Wow.
The BOAT went THAT way!
<----
On Friday, April 6, 2012 7:56:45 PM UTC-4, Tommy News wrote:
--
"Just as in the Senate's shameful Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas
hearings,
the liberals on the court focus on process and the conservatives
focus
on results. John Roberts Jr.'s benign beige facade is deceiving; he's
a crimson partisan, simply more cloaked than the ideologically rigid
and often venomous Scalia. "
On Apr 6, 12:19 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But it isn't conservative to overturn a major law passed by Congress
> in the middle of an election.
>
> Gee TOMMYTOMTOM..... with this as your summation it looks like DOMA
> should stay in place....
>
> On Apr 5, 2:26 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Men in Black
>
> > Maureen Dowd
> > NY Times Op-Ed: April 4, 2012
>
> > WASHINGTON
>
> > How dare President Obama brush back the Supreme Court like that?
> > Has this former constitutional law instructor no respect for our
> > venerable system of checks and balances?
>
> > Nah. And why should he?
>
> > This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV,
> > accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way
> > to becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history.
>
> > It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased,
> > honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in
> > black robes.
>
> > All the fancy diplomas of the conservative majority cannot disguise
> > the fact that its reasoning on the most important decisions affecting
> > Americans seems shaped more by a political handbook than a legal
> > brief.
>
> > President Obama never should have waded into the health care thicket
> > back when the economy was teetering. He should have listened to David
> > Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel and not Michelle.
>
> > His failure from the start to sell his plan or even explain it is
> > bizarre and self-destructive. And certainly he needs a more persuasive
> > solicitor general.
>
> > Still, it was stunning to hear Antonin Scalia talking like a Senate
> > whip during oral arguments last week on the constitutionality of the
> > health care law. He mused on how hard it would be to get 60 votes to
> > repeal parts of the act, explaining why the court may just throw out
> > the whole thing. And, sounding like a campaign's oppo-research guy, he
> > batted around politically charged terms like "Cornhusker Kickback,"
> > referring to a sweetheart deal that isn't even in the law.
>
> > If he's so brilliant, why is he drawing a risible parallel between
> > buying health care and buying broccoli?
>
> > The justices want to be above it all, beyond reproach or criticism.
> > But why should they be?
>
> > In 2000, the Republican majority put aside its professed disdain of
> > judicial activism and helped to purloin the election for W., who went
> > on to heedlessly invade Iraq and callously ignore Katrina.
>
> > As Anthony Lewis wrote in The Times back then, "Deciding a case of
> > this magnitude with such disregard for reason invites people to treat
> > the court's aura of reason as an illusion."
>
> > The 2010 House takeover by Republicans and the G.O.P. presidential
> > primary have shown what a fiasco the Citizens United decision is, with
> > self-interested sugar daddies and wealthy cronies overwhelming the
> > democratic process.
>
> > On Monday, the court astoundingly ruled — 5 Republican appointees to 4
> > Democratic appointees — to give police carte blanche on
> > strip-searches, even for minor offenses such as driving without a
> > license or violating a leash law. Justice Stephen Breyer's warning
> > that wholesale strip-searches were "a serious affront to human dignity
> > and to individual privacy" fell on deaf ears. So much for the
> > conservatives' obsession with "liberty."
>
> > The Supreme Court mirrors the setup on Fox News: There are liberals
> > who make arguments, but they are weak foils, relegated to the
> > background and trying to get in a few words before the commercials.
>
> > Just as in the Senate's shameful Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings,
> > the liberals on the court focus on process and the conservatives focus
> > on results. John Roberts Jr.'s benign beige facade is deceiving; he's
> > a crimson partisan, simply more cloaked than the ideologically rigid
> > and often venomous Scalia.
>
> > Just as Scalia voted to bypass that little thing called democracy and
> > crown W. president, so he expressed ennui at the idea that, even if
> > parts of the health care law are struck down, some provisions could be
> > saved: "You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?" he asked,
> > adding: "Is this not totally unrealistic?"
>
> > Inexplicably mute 20 years after he lied his way onto the court,
> > Clarence Thomas didn't ask a single question during oral arguments for
> > one of the biggest cases in the court's history.
>
> > When the Supreme Court building across from the Capitol opened in
> > 1935, the architect, Cass Gilbert, played up the pomp, wanting to
> > reflect the court's role as the national ideal of justice.
>
> > With conservatives on that court trying to block F.D.R., and with
> > Roosevelt prepared to pack the court, the New Yorker columnist Howard
> > Brubaker noted that the new citadel had "fine big windows to throw the
> > New Deal out of."
>
> > Now conservative justices may throw Obama's hard-won law out of those
> > fine big windows. They've already been playing Twister, turning
> > precedents into pretzels to achieve their political objective. In
> > 2005, Scalia was endorsing a broad interpretation of the commerce
> > clause and the necessary and proper clause, the clauses now coming
> > under scrutiny from the majority, including the swing vote, Justice
> > Anthony Kennedy. (Could the dream of expanded health care die at the
> > hands of a Kennedy?)
>
> > Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and the insufferable Samuel Alito were
> > nurtured in the conservative Federalist Society, which asserts that
> > "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what
> > the law is, not what it should be."
>
> > But it isn't conservative to overturn a major law passed by Congress
> > in the middle of an election. The majority's political motives are as
> > naked as a strip
>
> > More:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/opinion/dowd-men-in- ..black.html?nl=t.
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy
>
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment