court can be changed or removed, so ultimately, the people do. Heck democrats are threatening to exercise the peoples power to change the court as we speak, threatening to pack the court with judges that will rule the way they claim the people want them to. Doesn’t sound like the current court is the final arbiter to me.
Google is your friend… Sorry you wrong
So why are Dems are talking about changing the makeup of the court?
And that won’t happen.
Because they don’t like some of the rulings or fear future rulings of a majority conservative court and they know that the people and not the court are the true final arbiters of what is and isn’t constitutional.