I do find the hypocrisy of pretty much everyone humorous. Everyone loves the Justices when they agree with their political positions. Supreme Court on gay marriage=great. Supreme Court on Citizens United=awful. And vice versa. I support both decisions.
Of course we like decisions that we personally support and dislike those we don't but it all depends on how you voice your opposition IMHO. I have yet to hear the hysterical outrage, like the conservatives are spewing over the gay marriage ruling, by liberals when a decision they don't agree with is rendered by the SCOTUS.
IMHO I think the CU decision makes an already dysfunctional political system even more dysfunctional, if that is even possible, by giving wealthy individuals and/or groups even more control over candidates by dangling the money carrot in front of them. But that was the courts decision so what can you do other than abide by it.
IMHO I think the CU decision makes an already dysfunctional political system even more dysfunctional, if that is even possible, by giving wealthy individuals and/or groups even more control over candidates by dangling the money carrot in front of them.
Sorry to steer away from the issues like I always do, but Unions have been dangling the money carrot in front of them for decades. Has that that bothered you?
[Edited on 7/7/2015 by alloak41]
Sorry to steer away from the issues like I always do, but Unions have been dangling the money carrot in front of them for decades. Has that that bothered you?
Yes. It bothers the hell out of me.
I think that in Great Britain you can't spend any campaign money until 6 weeks before the election. Our Presidential campaigning never seems to stop. It is continuous.
I'd love to see every campaign limited to a certain amount of money. A billion dollars to become President?
What could go wrong?
IMHO I think the CU decision makes an already dysfunctional political system even more dysfunctional, if that is even possible, by giving wealthy individuals and/or groups even more control over candidates by dangling the money carrot in front of them.
Sorry to steer away from the issues like I always do, but Unions have been dangling the money carrot in front of them for decades. Has that that bothered you?
Of course it was just the unions, not the corporations that employed them...... funny how you always only see one side..........
IMHO I think the CU decision makes an already dysfunctional political system even more dysfunctional, if that is even possible, by giving wealthy individuals and/or groups even more control over candidates by dangling the money carrot in front of them.
Sorry to steer away from the issues like I always do, but Unions have been dangling the money carrot in front of them for decades. Has that that bothered you?
Of course it was just the unions, not the corporations that employed them...... funny how you always only see one side..........
Have corporations forced Unions to donate to political campaigns?
IMHO I think the CU decision makes an already dysfunctional political system even more dysfunctional, if that is even possible, by giving wealthy individuals and/or groups even more control over candidates by dangling the money carrot in front of them.
Sorry to steer away from the issues like I always do, but Unions have been dangling the money carrot in front of them for decades. Has that that bothered you?
Of course it was just the unions, not the corporations that employed them...... funny how you always only see one side..........
Have corporations forced Unions to donate to political campaigns?
No. Has anyone forced corporations to donate to political campaigns?
IMHO I think the CU decision makes an already dysfunctional political system even more dysfunctional, if that is even possible, by giving wealthy individuals and/or groups even more control over candidates by dangling the money carrot in front of them.
Sorry to steer away from the issues like I always do, but Unions have been dangling the money carrot in front of them for decades. Has that that bothered you?
Of course it was just the unions, not the corporations that employed them...... funny how you always only see one side..........
Have corporations forced Unions to donate to political campaigns?
No. Has anyone forced corporations to donate to political campaigns?
One thing for sure, Unions have been forcing workers to donate to political campaigns for far too long.
Nine unelected individuals were able to pull this off.
The "unelected" talking point when referring to the SCOTUS is one of the most ridiculous talking points of all time, and that's saying something.
When do these elections take place?
They are confirmed by a vote of the senate. You voted for a senator to represent you. That is how it works in a republic.
How is it that all of those on the right like to make up stories about Obama not following the constitution, and yet here we see them complaining about a process outlined in that very document. Maybe those on the right only think they love the constitution?
[Edited on 7/6/2015 by 2112]
Stop stereotyping. I don't complain. I recognize that we have 3 branches of the federal government.
Maybe you didn't, but an awful lot did. This post is an example. Mike Huckabee is another:
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, blasted the decision Friday as "judicial tyranny" and said he would "not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch."
Really? Has Mike Huckabee ever read the constitution?
Doug, you might be an exception, but I get really tired of those on the right implying that the left has no regard for the constitution, and then they come out with crap like this.
I find presicely the same thing when the Court makes a decision that goes against liberal orthodoxy. The exact same thing. Exactly zero difference. Either you believe the Justices follow the law to the best of their ability or you don't. You don't pick and choose or you have absolutely no credibility.
I do find the hypocrisy of pretty much everyone humorous. Everyone loves the Justices when they agree with their political positions. Supreme Court on gay marriage=great. Supreme Court on Citizens United=awful. And vice versa. I support both decisions.
You can put me in the camp of those who believe SC decisions on gay marriage=great & on Citizens United=awful. But I too support both decisions as they reflect the findings of our judicial system. Until there is a different system, then we need to support the SC decisions. Unfortunately there are too many people coming out of the woodwork now that a couple liberal decisions have been rendered as of late. The system cuts both ways.
Some of the public statements made by GOP leaders in the last few weeks reflect an ignorance of how our three branches of government work. Or maybe they're just pandering to the base & trying to raise funds.
The thing is few of those criticizing Citizens United have either read or undertstand the basis for the decision which is based on caselaw and precedent. Obviously people can differ but it would be nice if people looked at the decision and analysed it. One of the problems some on the right have with the gay rights decision is that it seems to be without legal or constitutional justification. Of course others oppose it just because they disagree with the outcome.
I do find the hypocrisy of pretty much everyone humorous. Everyone loves the Justices when they agree with their political positions. Supreme Court on gay marriage=great. Supreme Court on Citizens United=awful. And vice versa. I support both decisions.
Of course we like decisions that we personally support and dislike those we don't but it all depends on how you voice your opposition IMHO. I have yet to hear the hysterical outrage, like the conservatives are spewing over the gay marriage ruling, by liberals when a decision they don't agree with is rendered by the SCOTUS.
IMHO I think the CU decision makes an already dysfunctional political system even more dysfunctional, if that is even possible, by giving wealthy individuals and/or groups even more control over candidates by dangling the money carrot in front of them. But that was the courts decision so what can you do other than abide by it.
Are you JOKING? Do I really have to google the Citizens United decision and post the hysteria?
I do find the hypocrisy of pretty much everyone humorous. Everyone loves the Justices when they agree with their political positions. Supreme Court on gay marriage=great. Supreme Court on Citizens United=awful. And vice versa. I support both decisions.
Of course we like decisions that we personally support and dislike those we don't but it all depends on how you voice your opposition IMHO. I have yet to hear the hysterical outrage, like the conservatives are spewing over the gay marriage ruling, by liberals when a decision they don't agree with is rendered by the SCOTUS.
IMHO I think the CU decision makes an already dysfunctional political system even more dysfunctional, if that is even possible, by giving wealthy individuals and/or groups even more control over candidates by dangling the money carrot in front of them. But that was the courts decision so what can you do other than abide by it.
Are you JOKING? Do I really have to google the Citizens United decision and post the hysteria?
Reaction to Citizens United v. FEC didn't neatly fit into a left/right paradigm at all. All kinds of commentary were all over the place.
This "unelected justices" thing getting tossed around the last few weeks, that's a new one on me, though. Marbury v. Madison was in 1803. Would have thought that such a serious doubt on the powers of the SCOTUS would have come up before now.
Nine unelected individuals were able to pull this off.
The "unelected" talking point when referring to the SCOTUS is one of the most ridiculous talking points of all time, and that's saying something.
When do these elections take place?
They are confirmed by a vote of the senate. You voted for a senator to represent you. That is how it works in a republic.
How is it that all of those on the right like to make up stories about Obama not following the constitution, and yet here we see them complaining about a process outlined in that very document. Maybe those on the right only think they love the constitution?
[Edited on 7/6/2015 by 2112]
Stop stereotyping. I don't complain. I recognize that we have 3 branches of the federal government.
Maybe you didn't, but an awful lot did. This post is an example. Mike Huckabee is another:
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, blasted the decision Friday as "judicial tyranny" and said he would "not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch."
Really? Has Mike Huckabee ever read the constitution?
Doug, you might be an exception, but I get really tired of those on the right implying that the left has no regard for the constitution, and then they come out with crap like this.
I find presicely the same thing when the Court makes a decision that goes against liberal orthodoxy. The exact same thing. Exactly zero difference. Either you believe the Justices follow the law to the best of their ability or you don't. You don't pick and choose or you have absolutely no credibility.
With the possible exception of Bush vs Gore, which essentially chose the winner of an election, I don't think I've ever seen high profile liberals make statements like we are seeing from those like Huckabee. Even with that 2000 ruling, we didn't see liberals encourage ignoring the ruling. We've even seen conservative attorney generals encourage people to defy the ruling. Can you point out a case where high profile liberals have done something similar?
Nine unelected individuals were able to pull this off.
The "unelected" talking point when referring to the SCOTUS is one of the most ridiculous talking points of all time, and that's saying something.
When do these elections take place?
They are confirmed by a vote of the senate. You voted for a senator to represent you. That is how it works in a republic.
How is it that all of those on the right like to make up stories about Obama not following the constitution, and yet here we see them complaining about a process outlined in that very document. Maybe those on the right only think they love the constitution?
[Edited on 7/6/2015 by 2112]
Stop stereotyping. I don't complain. I recognize that we have 3 branches of the federal government.
Maybe you didn't, but an awful lot did. This post is an example. Mike Huckabee is another:
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, blasted the decision Friday as "judicial tyranny" and said he would "not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch."
Really? Has Mike Huckabee ever read the constitution?
Doug, you might be an exception, but I get really tired of those on the right implying that the left has no regard for the constitution, and then they come out with crap like this.
I find presicely the same thing when the Court makes a decision that goes against liberal orthodoxy. The exact same thing. Exactly zero difference. Either you believe the Justices follow the law to the best of their ability or you don't. You don't pick and choose or you have absolutely no credibility.
With the possible exception of Bush vs Gore, which essentially chose the winner of an election, I don't think I've ever seen high profile liberals make statements like we are seeing from those like Huckabee. Even with that 2000 ruling, we didn't see liberals encourage ignoring the ruling. We've even seen conservative attorney generals encourage people to defy the ruling. Can you point out a case where high profile liberals have done something similar?
Honestly do people think I make this stuff up?
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/the-left-loses-their-minds-over-hobby-lobby-decision/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397452/liberals-and-court-howard-slugh
This was a simple google search. Of course the Courts have mnany more times issued decisions liberals like so there is less opportunity for this kind of attack from them but it is definitely out there. And while you may not like the source or the conclusions of these opinion pieces note the quotes from liberals. Those are quotes not interpretations or opinions.
Nine unelected individuals were able to pull this off.
The "unelected" talking point when referring to the SCOTUS is one of the most ridiculous talking points of all time, and that's saying something.
When do these elections take place?
They are confirmed by a vote of the senate. You voted for a senator to represent you. That is how it works in a republic.
How is it that all of those on the right like to make up stories about Obama not following the constitution, and yet here we see them complaining about a process outlined in that very document. Maybe those on the right only think they love the constitution?
[Edited on 7/6/2015 by 2112]
Stop stereotyping. I don't complain. I recognize that we have 3 branches of the federal government.
Maybe you didn't, but an awful lot did. This post is an example. Mike Huckabee is another:
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, blasted the decision Friday as "judicial tyranny" and said he would "not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch."
Really? Has Mike Huckabee ever read the constitution?
Doug, you might be an exception, but I get really tired of those on the right implying that the left has no regard for the constitution, and then they come out with crap like this.
I find presicely the same thing when the Court makes a decision that goes against liberal orthodoxy. The exact same thing. Exactly zero difference. Either you believe the Justices follow the law to the best of their ability or you don't. You don't pick and choose or you have absolutely no credibility.
With the possible exception of Bush vs Gore, which essentially chose the winner of an election, I don't think I've ever seen high profile liberals make statements like we are seeing from those like Huckabee. Even with that 2000 ruling, we didn't see liberals encourage ignoring the ruling. We've even seen conservative attorney generals encourage people to defy the ruling. Can you point out a case where high profile liberals have done something similar?
Honestly do people think I make this stuff up?
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/the-left-loses-their-minds-over-hobby-lobby-decision/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397452/liberals-and-court-howard-slugh
This was a simple google search. Of course the Courts have mnany more times issued decisions liberals like so there is less opportunity for this kind of attack from them but it is definitely out there. And while you may not like the source or the conclusions of these opinion pieces note the quotes from liberals. Those are quotes not interpretations or opinions.
I'll play. The Breitbart piece says this:
The Left lost its collective mind over the decision, wailing that the return of slavery was at hand. Minnesota state representative Ryan Winkler, a Democrat, declared on Twitter that the 5-4 majority for this decision was nothing but “four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas,” by which he meant black Justice Clarence Thomas.
That's the only "quote" in that piece, and it's a tweet from one guy. The paragraph starts out with "The Left lost it's collective mind."
A tweet from one person describes the collective of millions of people? C'mon now. I know you hate broad-brushing, right?
One of those contains a quote from Pelosi about we all having to be afraid of the court, which is silly in it's own right. Harry Reid saying he disagrees with a decision and will look for legislative remedies is certainly not a unique or a one-sided party reaction, legislators have been making those kinds of statements for decades.
If your point is that both sides react outrageously when decisions are handed down, that's obvious. Not all reactions are equal. In none of the links your provided did anyone make a statement about how the justices are "unelected," as if that now makes them a body out of control. Personally, I think that's an awfully stupid and silly talking point, and you being an attorney and knowledgeable history buff I'd be shocked if you didn't think so too.
Nine unelected individuals were able to pull this off.
The "unelected" talking point when referring to the SCOTUS is one of the most ridiculous talking points of all time, and that's saying something.
When do these elections take place?
They are confirmed by a vote of the senate. You voted for a senator to represent you. That is how it works in a republic.
How is it that all of those on the right like to make up stories about Obama not following the constitution, and yet here we see them complaining about a process outlined in that very document. Maybe those on the right only think they love the constitution?
[Edited on 7/6/2015 by 2112]
Stop stereotyping. I don't complain. I recognize that we have 3 branches of the federal government.
Maybe you didn't, but an awful lot did. This post is an example. Mike Huckabee is another:
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, blasted the decision Friday as "judicial tyranny" and said he would "not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch."
Really? Has Mike Huckabee ever read the constitution?
Doug, you might be an exception, but I get really tired of those on the right implying that the left has no regard for the constitution, and then they come out with crap like this.
I find presicely the same thing when the Court makes a decision that goes against liberal orthodoxy. The exact same thing. Exactly zero difference. Either you believe the Justices follow the law to the best of their ability or you don't. You don't pick and choose or you have absolutely no credibility.
With the possible exception of Bush vs Gore, which essentially chose the winner of an election, I don't think I've ever seen high profile liberals make statements like we are seeing from those like Huckabee. Even with that 2000 ruling, we didn't see liberals encourage ignoring the ruling. We've even seen conservative attorney generals encourage people to defy the ruling. Can you point out a case where high profile liberals have done something similar?
Honestly do people think I make this stuff up?
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/the-left-loses-their-minds-over-hobby-lobby-decision/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397452/liberals-and-court-howard-slugh
This was a simple google search. Of course the Courts have mnany more times issued decisions liberals like so there is less opportunity for this kind of attack from them but it is definitely out there. And while you may not like the source or the conclusions of these opinion pieces note the quotes from liberals. Those are quotes not interpretations or opinions.
I'll play. The Breitbart piece says this:
The Left lost its collective mind over the decision, wailing that the return of slavery was at hand. Minnesota state representative Ryan Winkler, a Democrat, declared on Twitter that the 5-4 majority for this decision was nothing but “four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas,” by which he meant black Justice Clarence Thomas.
That's the only "quote" in that piece, and it's a tweet from one guy. The paragraph starts out with "The Left lost it's collective mind."
A tweet from one person describes the collective of millions of people? C'mon now. I know you hate broad-brushing, right?
One of those contains a quote from Pelosi about we all having to be afraid of the court, which is silly in it's own right. Harry Reid saying he disagrees with a decision and will look for legislative remedies is certainly not a unique or a one-sided party reaction, legislators have been making those kinds of statements for decades.
If your point is that both sides react outrageously when decisions are handed down, that's obvious. Not all reactions are equal. In none of the links your provided did anyone make a statement about how the justices are "unelected," as if that now makes them a body out of control. Personally, I think that's an awfully stupid and silly talking point, and you being an attorney and knowledgeable history buff I'd be shocked if you didn't think so too.
Exactly. In none of those articles did any Democrat call for ignoring the ruling nor did any question the authority of the court. In fact in the last one, it said "The commentary contained inflammatory language about the alleged effect of the decision but did not question its legal reasoning in any serious way." That is a far cry from how the many on the right are reacting now questioning the legality of the court and their rulings.
I'm ignorant regarding the history of corporate personhood.
Can anyone tell me what good has come from the Citizens United ruling? How did that help our democracy?
Nine unelected individuals were able to pull this off.
The "unelected" talking point when referring to the SCOTUS is one of the most ridiculous talking points of all time, and that's saying something.
When do these elections take place?
They are confirmed by a vote of the senate. You voted for a senator to represent you. That is how it works in a republic.
How is it that all of those on the right like to make up stories about Obama not following the constitution, and yet here we see them complaining about a process outlined in that very document. Maybe those on the right only think they love the constitution?
[Edited on 7/6/2015 by 2112]
Stop stereotyping. I don't complain. I recognize that we have 3 branches of the federal government.
Maybe you didn't, but an awful lot did. This post is an example. Mike Huckabee is another:
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, blasted the decision Friday as "judicial tyranny" and said he would "not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch."
Really? Has Mike Huckabee ever read the constitution?
Doug, you might be an exception, but I get really tired of those on the right implying that the left has no regard for the constitution, and then they come out with crap like this.
I find presicely the same thing when the Court makes a decision that goes against liberal orthodoxy. The exact same thing. Exactly zero difference. Either you believe the Justices follow the law to the best of their ability or you don't. You don't pick and choose or you have absolutely no credibility.
With the possible exception of Bush vs Gore, which essentially chose the winner of an election, I don't think I've ever seen high profile liberals make statements like we are seeing from those like Huckabee. Even with that 2000 ruling, we didn't see liberals encourage ignoring the ruling. We've even seen conservative attorney generals encourage people to defy the ruling. Can you point out a case where high profile liberals have done something similar?
Honestly do people think I make this stuff up?
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/the-left-loses-their-minds-over-hobby-lobby-decision/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397452/liberals-and-court-howard-slugh
This was a simple google search. Of course the Courts have mnany more times issued decisions liberals like so there is less opportunity for this kind of attack from them but it is definitely out there. And while you may not like the source or the conclusions of these opinion pieces note the quotes from liberals. Those are quotes not interpretations or opinions.
Please cite an example of Democrat members of congress or AG's of states telling US citizens and public servants they do not need to follow a SCOTUS ruling like Senator Cruz and the AG of Texas have both done in the last few weeks. None of the examples you cited above do that.
Nine unelected individuals were able to pull this off.
The "unelected" talking point when referring to the SCOTUS is one of the most ridiculous talking points of all time, and that's saying something.
When do these elections take place?
They are confirmed by a vote of the senate. You voted for a senator to represent you. That is how it works in a republic.
How is it that all of those on the right like to make up stories about Obama not following the constitution, and yet here we see them complaining about a process outlined in that very document. Maybe those on the right only think they love the constitution?
[Edited on 7/6/2015 by 2112]
Stop stereotyping. I don't complain. I recognize that we have 3 branches of the federal government.
Maybe you didn't, but an awful lot did. This post is an example. Mike Huckabee is another:
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, blasted the decision Friday as "judicial tyranny" and said he would "not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch."
Really? Has Mike Huckabee ever read the constitution?
Doug, you might be an exception, but I get really tired of those on the right implying that the left has no regard for the constitution, and then they come out with crap like this.
I find presicely the same thing when the Court makes a decision that goes against liberal orthodoxy. The exact same thing. Exactly zero difference. Either you believe the Justices follow the law to the best of their ability or you don't. You don't pick and choose or you have absolutely no credibility.
With the possible exception of Bush vs Gore, which essentially chose the winner of an election, I don't think I've ever seen high profile liberals make statements like we are seeing from those like Huckabee. Even with that 2000 ruling, we didn't see liberals encourage ignoring the ruling. We've even seen conservative attorney generals encourage people to defy the ruling. Can you point out a case where high profile liberals have done something similar?
Honestly do people think I make this stuff up?
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/the-left-loses-their-minds-over-hobby-lobby-decision/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397452/liberals-and-court-howard-slugh
This was a simple google search. Of course the Courts have mnany more times issued decisions liberals like so there is less opportunity for this kind of attack from them but it is definitely out there. And while you may not like the source or the conclusions of these opinion pieces note the quotes from liberals. Those are quotes not interpretations or opinions.
I'll play. The Breitbart piece says this:
The Left lost its collective mind over the decision, wailing that the return of slavery was at hand. Minnesota state representative Ryan Winkler, a Democrat, declared on Twitter that the 5-4 majority for this decision was nothing but “four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas,” by which he meant black Justice Clarence Thomas.
That's the only "quote" in that piece, and it's a tweet from one guy. The paragraph starts out with "The Left lost it's collective mind."
A tweet from one person describes the collective of millions of people? C'mon now. I know you hate broad-brushing, right?
One of those contains a quote from Pelosi about we all having to be afraid of the court, which is silly in it's own right. Harry Reid saying he disagrees with a decision and will look for legislative remedies is certainly not a unique or a one-sided party reaction, legislators have been making those kinds of statements for decades.
If your point is that both sides react outrageously when decisions are handed down, that's obvious. Not all reactions are equal. In none of the links your provided did anyone make a statement about how the justices are "unelected," as if that now makes them a body out of control. Personally, I think that's an awfully stupid and silly talking point, and you being an attorney and knowledgeable history buff I'd be shocked if you didn't think so too.
I've already made it clear I think it's wrong to attack the integrity of the court just because you don't like a decision it reaches. My only point and you seem to agree is that blatant hypocrisy exists on both sides. It doesn't matter whether the exact statement was made by both right and left. The point is very clear that just as the right flips out so does the left on the few ocassions when a decision is reached the left dislikes.
Nine unelected individuals were able to pull this off.
The "unelected" talking point when referring to the SCOTUS is one of the most ridiculous talking points of all time, and that's saying something.
When do these elections take place?
They are confirmed by a vote of the senate. You voted for a senator to represent you. That is how it works in a republic.
How is it that all of those on the right like to make up stories about Obama not following the constitution, and yet here we see them complaining about a process outlined in that very document. Maybe those on the right only think they love the constitution?
[Edited on 7/6/2015 by 2112]
Stop stereotyping. I don't complain. I recognize that we have 3 branches of the federal government.
Maybe you didn't, but an awful lot did. This post is an example. Mike Huckabee is another:
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, blasted the decision Friday as "judicial tyranny" and said he would "not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch."
Really? Has Mike Huckabee ever read the constitution?
Doug, you might be an exception, but I get really tired of those on the right implying that the left has no regard for the constitution, and then they come out with crap like this.
I find presicely the same thing when the Court makes a decision that goes against liberal orthodoxy. The exact same thing. Exactly zero difference. Either you believe the Justices follow the law to the best of their ability or you don't. You don't pick and choose or you have absolutely no credibility.
With the possible exception of Bush vs Gore, which essentially chose the winner of an election, I don't think I've ever seen high profile liberals make statements like we are seeing from those like Huckabee. Even with that 2000 ruling, we didn't see liberals encourage ignoring the ruling. We've even seen conservative attorney generals encourage people to defy the ruling. Can you point out a case where high profile liberals have done something similar?
Honestly do people think I make this stuff up?
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/the-left-loses-their-minds-over-hobby-lobby-decision/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397452/liberals-and-court-howard-slugh
This was a simple google search. Of course the Courts have mnany more times issued decisions liberals like so there is less opportunity for this kind of attack from them but it is definitely out there. And while you may not like the source or the conclusions of these opinion pieces note the quotes from liberals. Those are quotes not interpretations or opinions.
I'll play. The Breitbart piece says this:
The Left lost its collective mind over the decision, wailing that the return of slavery was at hand. Minnesota state representative Ryan Winkler, a Democrat, declared on Twitter that the 5-4 majority for this decision was nothing but “four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas,” by which he meant black Justice Clarence Thomas.
That's the only "quote" in that piece, and it's a tweet from one guy. The paragraph starts out with "The Left lost it's collective mind."
A tweet from one person describes the collective of millions of people? C'mon now. I know you hate broad-brushing, right?
One of those contains a quote from Pelosi about we all having to be afraid of the court, which is silly in it's own right. Harry Reid saying he disagrees with a decision and will look for legislative remedies is certainly not a unique or a one-sided party reaction, legislators have been making those kinds of statements for decades.
If your point is that both sides react outrageously when decisions are handed down, that's obvious. Not all reactions are equal. In none of the links your provided did anyone make a statement about how the justices are "unelected," as if that now makes them a body out of control. Personally, I think that's an awfully stupid and silly talking point, and you being an attorney and knowledgeable history buff I'd be shocked if you didn't think so too.
Exactly. In none of those articles did any Democrat call for ignoring the ruling nor did any question the authority of the court. In fact in the last one, it said "The commentary contained inflammatory language about the alleged effect of the decision but did not question its legal reasoning in any serious way." That is a far cry from how the many on the right are reacting now questioning the legality of the court and their rulings.
Give me a break. The only reason you hear it more from the right is that so many more of the decisions are pleasing to the left. When a decision comes along that the left doesn't like, there are immediate attacks on the very integrity of the justices (see e.g. Scalia and Thomas) and calls for Constitutional amednments.
I'm ignorant regarding the history of corporate personhood.
Can anyone tell me what good has come from the Citizens United ruling? How did that help our democracy?
IS the Court's mandate to "help our democracy"? Or is it to interpret statutes and the Constitution.
Nine unelected individuals were able to pull this off.
The "unelected" talking point when referring to the SCOTUS is one of the most ridiculous talking points of all time, and that's saying something.
When do these elections take place?
They are confirmed by a vote of the senate. You voted for a senator to represent you. That is how it works in a republic.
How is it that all of those on the right like to make up stories about Obama not following the constitution, and yet here we see them complaining about a process outlined in that very document. Maybe those on the right only think they love the constitution?
[Edited on 7/6/2015 by 2112]
Stop stereotyping. I don't complain. I recognize that we have 3 branches of the federal government.
Maybe you didn't, but an awful lot did. This post is an example. Mike Huckabee is another:
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, blasted the decision Friday as "judicial tyranny" and said he would "not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch."
Really? Has Mike Huckabee ever read the constitution?
Doug, you might be an exception, but I get really tired of those on the right implying that the left has no regard for the constitution, and then they come out with crap like this.
I find presicely the same thing when the Court makes a decision that goes against liberal orthodoxy. The exact same thing. Exactly zero difference. Either you believe the Justices follow the law to the best of their ability or you don't. You don't pick and choose or you have absolutely no credibility.
With the possible exception of Bush vs Gore, which essentially chose the winner of an election, I don't think I've ever seen high profile liberals make statements like we are seeing from those like Huckabee. Even with that 2000 ruling, we didn't see liberals encourage ignoring the ruling. We've even seen conservative attorney generals encourage people to defy the ruling. Can you point out a case where high profile liberals have done something similar?
Honestly do people think I make this stuff up?
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/the-left-loses-their-minds-over-hobby-lobby-decision/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397452/liberals-and-court-howard-slugh
This was a simple google search. Of course the Courts have mnany more times issued decisions liberals like so there is less opportunity for this kind of attack from them but it is definitely out there. And while you may not like the source or the conclusions of these opinion pieces note the quotes from liberals. Those are quotes not interpretations or opinions.
Please cite an example of Democrat members of congress or AG's of states telling US citizens and public servants they do not need to follow a SCOTUS ruling like Senator Cruz and the AG of Texas have both done in the last few weeks. None of the examples you cited above do that.
Those are two people. The majority of opponents of the recent decision are not saying that. It is a typical tactic to take two outlying figures and turn them into majority figures. It's nonsense. The point is that many if not most on the right think the decision illegitimate because they disagree with the result and EXACT SAME THING is true of the left when a decision THEY dislike comes down. If you deny this then there is really no common ground at all.
Nine unelected individuals were able to pull this off.
The "unelected" talking point when referring to the SCOTUS is one of the most ridiculous talking points of all time, and that's saying something.
When do these elections take place?
They are confirmed by a vote of the senate. You voted for a senator to represent you. That is how it works in a republic.
How is it that all of those on the right like to make up stories about Obama not following the constitution, and yet here we see them complaining about a process outlined in that very document. Maybe those on the right only think they love the constitution?
[Edited on 7/6/2015 by 2112]
Stop stereotyping. I don't complain. I recognize that we have 3 branches of the federal government.
Maybe you didn't, but an awful lot did. This post is an example. Mike Huckabee is another:
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, blasted the decision Friday as "judicial tyranny" and said he would "not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch."
Really? Has Mike Huckabee ever read the constitution?
Doug, you might be an exception, but I get really tired of those on the right implying that the left has no regard for the constitution, and then they come out with crap like this.
I find presicely the same thing when the Court makes a decision that goes against liberal orthodoxy. The exact same thing. Exactly zero difference. Either you believe the Justices follow the law to the best of their ability or you don't. You don't pick and choose or you have absolutely no credibility.
With the possible exception of Bush vs Gore, which essentially chose the winner of an election, I don't think I've ever seen high profile liberals make statements like we are seeing from those like Huckabee. Even with that 2000 ruling, we didn't see liberals encourage ignoring the ruling. We've even seen conservative attorney generals encourage people to defy the ruling. Can you point out a case where high profile liberals have done something similar?
Honestly do people think I make this stuff up?
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/30/the-left-loses-their-minds-over-hobby-lobby-decision/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397452/liberals-and-court-howard-slugh
This was a simple google search. Of course the Courts have mnany more times issued decisions liberals like so there is less opportunity for this kind of attack from them but it is definitely out there. And while you may not like the source or the conclusions of these opinion pieces note the quotes from liberals. Those are quotes not interpretations or opinions.
Please cite an example of Democrat members of congress or AG's of states telling US citizens and public servants they do not need to follow a SCOTUS ruling like Senator Cruz and the AG of Texas have both done in the last few weeks. None of the examples you cited above do that.
Those are two people. The majority of opponents of the recent decision are not saying that. It is a typical tactic to take two outlying figures and turn them into majority figures. It's nonsense. The point is that many if not most on the right think the decision illegitimate because they disagree with the result and EXACT SAME THING is true of the left when a decision THEY dislike comes down. If you deny this then there is really no common ground at all.
One of those people is a sitting US Senator running who just happens to be running for President and the other is the top law enforcement official in on of the country's biggest states (and Texas Governor Greg Abbott has also said that Texas county clerks do not need to follow the SCOTUS order). This is not the same as the standard rhetoric that comes from both sides after a controversial SCOTUS ruling, in fact it is unprecedented, at least as far as I know. If you deny that stating an opinion about a SCOTUS ruling (free speech) and telling people that work for you that they do not have to abide by a SCOTUS ruling are two very different things then there really is no common ground at all.
[Edited on 7/9/2015 by gondicar]
Those are two people. The majority of opponents of the recent decision are not saying that. It is a typical tactic to take two outlying figures and turn them into majority figures. It's nonsense.
Proof by example. A common tactic and logical fallacy.
Those are two people. The majority of opponents of the recent decision are not saying that. It is a typical tactic to take two outlying figures and turn them into majority figures. It's nonsense.
Proof by example. A common tactic and logical fallacy.
One of those people is a sitting US Senator running who just happens to be running for President and the other is the top law enforcement official in one of the country's biggest states (and Texas Governor Greg Abbott has also said that Texas county clerks do not need to follow the SCOTUS order). This is not the same as the standard rhetoric that comes from both sides after a controversial SCOTUS ruling, in fact it is unprecedented, at least as far as I know. And it's not limited to Texas, there are already documented cases of county clerks, keep in mind that these are public officials, defying SCOTUS by denying marriage licenses to same sex couples in Kentucky, Alabama and Mississippi. And I am willing to bet there will be more to come. Are you really going to bury you head in the sand and pretend this is just SSDD?
[Edited on 7/10/2015 by gondicar]
quote:
I'm ignorant regarding the history of corporate personhood.Can anyone tell me what good has come from the Citizens United ruling? How did that help our democracy?
IS the Court's mandate to "help our democracy"? Or is it to interpret statutes and the Constitution.
So that decision has hurt our democracy. And you stand by it. I suppose you want more money in our electoral process. More consolidation of power into the hands of the rich minority.
That's dandy.
quote:
I'm ignorant regarding the history of corporate personhood.Can anyone tell me what good has come from the Citizens United ruling? How did that help our democracy?
IS the Court's mandate to "help our democracy"? Or is it to interpret statutes and the Constitution.
So that decision has hurt our democracy. And you stand by it. I suppose you want more money in our electoral process. More consolidation of power into the hands of the rich minority.
That's dandy.
Missing the point as usual. It's not the court's job to make laws that help our democracy. That's the legislature's job. It's the court's job to interpret laws passed by the legislature (or the Constitution)
Didn't miss the point. Don't usually miss the point you sanctimonious blowhard.
I just wonder why you consider the ruling good. Or does "agreeing with the decision" just mean that, even if the ruling does hurt our democracy it is "good" because it is legally correct.
I can certainly understand that and at the same time consider it a bad outcome for our democracy.
quote:
I'm ignorant regarding the history of corporate personhood.Can anyone tell me what good has come from the Citizens United ruling? How did that help our democracy?
IS the Court's mandate to "help our democracy"? Or is it to interpret statutes and the Constitution.
So that decision has hurt our democracy. And you stand by it. I suppose you want more money in our electoral process. More consolidation of power into the hands of the rich minority.
That's dandy.
Missing the point as usual. It's not the court's job to make laws that help our democracy. That's the legislature's job. It's the court's job to interpret laws passed by the legislature (or the Constitution)
You would have a point if the court made a law in this case. All they did was interpret what is already in the Constitution which is their job yes?
[Edited on 7/10/2015 by Bill_Graham]
sanctimonious blowhard
Gotta love the Whipping Post.
😉
Didn't miss the point. Don't usually miss the point you sanctimonious blowhard.
I just wonder why you consider the ruling good. Or does "agreeing with the decision" just mean that, even if the ruling does hurt our democracy it is "good" because it is legally correct.
I can certainly understand that and at the same time consider it a bad outcome for our democracy.
And here come the personal insults, the last bastion of the leftist with no rational response to being called out on his bs.
