Look, I¡¯m not <a href=http://www.sitohoganss.com/>hogan scarpe</a> here to debate the finer scarpe hogan - http://www.sitohoganss.com/ points of Marbury v. Madison with <a title="sito hogan" href="http://www.sitohoganss.com/">sito hogan</a> anyone, but the fact remains <a href="http://www.sitohoganss.com/">sito hogan</a> that since that <a href=http://www.sitohoganss.com/>scarpe hogan</a> decision was handed down over 200 years ago, it has not exactly been ¡°unprecedented and extraordinary¡± for the Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by Congress (no matter the size of the majority). In fact, it happens all the time. That is the entire point of the doctrine of judicial review, first announced in Marbury and affirmed without and baeing serious challenge ever since.I would seriously like to know, and I hope the press gets Obama on the record on this ¨C is it President Obama¡¯s contention that the Supreme Court¡¯s only role in reviewing legislation is to double-check the count on the roll call vote to make sure that a majority in fact voted for the law and to check the President¡¯s signature for possible forgery? Because, I mean, if that¡¯s what we¡¯re going to go back to, I¡¯m open to having that discussion but we are going to have to figure out what to do with several hundred SCOTUS decisions that have taken a decidedly different view.