The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: GOBUCKS on March 28, 2012, 12:35:54 PM
-
Poor old wallduded DUmmy Raven, sitting up there in Rindge, New Hampshire with nothing to do, since her big moonbat mouth got her fired from her city job, goes trolling for DUmp approval:
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:08 AM
Raven (10,191 posts)
Will these Justices consider the human tragedies
that will take place if they vote to nullify HCR? The impact on folks with pre-existing conditions, the kids on their parents' insurance policies, the older folks getting a break on prescription costs?
Do the Justices consider those things before they make their decision?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002483387
Response to aptal (Reply #1)
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:22 AM
atreides1 (9,233 posts)
7. You do remember Citizens United, don't you?
What started out as a case about a movie that was in reality a political film, ended up opening our election process to the highest bidder...with few restrictions.
I wouldn't put it past the 4+1 to decide that the entire law is unconstitutional...but we'll have to wait and see what is decided.
It's beautiful to see the DUmpmonkeys so upset, but we're still a long way from restoring the damage to freedom done by the Warren Court.
Nevertheless, with Bush v. Gore, D.C. v. Heller, Citizens United, and now Muslim v. America, we've been on a good run.
Unfortunately, it will quickly evaporate if the muslim is re-elected and gets to put a couple more commies on the Court.
Response to Raven (Original post)
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:20 AM
Bonhomme Richard (6,980 posts)
6. Not a chance.
Their decision will be based solely on the law. That is, whatever legal precedent they can find to justify their personal political mindset.
Response to Raven (Original post)
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:33 AM
hlthe2b (39,586 posts)
10. I think it inherent that those justices that give a damn would--as far as the law allows...
Unfortunately, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts have already shown they don't give a damn about the repercussions so long as it advances their RW Federalist agenda. Kennedy might. He did end his questioning on the mandate with a comment/acknowledgement that health care was "different", so it is hopeful.
Response to Raven (Original post)
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 09:46 AM
Initech (30,990 posts)
14. No - there's only one thing that matters to them: $$$$$$
No amount of humanity will match our corporate masters' uncontrollable lust for profit.
www.electstevedawes.com
-
The projection is heavy in that thread.
What the SCOTUS is designed and mandated to perform under the Constitution is to use the Constitution to determine the Constitutionality of laws. They are not to be considering of anything else.
-
The projection is heavy in that thread.
What the SCOTUS is designed and mandated to perform under the Constitution is to use the Constitution to determine the Constitutionality of laws. They are not to be considering of anything else.
I believe that Sotamayor had said something during her confirmation hearings that the effects on people should be considered. She was wrong.
-
...long as it advances their RW Federalist agenda.
:panic:
-
I believe that Sotamayor had said something during her confirmation hearings that the effects on people should be considered. She was wrong.
If The Sooty Mayor goes against the hive on the vote there won't be enough pieces of DUmmy heads left to pick up after the explosion it would be so great. Talk about wailing and gnashing of teeth :rofl: Think of it. :fuelfire:
-
Dictionary definition:
federalism
1. a union of states under a central government distinct from that of the separate states, who retain certain individual powers under the central government.
(http://catizen.us/wp-content/plugins/dynpicwatermark/DynPicWaterMark_ImageViewer.php?path=2011/04/Scary_Precious__by_nefertari22-525x399.jpg)
As for Raven, age 26 IS NOT A KID.
-
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:08 AM
Raven (10,191 posts)
Will these Justices consider the human tragedies
that will take place if they vote to nullify HCR? The impact on folks with pre-existing conditions, the kids on their parents' insurance policies, the older folks getting a break on prescription costs?
Do the Justices consider those things before they make their decision?
Probably no more than a rich bitch who had to do nothing more than **** for her dinner considers her own status before she tries to pretend to be an advocate for the "poor".
I think, though, we should consult the Senate for their opinion:
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYqF_BtIwAU[/youtube]
:-)
-
Response to Raven (Original post)
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:33 AM
hlthe2b (39,586 posts)
10.
Unfortunately, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts have already shown they don't give a damn about the repercussions so long as it advances their RW Federalist agenda.
As opposed to what, mouth breather?
-
The projection is heavy in that thread.
What the SCOTUS is designed and mandated to perform under the Constitution is to use the Constitution to determine the Constitutionality of laws. They are not to be considering of anything else.
Hey, it's a living document...........it can mean anything a DUmmy wants it to mean.
Yeesh, get with the programming.
-
I believe that Sotamayor had said something during her confirmation hearings that the effects on people should be considered. She was wrong.
For the life of me, I don't understand why the Repubs don't treat DemonRat liberal appointees like they do ours!
Neither one of these liberal FemiNazis should ever have seen the light of day, let alone be appointed for a lifetime to the highest court in the land!
Makes me ill just thinkin' about it!
-
I believe that Sotamayor had said something during her confirmation hearings that the effects on people should be considered. She was wrong.
But, some of the watchers of the procedings were surprised that Sotomayor seemed to be going after the government.
As of right now, 3:42 PM EDT, they have voted. The decision won't come out until June, but if what I heard yesterday is correct, they've already voted on it.
-
For the life of me, I don't understand why the Repubs don't treat DemonRat liberal appointees like they do ours!
Neither one of these liberal FemiNazis should ever have seen the light of day, let alone be appointed for a lifetime to the highest court in the land!
Makes me ill just thinkin' about it!
Imagine what the court would now look like if AlGore had won in 2k. That ought to wake ya up in a cold sweat. Elections have conseqences...now where have I heard that phrase before?
And that is why this may well be the last election of a free people. Really.
-
Kinda surprised that the Dummies haven't suggested expanding the size of the supreme court like FDR tried to.
-
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:08 AM
Raven (10,191 posts)
Will these Justices consider the human tragedies
that will take place if they vote to nullify HCR? The impact on folks with pre-existing conditions, the kids on their parents' insurance policies, the older folks getting a break on prescription costs?
Do the Justices consider those things before they make their decision?
NJ can actually be referred to as Obamalite, my insurance agent said we basically have Obamacare in NJ now, what has it resulted in? for us a 19% increase this year on our premiums, I had to up the deductible so high to get the payments lower. If I kept the old plan? it was only a couple of hundred dollars less than my mortgage payment. NJ's healthcare laws resulted in companies leaving the State, to the point of only having a few choices available to us, and Doctors dropping plans like Cigna, Aetna and United Healthcare, I checked the various plans and my Doctors don't participate in a majority of the plans out there. Doctors in NJ have even pulled out of the biggest in the State Horizon BCBS. Yes, changes need to be made in Healthcare, but Obamacare isn't it, just look at NJ as an example.
You guys are foolish if you think "Medicare" for all will result in the utopia you dream of, it'll result in more of the have-nots as opposed to haves, employers will say screw it and drop their employers onto the laps of the Government, and yes, laugh all you want, but there'll be death panels too, but it'll be given a fancy new name.
-
I believe that Sotamayor had said something during her confirmation hearings that the effects on people should be considered. She was wrong.
The same Sotomayor whose brother is a Doctor and doesn't accept Medicare or Medicaid Patients.
-
But, some of the watchers of the procedings were surprised that Sotomayor seemed to be going after the government.
As of right now, 3:42 PM EDT, they have voted. The decision won't come out until June, but if what I heard yesterday is correct, they've already voted on it.
I would not doubt if Sotomayor was doing that to give herself political cover to say that she judged on the basis of fact and not ideology.
-
The same Sotomayor whose brother is a Doctor and doesn't accept Medicare or Medicaid Patients.
I did not know that. :cheersmate:
She may be a wised up Latina indeed. :naughty:
-
But, some of the watchers of the procedings were surprised that Sotomayor seemed to be going after the government.
As of right now, 3:42 PM EDT, they have voted. The decision won't come out until June, but if what I heard yesterday is correct, they've already voted on it.
They may have voted, but it will take the lib judges a month of Sundays in order to write briefs, 'splainin' how and why they are crappin' on our Constitution!
-
It's only been a few short years, but, I seem to recall the three branches of govt. being summed up in one word for each.
Legislative -- establish
Executive -- enforce
Judicial -- interpret
Seems there was some silly notion of "balance of power" being involved.
-
Agreed, thundley.
I heard Susan Estrich tell Sean Hannity, on his radio show, that she expected both Justice Kennedy and Chief Roberts to vote to uphold the law. It's a good thing I had parked by then, because I would have missed a turn from laughing too hard.
-
I would not doubt if Sotomayor was doing that to give herself political cover to say that she judged on the basis of fact and not ideology.
I'm appalled she didn't recuse herself! She has no business openin' her mouth on the subject! She has ruled against health insurance companies in the past! How the hell can she say she is neutral on the issue???
Liberals have no honor!
-
....in court today seems one of the lawyers wanted the judges to read the bill. One of the judges asked if he expected them to read the entire 2,700 pages. Then the judge said it would violate his 8 th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment.
Judge should have said, "Hell, Nancy Pelosei and congress didn't read it. Why should we?"
-
The primitives, and libs in general, refuse to acknowledge that votes in favor of retaining Obamacare by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagen were already in the bag before the case even came before the court. Yet somehow, it's the "conservative" judges who aren't openminded.
.
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002486546
Thom Hartmann spanked a couple of DU'ers today on his show -
http://www.thomhartmann.com/
The link to that part of the show isn't live yet - I heard it and it was quite informative..
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhG0qBQIgZw[/youtube]
cliffordu
2. I don't think it wise for me to
paraphrase what I heard......
Or name names...
It was pretty mild, mostly consisting of "READ THE CONSTITUTION!!!"
Although he DID mention a couple of people by name.
I don't remember if you were among the spanked.
No I haven't watched the video yet.
-
Dude called out the DUmmies by name. :rofl:
Thom Hartmann reads DU... he must be one of those stalkers I heard about.
-
Ha! When one of their Utopian laws comes under the scrutiny of the Men in Black, they suddenly love the US Constitution!
It's good to know that Thom reads Mark Levin.
-
Response to cliffordu (Reply #2)Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:03 PM
freshwest
4. If he called out anyone by name or post, I'll put him on Ignore.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
:rotf:
-
freshwest
6. Bye, Thom. You don't pay us for your material.
:-)
-
ellisonz
33. I'm just not into talking head radio...
...I was forced to listen to it in years past and it's just not my cup of tea. I never cared for Randi Rhodes either. I listen to music or NPR (the devil, I know). What he did is kinda childish - if he wants to talk about DU he should do it here rather than in a place those posters can't respond to him directly. Just not something I think it that cool to do.
Oh the irony.
-
I have an idea of starting a radio show that mocks the DUchebags.
-
Interesting how these open-minded and intelligent people react to an education.
-
ellisonz
33. I'm just not into talking head radio...
...I was forced to listen to it in years past and it's just not my cup of tea. I never cared for Randi Rhodes either. I listen to music or NPR (the devil, I know). What he did is kinda childish - if he wants to talk about DU he should do it here rather than in a place those posters can't respond to him directly. Just not something I think it that cool to do.
You know ellisonz...
It's been done, and it didn't work out to well, the MIRT walks the disrupters out.
at least that is the thought. it has to be done so that you and your fellow travelers feel safe on the island. It's OK, least as far as I am concerned.
I understand why y'all need to feel safe, can't have anyone gumming up the works.
Neither can any of the folkes designated to defend you from the ugly masses.
Or can you?
-
And who is this Hartmann fellow the DUmmies are referring to? ???
-
.......for lurking DUmmies and my fellow Americans here....yes, I know of this Thom Hartmann dude. Only from perusing the DUmp did I know of him. My mole loves him. ;D
-
.......for lurking DUmmies and my fellow Americans here....yes, I know of this Thom Hartmann dude. Only from perusing the DUmp did I know of him. My mole loves him. ;D
Well, your mole wasn't publicly called out by Thom and ridiculed and made to cry in his Coco Puffs, now was he. :tumbleweed:
-
....in court today seems one of the lawyers wanted the judges to read the bill. One of the judges asked if he expected them to read the entire 2,700 pages. Then the judge said it would violate his 8 th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment.
Judge should have said, "Hell, Nancy Pelosei and congress didn't read it. Why should we?"
That was Justice Scalia.
-
.......for lurking DUmmies and my fellow Americans here....yes, I know of this Thom Hartmann dude. Only from perusing the DUmp did I know of him. My mole loves him. ;D
I know of him because for some strange reason they have him on AFN.
-
.......for lurking DUmmies and my fellow Americans here....yes, I know of this Thom Hartmann dude. Only from perusing the DUmp did I know of him. My mole loves him. ;D
I never heard of him until poor stupid Beth kept referring to him during the Scamdal.
And then after that, I kept getting this obscure radio personality confused with Pete Camejo, another of poor stupid Beth's heroes.
-
Well I took 1 for the team and watched the entire video, on this issue I actually agree with a lot of what Thom says, I'm shocked. Well here's the breakdown of the posters he mentioned:
elleng she quoted from wikipedia (Thom says not a reliable source of Constitutional information) :lmao:
Thom complaining that people at DU complaining have never actually quoted the Constitution, and tells them to please read the constitution.
Marshall (then he quotes his post using a funny voice) :lmao: then tells him to please read the Constituion.
Lars77? tells Lars the buck has to stop somewhere, tells him to read the Constitution, that the Supreme Court shouldn't be striking down laws Congress makes, and if congress passes an unconstitutional law the people will rise up and vote them out and the next congress will fix it.
Spectator Thom tells him balance of power isn't in the constitution, the supreme court is actually under the regulation of congress.
Comments from youtube:
It should be called Centrist Underground. :lmao:
It should be called "We lick Democratic Party ass" underground. :lmao:
DU banned me for denouncing all of the celebration regarding the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. :lmao:
-
Thom tells him balance of power isn't in the constitution, the supreme court is actually under the regulation of congress.
Thom is an idiot.
-
Thom is an idiot.
Rebel, if you can watch the video and tell us where Thom is wrong, he cited articles in the Constitution, and yes I was horrified that I agreed with him a few times.
-
On the cellphone so excuse errors. If there are three equal branches of government then why is it on some issues the supreme court, who are unelected by the people, why does their opinion take precedence over say congess. If the court was overly leftist they coud in fact find against the second amendment, so why would they have the say on that issue.
-
Rebel, if you can watch the video and tell us where Thom is wrong, he cited articles in the Constitution, and yes I was horrified that I agreed with him a few times.
A) The balance of power isn't in the constitution.
While not specifically stated as "balance of power", the very nature of how our Constitution is written and how our government is created, per the Constitution, is a "balance of power". We're a federalist system and a Constitutional Republic.
B) The Supreme Court is regulated by Congress.
I don't think he understands this concept, then again, he thinks there is no balance of power. If he understood the balance of power, he'd understand the point. Congress regulating the USSC is patently false and shows an ignorance on the part of Thhhom that's unparalleled. The ONLY way Congress can override the Supreme Court is by calling for a Constitutional Convention. Good luck with that one.
-
On the cellphone so excuse errors. If there are three equal branches of government then why is it on some issues the supreme court, who are unelected by the people, why does their opinion take precedence over say congess. If the court was overly leftist they coud in fact find against the second amendment, so why would they have the say on that issue.
That's why it's imperative that people not only elect people that will uphold the Constitution, but people that will nominate and appoint judges that will do the same.
-
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:08 AM
Raven (10,191 posts)
Will these Justices consider the human tragedies
that will take place if they vote to nullify HCR?
Actually, that should have absolutely nothing to do with their Constitutional analysis of the law, as anyone who actually earned a law degree should know. Your trust fund must've given the law school a Hell of an endowment, or else you were really good-looking, of quite lax moral character, and a zealous advocate of the barter economy when you were younger.
-
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zhG0qBQIgZw[/youtube]
-
I know of him because for some strange reason they have him on AFN.
He's on FSTV which is in our DISH satellite channel array. Low production values and boring, I have never been able to watch it for more than a minute.
ellisonz
33. I'm just not into talking head radio...
...I was forced to listen to it in years past and it's just not my cup of tea. I never cared for Randi Rhodes either. I listen to music or NPR (the devil, I know). What he did is kinda childish - if he wants to talk about DU he should do it here rather than in a place those posters can't respond to him directly. Just not something I think it that cool to do.
That's pretty funny, if he did what that DUer wants, he'd just be banned as a groupthink failure.
-
A) The balance of power isn't in the constitution.
While not specifically stated as "balance of power", the very nature of how our Constitution is written and how our government is created, per the Constitution, is a "balance of power". We're a federalist system and a Constitutional Republic.
B) The Supreme Court is regulated by Congress.
I don't think he understands this concept, then again, he thinks there is no balance of power. If he understood the balance of power, he'd understand the point. Congress regulating the USSC is patently false and shows an ignorance on the part of Thhhom that's unparalleled. The ONLY way Congress can override the Supreme Court is by calling for a Constitutional Convention. Good luck with that one.
Congress Makes laws, so can not congress originate a law that would in essence nullify or void a USSC decision. Sounds like regulation to me.
-
Congress Makes laws, so can not congress originate a law that would in essence nullify or void a USSC decision. Sounds like regulation to me.
...and when it gets signed into law by the executive branch, and challenged, the Supreme Court will strike it down as violating the Constitution.
-
Congress Makes laws, so can not congress originate a law that would in essence nullify or void a USSC decision. Sounds like regulation to me.
After which the Supreme Court can rule the law unconstitutional, if they choose.
It's musical chairs, shifting from one branch to another, and I wouldn't change it at all.
It's the best thing that works.
As I used to remind the workers and peasants in the socialist paradises, this balance of power keeps the government fighting with itself, rather than with the people, and so it's all good.
-
He's on FSTV which is in our DISH satellite channel array. Low production values and boring, I have never been able to watch it for more than a minute.
On the AFN decoders in Germany now they have all of these different "Power Net" radio stations...including one for talk radio. Hartmann comes on before Rush who has Ed Schultz followg him.
-
Congress Makes laws, so can not congress originate a law that would in essence nullify or void a USSC decision. Sounds like regulation to me.
Apples and oranges, really. Congress can, and has, enacted laws to avoid or overrule the effects of Supreme Court decisions, but the new laws are of course still subject to Constitutional review themselves; not all Supreme Court cases, after all, are decided purely on the basis of fundamental Constitutionality, there are a few matters on which they have original jurisdiction and many more where their jurisdiction arises from diversity jurisdiction (matters in Federal court due to the differing State citizenships of the litigant parties), and other matters where the Constitutional issue got the case in front of them, but their decision either does not primarily rely upon that, or the matter is severable, or their decision does not preclude further legislation.
Congress does have a role in 'regulating' the Supreme Court, in the sense of appropriating money for its operation and 'Providing for inferior courts' such as the District and Circuit Courts, and special courts such as the Court of Claims and Bankruptcy Courts, which the Congressional Judiciary Committees periodically rearrange. And of course there is the required 'Advice and Consent' of the Senate in Federal judicial appointments at all levels, just as there is for Executive Branch political appointments.
None of this is 'Regulation' in the sense the dweeb Hartmann thinks. Neither Congress nor the Executive is superior to the Supreme Court, nor is either superior to the other. Each branch has some role in the management or operation of the others, but none of them has actual authority over another branch. Hartmann is an idiot.
-
Well I took 1 for the team and watched the entire video, on this issue I actually agree with a lot of what Thom says, I'm shocked.
Bally, you should be shocked because Thom is dead wrong on this one. In the video, which I watched, he implores with the denizens of the DUmp to "read the Constitution" and goes on to cite cherry picked quotes as well as manage to screw up the intention of the Senate.
His assumption that the Supreme Court has no legal right to strike down unconstitutional law is BS. He cites a part of Article III, Section II, Clause II (as it applied to Marbury v Madison) for his justification. What he quotes is:
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.
Thom cherry-picked the hell out of this one to make his case and, if that was all it said, he would probably be right.
However, the full quote of Article III, Section II, Clause II is as follows:
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.
His assertion that Congress regulates the Supreme Court is bogus on it's face because if it did, the relevant clauses establishing a Supreme Court would have been contained in Article I. What Thom conveniently forgot in his sermon to us lesser beings is Article III, Section I, which states the exact role of Congress in relation to the Judiciary:
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Another very important thing to remember (which Thom left out) is Article III, Section II, Clause I which states the Judicial Power given to the Judiciary:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Chief Justice Marshall very correctly stated in Marbury v Madison that:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.
In Thom's argument that the Congress holds supreme power without the balance of Executive consent and Judicial review is nothing more than his, and every other progtard leftist, bending and twisting to make it mean what they want it to mean. If anything, his praise of the "Progressive Era" passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 (direct election of Senators) should have set off every alarm bell in your brain. Leftists love "direct democracy", it's how they give themselves largess from the Treasury.
Bally, don't ever take what a leftist says at face value unless it's "read the Constitution". By doing that, Thommy boy completely invalidated his entire premise and made himself look even more stupid than before.
-
Apples and oranges, really. Congress can, and has, enacted laws to avoid or overrule the effects of Supreme Court decisions, but the new laws are of course still subject to Constitutional review themselves; not all Supreme Court cases, after all, are decided purely on the basis of fundamental Constitutionality, there are a few matters on which they have original jurisdiction and many more where their jurisdiction arises from diversity jurisdiction (matters in Federal court due to the differing State citizenships of the litigant parties), and other matters where the Constitutional issue got the case in front of them, but their decision either does not primarily rely upon that, or the matter is severable, or their decision does not preclude further legislation.
Congress does have a role in 'regulating' the Supreme Court, in the sense of appropriating money for its operation and 'Providing for inferior courts' such as the District and Circuit Courts, and special courts such as the Court of Claims and Bankruptcy Courts, which the Congressional Judiciary Committees periodically rearrange. And of course there is the required 'Advice and Consent' of the Senate in Federal judicial appointments at all levels, just as there is for Executive Branch political appointments.
None of this is 'Regulation' in the sense the dweeb Hartmann thinks. Neither Congress nor the Executive is superior to the Supreme Court, nor is either superior to the other. Each branch has some role in the management or operation of the others, but none of them has actual authority over another branch. Hartmann is an idiot.
I wouldn't say the guy's an Idiot. he appears to be able to make rationale , sane and somewhat intriguing arguments. The tit for tat play between the three branches of govt aside,I still somewhat think the power lies with the law maker thereby putting the onus on others to challenge or accept it.
-
I wouldn't say the guy's an Idiot. he appears to be able to make rationale , sane and somewhat intriguing arguments.
We must be talking about two different guys here.
The tit for tat play between the three branches of govt aside,I still somewhat think the power lies with the law maker thereby putting the onus on others to challenge or accept it.
Thhhom insinuated that the USSC was regulated and controlled by the Legislative Branch. A DUmmie even said the justices ruling against it should be hauled before some judicial panel. Neither the DUmmies nor Thom Hartmann know what the hell they're talking about. As for making laws, and the onus being on the USSC, well of course. That's the line of responsibility. When bills are introduced and signed into law, the judicial system isn't involved yet.
-
I wouldn't say the guy's an Idiot. he appears to be able to make rationale , sane and somewhat intriguing arguments. The tit for tat play between the three branches of govt aside,I still somewhat think the power lies with the law maker thereby putting the onus on others to challenge or accept it.
Everyone's entitled to his own opinion. Maybe I could make it clearer by telling you our form of government organization is like a very high-stakes game of rock-paper-scissors.
-
I wouldn't say the guy's an Idiot. he appears to be able to make rationale , sane and somewhat intriguing arguments.
All the filthy little marxists do; it's what makes them such great con artists.
-
A) The balance of power isn't in the constitution.
While not specifically stated as "balance of power", the very nature of how our Constitution is written and how our government is created, per the Constitution, is a "balance of power". We're a federalist system and a Constitutional Republic.
B) The Supreme Court is regulated by Congress.
I don't think he understands this concept, then again, he thinks there is no balance of power. If he understood the balance of power, he'd understand the point. Congress regulating the USSC is patently false and shows an ignorance on the part of Thhhom that's unparalleled. The ONLY way Congress can override the Supreme Court is by calling for a Constitutional Convention. Good luck with that one.
Thanks!
-
Bally, you should be shocked because Thom is dead wrong on this one. In the video, which I watched, he implores with the denizens of the DUmp to "read the Constitution" and goes on to cite cherry picked quotes as well as manage to screw up the intention of the Senate.
His assumption that the Supreme Court has no legal right to strike down unconstitutional law is BS. He cites a part of Article III, Section II, Clause II (as it applied to Marbury v Madison) for his justification. What he quotes is:
Thom cherry-picked the hell out of this one to make his case and, if that was all it said, he would probably be right.
However, the full quote of Article III, Section II, Clause II is as follows:
His assertion that Congress regulates the Supreme Court is bogus on it's face because if it did, the relevant clauses establishing a Supreme Court would have been contained in Article I. What Thom conveniently forgot in his sermon to us lesser beings is Article III, Section I, which states the exact role of Congress in relation to the Judiciary:
Another very important thing to remember (which Thom left out) is Article III, Section II, Clause I which states the Judicial Power given to the Judiciary:
Chief Justice Marshall very correctly stated in Marbury v Madison that:
In Thom's argument that the Congress holds supreme power without the balance of Executive consent and Judicial review is nothing more than his, and every other progtard leftist, bending and twisting to make it mean what they want it to mean. If anything, his praise of the "Progressive Era" passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 (direct election of Senators) should have set off every alarm bell in your brain. Leftists love "direct democracy", it's how they give themselves largess from the Treasury.
Bally, don't ever take what a leftist says at face value unless it's "read the Constitution". By doing that, Thommy boy completely invalidated his entire premise and made himself look even more stupid than before.
Thanks for the clarification, and yes I should know better to ever listen to a leftist. I've read the Constitution, but being able to interpret it is a whole other story. I think what bothered me is the Court being able to over-ride Congress, and as an example, gun laws, what would happen if a leftist Supreme Court overturned a law in Congress that re-enforced the 2nd Amendment, what happens in that case then?
-
I think what bothered me is the Court being able to over-ride Congress, and as an example, gun laws, what would happen if a leftist Supreme Court overturned a law in Congress that re-enforced the 2nd Amendment, what happens in that case then?
In order for it to get to them on Constitutional grounds, there would have to be some basis in the Constitution that appeared to be contrary to that theoreticial Congressional interpretation of the Second Amendment, so it's very difficult to see a scenario where that would happen.
The court is at its best when it is acting (As a German attorney once described to me the proper role of their Constitutional Court in his view) "...As a brake, not as an engine." The worst decisions of the Court, in terms of legal reasoning if not always in ultimate outcome, are from its 'Activist' phases, for instance under Douglas.
-
In order for it to get to them on Constitutional grounds, there would have to be some basis in the Constitution that appeared to be contrary to that theoreticial Congressional interpretation of the Second Amendment, so it's very difficult to see a scenario where that would happen.
The court is at its best when it is acting (As a German attorney once described to me the proper role of their Constitutional Court in his view) "...As a brake, not as an engine." The worst decisions of the Court, in terms of legal reasoning if not always in ultimate outcome, are from its 'Activist' phases, for instance under Douglas.
As in Roe v. Wade?
-
In order for it to get to them on Constitutional grounds, there would have to be some basis in the Constitution that appeared to be contrary to that theoreticial Congressional interpretation of the Second Amendment, so it's very difficult to see a scenario where that would happen.
The court is at its best when it is acting (As a German attorney once described to me the proper role of their Constitutional Court in his view) "...As a brake, not as an engine." The worst decisions of the Court, in terms of legal reasoning if not always in ultimate outcome, are from its 'Activist' phases, for instance under Douglas.
How do you keep the activists in check though?
-
As in Roe v. Wade?
Yeah. Even then, the Court was so divided that there was no majority opinion, which is in part why the aftermath of the decision has been so murky as to what may or may not be allowed with respect to abortion.
The desegregation cases, on the other hand, while ultimately yielding a morally-correct outcome, got there by means of a lot of 'Extra-judicial' (To use a legal euphemism) reasoning and even some outright wrong characterizations of the legal history of the 14th Amendment.
-
How do you keep the activists in check though?
By not electing presidents which will appoint them.......or senate majorities that will confirm them......
A tall order, admittedly.
However, in the distant past partisan/activist courts happened more by accident than by intent. As a rule, Justices were appointed without regard to partisan positions (which was the founders intent), and there were a number that had little/no experience at all on the bench to determine their position on issues.
Over the past few decades, Liberals have become more and insistant on a nominee meeting "tests" on issues that are a part of their agenda in order to gain confirmation. Up until GWB, this phenomena was subtle......never outwardly stated......however during the Bush administration, prominent Democrats publicly stated (Schumer comes to mind), that nomination of a strictly "constitutionalist" justice would meet with united opposition from the Democrats in the Senate......which was not the founders intent.
Idealistically, presidents are charged with placement of the best constitutional jurist to SCOTUS, not the best from their ideological position......alas, times have changed, and not necessarily for the better.
doc
-
What TVDOC said.
-
By not electing presidents which will appoint them.......or senate majorities that will confirm them......
A tall order, admittedly.
However, in the distant past partisan/activist courts happened more by accident than by intent. As a rule, Justices were appointed without regard to partisan positions (which was the founders intent), and there were a number that had little/no experience at all on the bench to determine their position on issues.
Over the past few decades, Liberals have become more and insistant on a nominee meeting "tests" on issues that are a part of their agenda in order to gain confirmation. Up until GWB, this phenomena was subtle......never outwardly stated......however during the Bush administration, prominent Democrats publicly stated (Schumer comes to mind), that nomination of a strictly "constitutionalist" justice would meet with united opposition from the Democrats in the Senate......which was not the founders intent.
Idealistically, presidents are charged with placement of the best constitutional jurist to SCOTUS, not the best from their ideological position......alas, times have changed, and not necessarily for the better.
doc
I hate that the left can only get laws they want enacted, that the people are against, by appointing Judges to the bench who don't adhere to the Constitution. That's why this election coming up is so important.
-
I hate that the left can only get laws they want enacted, that the people are against, by appointing Judges to the bench who don't adhere to the Constitution. That's why this election coming up is so important.
With liberals, you get ignorant fools like this:
(CNSNews.com) - During oral arguments in the Supreme Court this week, Justice Stephen Breyer posed and answered the core question at issue in the controversy over the constitutionality of Obamacare’s mandate that individual Americans must buy government-approved health insurance policies: Can Congress order individuals to buy a good or service?
“Yes, of course they could,†said Breyer.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-breyer-can-congress-make-americans-buy-computers-cell-phones-burials-yes-course
Don't tell me you can send and idiot to school and get an educated citizen. No, you get an educated idiot.
-
I hate that the left can only get laws they want enacted, that the people are against, by appointing Judges to the bench who don't adhere to the Constitution. That's why this election coming up is so important.
True.......and we have reason for continued optimism regarding the composition of the Court......
1. For the most part, the four conservative (constitutionalist) Justices are the youngest on the Court........remembering that they serve lifetime terms........
2. The "swing vote", Kennedy, has stated publicly and emphatically that he will not retire until a Republican president is elected.........
Therefore the remaining eldest Justices, Ginsberg and Breyer, are our maximum downside under a liberal president, which represents no real change in the ideological composition of the Court in the immediate future. There is always the "wild card" that one of the critical members will get run over by a DC taxi, or fall critically ill.......but those are outliers.
Further, although admittedly rare, occasionally a Justice is appointed on the basis of ideological positions, and once on the Court, changes sides entirely (I believe that Breyer is an example of such a case)........it happens.
The appointment of judges shouldn't ever be a criteria for a citizen to cast a vote in an election.......regardless of the party in power, they should always be appointed based on their skills and legal intellect.......sadly now, this must be considered, and move to prominence in voters minds........
doc
-
2. The "swing vote", Kennedy, has stated publicly and emphatically that he will not retire until a Republican president is elected.........
Therefore the remaining eldest Justices, Ginsberg and Breyer, are our maximum downside under a liberal president, which represents no real change in the ideological composition of the Court in the immediate future. There is always the "wild card" that one of the critical members will get run over by a DC taxi, or fall critically ill.......but those are outliers.
Further, although admittedly rare, occasionally a Justice is appointed on the basis of ideological positions, and once on the Court, changes sides entirely (I believe that Breyer is an example of such a case)........it happens.
The appointment of judges shouldn't ever be a criteria for a citizen to cast a vote in an election.......regardless of the party in power, they should always be appointed based on their skills and legal intellect.......sadly now, this must be considered, and move to prominence in voters minds........
doc
That's what scares the hell out of me, Doc. This somehow gentlemen's agreement that a liberal judge must be replaced by a liberal judge. Works fine, until you get someone like Obama that will do the exact opposite and then we just have to pray no on dies. I'm not convinced Romney won't do just that. When we have a court with 4 justices that say the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what it says, we have too many damn liberals on the court.
-
That's what scares the hell out of me, Doc. This somehow gentlemen's agreement that a liberal judge must be replaced by a liberal judge. Works fine, until you get someone like Obama that will do the exact opposite and then we just have to pray no on dies. I'm not convinced Romney won't do just that. When we have a court with 4 justices that say the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what it says, we have too many damn liberals on the court.
Well......if you recall, GWB tried to do just that with a female appointee (I forget her name) who had really dubious constitutional credentials......and everyone raised holy hell about it, and continued that uproar until her nomination was withdrawn, so there are "checks and balances" with even presidents that waver.
As it turned out (if memory serves) that debacle resulted in Chief Justice Roberts being nominated and confirmed......
The best of all outcomes......
doc
-
Well, then aside from voting Romney for President, we need to make sure we send Conservatives to the House and Senate to MAKE SURE Romney makes the right choice for the Court.
-
Well, then aside from voting Romney for President, we need to make sure we send Conservatives to the House and Senate to MAKE SURE Romney makes the right choice for the Court.
Yes ma'am. :cheersmate:
-
Well......if you recall, GWB tried to do just that with a female appointee (I forget her name) who had really dubious constitutional credentials......and everyone raised holy hell about it, and continued that uproar until her nomination was withdrawn, so there are "checks and balances" with even presidents that waver.
As it turned out (if memory serves) that debacle resulted in Chief Justice Roberts being nominated and confirmed......
The best of all outcomes......
doc
That was Harriet Myers. Chief Roberts was nominated to be an Associate Justice, then when Chief Reinquist died, he was elevated to be the Chief Justice. Samuel Alito was nominated to fill the Associate Justice's slot. Two awesome nominations.
-
That was Harriet Myers. Chief Roberts was nominated to be an Associate Justice, then when Chief Reinquist died, he was elevated to be the Chief Justice. Samuel Alito was nominated to fill the Associate Justice's slot. Two awesome nominations.
When the DUmmies hate a USSC Justice, it is usually one of the black conservative ones. Why is that?
-
When the DUmmies hate a USSC Justice, it is usually one of the black conservative ones. Why is that?
Can you imagine the firestorm if the woman below:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Janice_Rogers_Brown.jpg)
was nominated for the SCOTUS?
-
Tham Hartmann is an idiot.
You can't on one hand say the USSC is the final appelate court and then in the other turn say that the USSC can't rule a law as being un-Constitutional. That would automatically mean that any law passed by Congress and signed by the President would have to be immediately accepted by the USSC as being Constitutional since they don't have the power to make any type of judgement that could overturn a law. IOW, the only way a law can be overturned is by Congress going back and overturning their own law. That's ridiculous.
The USSC is suppose to take whatever case comes before it, make the appropriate Constitutional application, and render a verdict. When you have a law in front of the USSC of which a majority of the Justices cannot find justification in the Constitution by which to make a ruling, then they have no choice but the point out the case itself is without Constitutional basis. Hartmann wants them to just say "Well, this law is automatically Constitutional because Congress passed it and the President signed it." That's chaotic.
.
-
Can you imagine the firestorm if the woman below:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Janice_Rogers_Brown.jpg)
was nominated for the SCOTUS?
Good Lord! The Liberals pointy head assploded when she was nominated for a Federal appeals position.
The mess would be ten times as worse if she was nominated to sit on the SCOTUS.
-
Good Lord! The Liberals pointy head assploded when she was nominated for a Federal appeals position.
The mess would be ten times as worse if she was nominated to sit on the SCOTUS.
Tell me how this would be a bad thing . . . :fuelfire: :yahoo:
-
Can you imagine the firestorm if the woman below:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Janice_Rogers_Brown.jpg)
was nominated for the SCOTUS?
Only took 2 yrs for her nomination to the DC federal court of appeals to get confirmed.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are alumni of the D.C. Circuit.