Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who elected these morons!? The Supreme Court Thread
#1
AHa joke is pretty obvious.

Anyway I didn't see a thread on the Supreme Court and with the importance of the cases they have been hearing of late.

Now let me get started with getting too pissed. The comments today by Scalia were attrocious and the most unconstitutional comments by a justice I've heard in my life in no way should he be on the court anymore. He should recuse himself from this case. Roberts were bad but not to the level of Scalia.

The conservatism of this court is disturbing, makes me worry for the future of law of this nation. If they strike down section 5 of the Voting Acts Law than I can only see bad things happening. Good bye election reform. Hello Jim Crow Jr.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/27/scalia-re...titlement/
Reply
#2

This is scary news.

I've got good news and I've got bad news. The bad news is that I have lost my way. The good news is that I'm way ahead of schedule.
Reply
#3

I think Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas are quite possibly the worst things to ever happen to the SCOTUS.

I mean, the GOP are doing their best to fulfill the asshole politician quotient in this country but they can at least be voted out...in non-gerrymandered districts at least.

Just as there are many things to possibly reconsider about the Constitution (2nd Amend.), the concept of a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS should be looked at.  Off the top of my head, 15 year appt.?? 20yr ??

Scalia is a special kind of asshole though. I wish someone had some dirt on him to embarrass his ass into resigning.

Reply
#4

The one thing that warms my heart is that the odds of all five conservatives staying in office through the end of Obama's term are are far from certain, and if you throw one or two terms for Hilary afterwards (or whoever), virtually nil, so hopefully we can get them replaced by a sane person or two.

Reply
#5

The difference though, even if Hillary is elected after Obama, is that Republicans would NEVER allow a Progressive on the SC the same way Democrats bowed down and let Roberts on. Does anyone here really believe that if Scalia, Thomas or Roberts kicked the bucket today, Obama would not nominate someone that is socially liberal while financially conservative along with a nice helping of agreeable when it comes to "national security"?

Reply
#6
Quote:
Originally Posted by donde View Post

The difference though, even if Hillary is elected after Obama, is that Republicans would NEVER allow a Progressive on the SC the same way Democrats bowed down and let Roberts on. Does anyone here really believe that if Scalia, Thomas or Roberts kicked the bucket today, Obama would not nominate someone that is socially liberal while financially conservative along with a nice helping of agreeable when it comes to "national security"?

I could pretty easily see Obama nominating someone else like Sotomayor or Kagan. And that would be a HUGE improvement. We wouldn't get another Citizens United that way, and the Voting Rights Act and contraception access would be safe.

Not the Supreme Court has nothing to do with economic issues, but that's probably the area of politics they're least likely to change things much. Budgets, by and large, don't get run past them, and even this ultra-conservative court wasn't ready to strike down the ACA.

Reply
#7
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Just as there are many things to possibly reconsider about the Constitution (2nd Amend.), the concept of a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS should be looked at.  Off the top of my head, 15 year appt.?? 20yr ??

As with many things, like Social Security, the term "limit" as it is went into effect when everybody was dead by 60. So they're on court, they probably got on there five or so years ago and will kick off soon. Basically, thanks a lot science, for preserving the past at the expense of the future.

Reply
#8
ACool. The Obama Administration have been amazingly great on marriage equality, one of few issues I can say that on. I hope it will have some effect on the court but knowing Scalia , Thomas and Kennedy, I'm not that hopeful.

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1190541
Reply
#9

This Supreme Court has completely stepped over the line.  They have no right to overturn laws they disagree with.  Interpret the constitutionality of a law or part of a law, fine, but don't start weighing in as if your vote is more important than the people's.  Urgh.

I can't help but hope that Roberts, with his legacy in mind, doesn't let this voting rights power grab happen, although I doubt it.  I couldn't believe he got confirmed.  For all of his highfalutin' Christian "values," he is the most corporate on the SCOTUS.  Scalia is the craziest, but he's genuinely crazy, and corporate too, but not as much of a corporate hack as Roberts.

Reply
#10

But what does it say when Scalia considers Thomas to be even more extreme/conservative than himself?

Reply
#11

Thomas is Scalia's id.

Reply
#12
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

Thomas is Scalia's id.


Seeing as Thomas rarely speaks, I'd say that it is Thomas who has tapped into Krell technology and Scalia is the physical creature that's been created.

Reply
#13

The one question I have is how could Thomas possibly vote against protections of minorities against nefarious plans of states to suppress the vote when he is in fact a minority..........

oh wait nevermind.

Reply
#14

Scalia is a fucking idiot. How he is allowed to say some of the things he says, without any consequence, makes no sense to me.

Reply
#15

God, I hate Reagan and Bush.

Reply
#16

Rachel Maddow was on TDS last night.

She related her story of going to DC and seeing the recent SCOTUS hearings in person.

Her summary of Scalia seems pretty dead on.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-fe...share_copy

Reply
#17

It's pretty amazing that he could air his racist ramblings openly and without shame.  Either he is delusional, or he has a political agenda that he's justifying with ideology. 

Reply
#18

If they over turn the votings right act, they'll have cut off their nose to spite their face. Who the fuck cares about the constitution? We're not going to allow our nation to be plunged back into Jim Crow because supposedly a bunch of 18th century slave owners would have wanted it that way. It's tyranny of one generation's will upon the next.

Reply
#19

Actually hearing it directly from Scalia's mouth makes it even worse! The utter disdain in his voice for our elected representatives is stunning and obviously has no respect of the rule of law. How he got appointed by the Supreme Court is stunning and his decisions on gun rights, money in the political system, on the ACA and circumventing our electoral laws and handing the presidency to George W Bush and Dick Cheney was bad but in some ways this is worse.

I have no words to even explain how much I hate him. Obviously he despises the entire Bill of Rights and amendments to the constitution save the Second Amendment and might dislike the entirety of the Constitution as well. Having him on the court is a slap to the face to all previous Justices and utterly sickening. We is the current Id of the modern Republican Party of the United States of America and wants to turn the US into Pinochet's Chile. He shouldn't be on the Supreme Court, he is the Dick Cheney of Supreme Court justices and should resign or be thrown off the court forcibly for what he done to our country since being appointed to the Supreme Court. Just despicable!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/01...ia-on-tape

Reply
#20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

Actually hearing it directly from Scalia's mouth makes it even worse! The utter disdain in his voice for our elected representatives is stunning

Hang on. The rest I sort of agree with you on, but this part... Come on. Most of our elected representatives are stunningly worthy of our utter disdain. We wouldn't be in this situation right now if our political system wasn't run by bumbling ineptness or hyper partisan players. More people should openly show their disdain for the poor way Congress acts.

<br />

Reply
#21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

Actually hearing it directly from Scalia's mouth makes it even worse! The utter disdain in his voice for our elected representatives is stunning and obviously has no respect of the rule of law. How he got appointed by the Supreme Court is stunning and his decisions on gun rights, money in the political system, on the ACA and circumventing our electoral laws and handing the presidency to George W Bush and Dick Cheney was bad but in some ways this is worse.

I have no words to even explain how much I hate him. Obviously he despises the entire Bill of Rights and amendments to the constitution save the Second Amendment and might dislike the entirety of the Constitution as well. Having him on the court is a slap to the face to all previous Justices and utterly sickening. We is the current Id of the modern Republican Party of the United States of America and wants to turn the US into Pinochet's Chile. He shouldn't be on the Supreme Court, he is the Dick Cheney of Supreme Court justices and should resign or be thrown off the court forcibly for what he done to our country since being appointed to the Supreme Court. Just despicable!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/01...ia-on-tape

I see no lies in this statement.  Perfected stated, bravo!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post

Hang on. The rest I sort of agree with you on, but this part... Come on. Most of our elected representatives are stunningly worthy of our utter disdain. We wouldn't be in this situation right now if our political system wasn't run by bumbling ineptness or hyper partisan players. More people should openly show their disdain for the poor way Congress acts.

I don't think Congress should be treated as one organism.  It's a body with organs that either work or are in active revolt.  Some legislators are doing everything they can to improve conditions in this country, while others are ideologues with no connection to reality, or bottom-feeders catering to the easiest or most forceful buck or posturing for cushy post-term positions at multinationals, but to paint all of them with the same brush is doing the work of the bottom-feeders for them.  They want the perception to be that congress doesn't, or can't, work.  They want you to believe they're all the same, instead of calling out individuals for filibustering good legislation or passing out checks from the tobacco companies on the House floor (sorry, John Boehner), and making the connection between the individual and his constituency so that those who will be voting for him or her know exactly what he or she has done for them or not done.

But back to Scalia -- he should be impeached for those beliefs but, of course, he won't be.

Reply
#22
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

I see no lies in this statement.  Perfected stated, bravo!

I don't think Congress should be treated as one organism.  It's a body with organs that either work or are in active revolt.  Some legislators are doing everything they can to improve conditions in this country, while others are ideologues with no connection to reality, or bottom-feeders catering to the easiest or most forceful buck or posturing for cushy post-term positions at multinationals, but to paint all of them with the same brush is doing the work of the bottom-feeders for them.  They want the perception to be that congress doesn't, or can't, work.  They want you to believe they're all the same, instead of calling out individuals for filibustering good legislation or passing out checks from the tobacco companies on the House floor (sorry, John Boehner), and making the connection between the individual and his constituency so that those who will be voting for him or her know exactly what he or she has done for them or not done.

But back to Scalia -- he should be impeached for those beliefs but, of course, he won't be.

True, and this is one of the reasons that Congress has low approval ratings, but individuals approval ratings in their own district are fine.

Reply
#23

An excellent mini-biography of Justice William Brennan who was instrumental in many of the landmark judgments on race, gender, abortion etc. throughout the second half of last century. It's indicative of the continued shift in US politics to the right that Brennan, who could hardly be described as a card-carrying Marxist, would stand little chance of selection today. 

Reply
#24

WOW!

The Supreme Court actually has done something smart for a change.

Quote:

Supreme Court rules genes can't be patented

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the Myriad Genetics case that genes as found in nature cannot be patented but that synthetic DNA can be because it’s a human invention.

In a unanimous ruling with tremendous implications for the biotechnology industry, the court found that patents on genes like BRCA1 and BRCA2 — associated with breast cancer — because they required no invention, only the discovery of something natural that already exists. But artificial DNA, engineered to clone genes, manipulate genetic material or for some other use, can be patented.

<cont.>

Of course, the biotech companies are already looking for ways to get around this ruling.

Part of me thinks that this ruling was released in order to 'soften the blow' when it comes to their decisions on Affirmative Action, Voting Rights Act and DOMA.

Reply
#25
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Part of me thinks that this ruling was released in order to 'soften the blow' when it comes to their decisions on Affirmative Action, Voting Rights Act and DOMA.

I agree with you on this. The more surprising bit to me was this side note by Scalia:

Quote:
While he "joins the judgment of the court," Scalia wrote, he won't sign on to "Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology." Why? Because he can't "affirm those details on [his] own knowledge or even [his] own belief."
Reply
#26

Scalia always has to sneak in some sort of pandering/dickish 'last word' comment.

He doesn't like it that if he commits 100% to this 'scientific' decision, it could come back and bite him in the ass.

The religious fundamentalists won't like his embracing science and the biotech corporations will be pissed because their future business model is out the window now.

Reply
#27
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Part of me thinks that this ruling was released in order to 'soften the blow' when it comes to their decisions on Affirmative Action, Voting Rights Act and DOMA.

That's sort of nonsensical. I'm deeply cynical about the supreme court, but the biotech companies aren't going to say "Well, they may have undermined our business model, but at least gay people can't get married!" If anything, I would have expected them to toss a bone towards the socially progressive stuff, which ultimately doesn't hurt anyone's bottom line, and then kowtowed to our corporate overlords.

Reply
#28

The conservative members all seem to have that bizarre blend of libertarian business-first-at-all-costs mentality and hard right religious views.  I don't know if the two are linked but Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts are all hard core bible thumpers.  Maybe it's some kind of "magical thinking" confluence.  Supply-side economics is a fairy tale, after all.

Reply
#29

Yes, but even given that, the corporate stuff is the dog and the religious/social conservative stuff is the tail, right? They're not going to leave the corporations hanging and then cleave to the religious stuff. Most of the actual powerful right-wingers are just using gay marriage and affirmative action as wedge issues, not something they seriously want prevented. If they could make bigger profits out of encouraging gay marriage, they'd do so in a second.

Reply
#30
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

That's sort of nonsensical. I'm deeply cynical about the supreme court, but the biotech companies aren't going to say "Well, they may have undermined our business model, but at least gay people can't get married!" If anything, I would have expected them to toss a bone towards the socially progressive stuff, which ultimately doesn't hurt anyone's bottom line, and then kowtowed to our corporate overlords.


Well, the terms 'nonsensical' and 'politics' seem to be pretty interchangeable these days. Smile

I can't help but think that the court will chicken out and push DOMA back on the states. This wll allow them to 'save face' with the religious right.

As far as Affirmative Action and the Voting Rights act goes...well, conservatives have hated both of these 'programs' with a passion and would love nothing more than to see them eliminated. This is the chance for the court to throw some red meat to the GOP and I don't know if they will be able to pass it up. I hope I'm wrong about that though.

Reply
#31
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post

Yes, but even given that, the corporate stuff is the dog and the religious/social conservative stuff is the tail, right? They're not going to leave the corporations hanging and then cleave to the religious stuff. Most of the actual powerful right-wingers are just using gay marriage and affirmative action as wedge issues, not something they seriously want prevented. If they could make bigger profits out of encouraging gay marriage, they'd do so in a second.

The weird thing is they can - gay marriage is a profit machine.

I think with politicians (a lot of them, though not some of the looniest), you're right about the dog and the tail, but these guys are unelected and they serve for life.  They seem at times embarrassed or angry when the public at large thinks they screwed the pooch but they don't have to kowtow to them or please them.  Scalia can't keep his mouth shut about how he doesn't give a rat's ass what the great unwashed think about him.

Reply
#32
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

The weird thing is they can - gay marriage is a profit machine.

I find myself enjoying the moral quandary going on in the heads of fundamentalist conservatives over this....

"so, we can make more money, which is what god wants....but then god doesn't like the gays....but...money.....the gays......Norman coordinate"

Reply
#33

OK, now the Supreme Court is just fucking with us.....

Quote:

Supreme Court Strikes Down AZ Voter Suppression Law

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona law that requires people to submit proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The vote was 7-2. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said that a 1993 federal law known as the Motor Voter Act takes precedence over the Arizona law because of its requirement that states “accept and use” the federal voter registration form.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two members of the court’s conservative wing, dissented.

Reply
#34

The real shocker is that Thomas didn't vote with Scalia.  It is completely bizarre how Scalia sometimes concerns himself with the fabric of actual law while totally ignoring it when it suits him.

Reply
#35
A[quote name="yt" url="/community/t/146967/who-elected-these-morons-the-supreme-court-thread/30#post_3530703"]The real shocker is that Thomas didn't vote with Scalia.  It is completely bizarre how Scalia sometimes concerns himself with the fabric of actual law while totally ignoring it when it suits him.
[/quote]

Or as Rachel Maddow said Scalia is a judicial troll.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)