Forum Post: SCOTUS is the real prize:
Posted 11 years ago on July 18, 2012, 8:48 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We now have a Supreme Court that believes the property and the right to it and to use it as one wishes trumps the will of the people. The proof of this is seen in this decision against the people of Arizona when the Court said that the people could not even match dollar for dollar the spending a rich guy does because it might distract people from what the rich guy is trying to say.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-238.pdf
That would be like taking his money from him, in the Courts mind somehow. So how long before the Court decides that it is unconstitutional to tax rich people? I mean Corporation are people “my friend” and if you can decide that, what limit is there to what you can decide?
The Court is already the most conservative in a hundred years, is it really safe to say there is not enough difference for me to care about who picks the next Justice?
It is the thing that matters most in this cycle. Moderate vs nut case. Not a great choice but one more nut case? Won't be my fault.
Odd that you mention moderate versus nut case. I just read an article about Justice Scalia talking about the Second Amendment during an interview with Fox News.
The really frightening aspect of what he said was that his interpretation, hence rulings, was based on the original intent of the Constitutional framers. This lunatic is deciding modern cases based on what he believes 18th century men intended. Good God, by his strict assessment, only propertied white males could still vote in this country, and most African Americans would still be slaves. Get out the strait jacket for this fellow.
Yeah, I have traced my family back, some arriving in 1634, others shortly before the revolution and have researched and written family history. When you do that and really get inside their heads, you find that it was sometimes a pretty scary place. They were trying to synthesize Locke and J.S. Mill and reformation stuff and Catholic stuff and although a few were pretty well read, they were making a crazy quilt (and I use the term advisedly) of political and cultural ideas that would fit together. We can't do it now, even though we have experience and there are examples of experiments around the world.
Justice Scalia does not inspire confidence by making statements like that. The framers of the Constitution were simply men subject to all the frailties, errors, and fears of other humans. The Constitution isn't sacred; it's a foundation on which to build.
This plays into American Exceptionalism, though. You can't understand what the language of the Constitution means because you aren't an attorney, and you aren't a Constitutional scholar, and you aren't a historian and you haven't been anointed to receive the revealed word of the FOUNDING FATHERS and only he, Scalia, has all of those qualifications. plus he is smarter than everybody else and even Roberts is stupid compared to him.
That is supposed to inspire much more than confidence. It should he believes, inspire awe. And instead, we say, "Awwww" crap that guy is a megalomaniac, and a profoundly stuffed shirt.
I don't think those guys anticipated hardly anything of today because they weren't sure they would ever get it ratified, or generally accepted, or that it would last any longer than the Articles of Confederation.
I can see them saying, "Why haven't you changed that yet? That's just silly."
Maybe Justice Scalia believes he's the sword of God; he is a devout Roman Catholic, a member of Opus Dei. Maybe he even hears voices through that pipeline to God.
I believe he does, but I wonder if he has noticed that the voice is exactly the same as his.
You think he'd catch on by now. Whenever he asks for a decision from all the voices, the verdict is always unanimous.
Well of course it is.
When we have justices that want to take us back to 1790, Is that even accurate? Did the framers intend to push liberty and the ability of the people to call to task their government or not? Did the framers want to expand the power of the wealthy or the average person? Where is that thought in CU?
The court has always been the people’s last resort, if it becomes convinced that there are greater things to consider than right and wrong, as they did in Bush v Gore (by their own admission) then we are in even a bigger mess that will be much harder to dig out from.
If one looks at Penn St., what happened there otherwise good people thought there was something "bigger" at stake than doing the right thing. When that sort of thinking rules the court we are screwed.
You are right. The lower courts are still pretty good but the Supremes, ignoring precedents and creating new ones out of thin air, really scares me.
The people for the most part have been "protected" from the 1% by the court, this has been waneing with CU and the AZ case, if the court moves even more toward money trumps votes then the return of the monarcy will be here.
Most people are still alternating between complacency and anger with a father figure (the President) for not making things perfect. The stuff they see on the news being done to them or on their behalf to others isn't real to them.
Simple answers is what they want. Did you fix it? yes or no? Too simple. No personal ownership or responsibility. Don't bother to understand the system, or the issues, or the solutions. If it's Monday night, "Are you ready for some football?"
what you say is true, and many times the court steps in when the people are asleep and does the work, as with desegregation, might of been done at the ballot box if people had talked about things, paid attention and thought about things, but the court has been there, now the GOP has become so radicalized that there is more danger to democracy and true freedom, (to live decent lives, not just buy whatever the market will sell you) than there has been in at least a hundred years looking around the world it takes a lot to get people into the streets, I hope we can avoid the worst of it by telling America just how bad the GOP has become, there are many others out there telling the truth as well, i just hope there is enough before it’s too late….
The irony is that the folks that have pounded their chests about patriotism, and liberty, and freedom are the one who have been, and currently are, responsible for the greatest loss of freedom (and intended loss) since the country was founded.
Define money as freedom, and then make damn sure nobody messes with freedom, good plan if you're rich and want a bunch of slaves to work for you and yours forever.
they need to put a short cap on how long people can be a supreme court judge.
Short cap.
I disagree, I think when you force people out you just make them thinlk about the next job. I would go for term limits if they came with lifetime bans from any empolyment or earnings from anything, you take your pension live like an average American and be proud you had a chance to serve. Then term limits might work.
This is where it will all be won or lost.
This may be where the shit well and truly hits the high speed rotary blades at high velocity with major volume.
Alert Alert Major Shit Storm Directly Ahead.
Please report to your nearest fallout shelter.
This has been a public service announcement.
Who knows how far they will go in the "protection" of money, the people's vote don't mean much to these people already.
If they are allowed they will go to the complete collapse following their current program - then when money means nothing - they will consider what to do next.
I believe money and tech will allow the 1% to maintain control for a very long time, unless we throw their henchmen from power. (by long time, I'm thinking 500 years or so)
Na - with what they are doing right now to the environment?
They'll kill us all long before a passage of 500 years.
The "hate everybody" sceart Romney supports don't want people to think about this one I belive.
Hence the corpoRAT propaganda ( lies plain and simple ) on MSM to tell the public about things like clean coal ( toxic ash dumps not mentioned ) and a better future with LNG ( fracking and its resulting poisoning of ground water not mentioned ). They do not want people to think they want people to buy fiction for truth and continue dying of cancer and other disease caused by pollution and be oblivious as to the source.
If the court rules that money trumps votes, which they basically have with CU and the AZ case., Well democracy is a thing of the past the country will truly be one big corporation ran by those with the biggest share.
That's why I am here - you as well - to see if we can make a difference - spark a change.
Agreed. Bushbamney must go...
http://open.salon.com/blog/watchingfrogsboil/2012/06/14/undeserved_obamas_prize_peres_medal_sarsaks_detention
I think the long game is "buy" the country with T-Bills then everybody will do as you say at the point of a gun if needed.
Since the 2001 tax cut there really is only one place where there is enough money to pay this debt, the trust funds.
[Removed]
We apparently have a court that also believes a bill can "stand alone" as a penalty relabeled (for "constitutional purposes") as a tax even if the bill itself is wholly unconstitutional. In my opinion, this court is no where near conservative enough; they are not constitutional scholars, they do not guard our rights jealously - they are the law enforcement branch of a corrupt and authoritarian Congress.
The most conservative in a hundred years and still not enough for the avg. republican, when will the sane Americans learn, we can not allow any Republican to win any office.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/supreme-court-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/
Well, sorry to disappoint - they will regain office.
here are the lyrics I changed to "What's Up"
25 years and the ivy league still
Owns presidency on capitol hill
Harvard men
Destine for Election
.
I realize now that we don't have a choice
gotta elect a fraternity voice
that is part of aristocracy
.
and they make there contacts in the college years
with the rich families and financiers
and I start to suspect
a little collusion
.
and they sift selection in the primaries
allow only choices from the ivy league
and I see at the top of the list
"What's Going ON!"
.
O ba ma's from Harvard
Romney's from Harvard
so is Gore
and Bush aswell
.
O ba ma's from Harvard
Romney's from Harvard
so is Gore
Clinton's from Yale
.
and I try,
oh my god how I try
I try everyday in this institution
.
and I see
oh it obvious to me
that choice is an illusion
I'd be from Harvard too if I could of, oh well, told my son if he got in to Harvard, Stanford or Yale, the money would be there too, thank goodness he was not an overachiever, but I think he may be fairly happy, he's working these days that's pretty good.
The new boss is the same as the old boss, absolutely.
Really? You must be blind as bat not to see the difference between Bush and Clinton, even Obama, "weak ass bi-partisan Obama" is better than Bush, we'd still be in Iraq if he weren't, GM would be dead and Bin Laden alive and yes I'm glad Bin Laden is dead, but I never claimed to be a saint.
You are 100% correct about porkie, he must be blind. blinded by the repub partisanship and the lie that the 1% plutocrats will tinkle down the wealth (or somethin) on him.
Solidarity
the bombing hasn't stopped
It's gonna be years 'cause the people are too scared of "the terrorists" and unwilling to agitate for an end to the bombing.
End the drone attacks!
One cannot oppose drone attacks and support Obama at the same time...
Amerika: Neither Land of the Free Nor Home of the Brave:
http://open.salon.com/blog/watchingfrogsboil/2012/06/04/amerika_neither_land_of_the_free_nor_home_of_the_brave
Not free and not brave?
Well, it's certainly true in your case Bruce.
You're a coward that can't prove your own claims.
And you repeatedly fail to identify any claim I have ever made that I did not support with links to authoritative sources.
Yes, I did.
It's you who have offered nothing but empty claims.
Find the 900+, or go away
one cannot oppose Obama without supporting Romney
one cannot support Romney and oppopse drone attacks
by your logic one cannot exist
Romney has nothing to do with drone attacks (yet), so what you suggest here is not logical in any way. But if it makes you feel better, partisan propagandist, I say FUCK ROMNEY.
And oh yeah, FUCK OBAMA too!
http://open.salon.com/blog/watchingfrogsboil/2012/06/04/amerika_neither_land_of_the_free_nor_home_of_the_brave
It is your position that Romney would stop the drone attacks? Why do you say that?
I did not say that, you jackass, and anyone reading this thread can see that. I have no fucking idea what Romney's position on drones are, and I don't care because like all politicians what he says his position on an issue is doesn't tell you shit about what he'll do with that issue once elected.
but you are cool with Romney being President just not Obama then right? If you would just explain how you plan to keep them both out it could save some time.
[Removed]
Let me ask you this? If the people stopped falling for this D/R nonsense, or assuming they already see through it, they decided to start creating their own parties, how long do you think it would take to turn this thing around?
When the people decided they have had enough D/R bullshit, things will change quick.
You can keep helping the D/R.
Im going for change.
Stop arguing with people who have a lifetime of brainwashing under their belt :)
They're just as bad as Limbaugh fans. They have their views, nothing will ever change it, no matter how bad things get/how many lies are exposed.
When the rock is thrown into the air it always returns, why oh why is that?
Facts and truth, it would be so nice to pick and choose to make them what you want instead of what they are, but hey your just a troll so who cares but in case you're not tell me how do you see nether Romney nor Obama winning?
you talk as if 2000 never happen, was the third party bigger in 2004, no it wasn't we have always done what you suggest, get pissed and vote third party, we have never taken down the cons we could do that but that would throw your bosses out of work wouldn't it?
if wishes were horses then beggers would ride....
I can do whatever I Godamn well please.
I support Pres Obama and much of his agenda. I am against the use of drone attacks and will agitate to get him to see the error of his ways.
What makes you think you can tell me what I can or cannot do.?
Fascist piece of shit.
"Name Calling = Weak Argument"
Hmmmm... I wonder who posts that a hundred times a day here?
LMFAO. Very good. I have no argument of substance and so I call you out for what you are.
I also have decided you aren't worthy of civil discourse. You never engage in respectful debate. So I think you can be my one indulgence in the base practice of "ranking" as we called it in the projects of brooklyn where I grew up.
You fascist piece of shit.
Yeah I like it. has a nice ring to it where you are concerned.
"Name Calling = Weak Argument"
One cannot oppose drone attacks and support Obama at the same time...
http://open.salon.com/blog/watchingfrogsboil/2012/06/04/amerika_neither_land_of_the_free_nor_home_of_the_brave
if you delete the repeat above
no one will be able to respond to this
3 hours 20 minutes every 2 minutes
You think my call for civility is too much?
sometimes when the train of responses buckle under the speed I skip commenting
Ok. Not sure what that means, but I'm glad you responded.
"War is Over, If you want it" JL
We could be doing better in many areas, bombing is one of those, I do not feel Romney will make that or other things better, as a matter of fact I'm glad we ended the war in Iraq and look forward to our withdraw from Afghanistan, but if Romney wins who knows? I think we might even re-invade Iraq, but maybe you think it's worth the risk to send Obama a message, I don’t.
Want to know what I see? I see a man who has surrounded himself with Harvard and Yale graduates; the new boss is exactly the same as the old boss. There is nothing worse than appointing attorneys to office; they ALL work for the banks and the corporations.
I have to be honest; at some point it appeared there was a radical departure from the precept that those such as Husein and Gaddafi were forces of stability; I don't believe we're going to like the new Iraq or Libya. I think we're being manipulated by the money mongers and I'm not certain we can pin either on a President.
is it really our place to "like" who the people of Iraq or Libya choose to lead? isn't that how we got in this mess?
I'm not really sure, I mean, was it a mistake to pump their oil? I don't know. How do you measure that?
Go read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and get back to me.
I might do that... truthfully, I think this was a far better world before the creation of the automobile; if all could be reduced to but a single item complicit in all of this, it was the ability to transport one's self.
Check this out, it’s about bringing things to the local level
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/marcin_jakubowski.html