Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

24601

(4,111 posts)
12. Marbury v. Madison is consistent with the Constitution's Article III, Specifically, "The judicial Power shall extend to
Tue Aug 12, 2025, 04:17 PM
Aug 12

all Cases, in Law and Equity,...."

Without judicial review, including determining the constitutionality of legislation, the USSC's judicial power would not extend to all cases in law and equity.

Plessy v. Ferguson was the 1896 case upholding racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. If precedent were binding instead of one of many factors the court uses to decide cases, Brown v. Board of Education would have kept schools segregated.

Congress can limit appellate, but not the USSC's original jurisdiction which is defined in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Kim Davis needs to be thrown in the dumpster and forgotten about. What a miserable POS that woman is. Initech Aug 12 #1
She is. I love the way you described her, in one short sentence, in seven words. Simple, to the point, and precise. SWBTATTReg Aug 12 #6
So well stated. TY! electric_blue68 Aug 12 #9
I don't understand how these Supremes can keep overturning former Supreme's rulings Bayard Aug 12 #2
Because they can. North Coast Lawyer Aug 12 #8
Ohhh, so THAT'S what -Marbury v. Madison- is about. (Not a lawyer) electric_blue68 Aug 12 #10
Marbury v. Madison is consistent with the Constitution's Article III, Specifically, "The judicial Power shall extend to 24601 Aug 12 #12
Two Edged Sword North Coast Lawyer Aug 12 #13
Marbury was required. Igel Aug 12 #16
Like Now? North Coast Lawyer Aug 13 #18
Lots of precedents were overturned. Igel Aug 12 #15
Religious extremism ZDU Aug 12 #3
But it's okay for drumpf to want to screw his daughter. greatauntoftriplets Aug 12 #4
A PANDORA'S BOX Jimvanhise Aug 12 #5
'Davis is seen as one of the only Americans Oeditpus Rex Aug 12 #7
Mind your own fucking business, Karen. LudwigPastorius Aug 12 #11
If the SC fucks this up, bluestarone Aug 12 #14
6-3. Count on it. Boomerproud Aug 13 #17
I'm gonna kill people who do fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire,,,,just for fun. chouchou Aug 13 #19
There's enough love in the world for you too, Karen. mahina Aug 14 #20
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court formally as...»Reply #12