Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
pffftwaaaaaaaahhh..
poor little boy. all crying and upset.
Your arrogance is surpassed by your ignorance. It's a pretty lethal combination, you should be careful when doing complex things like walking.were you stamping your feet when you wrote those last few posts? you sound like you were stamping your feet and foaming at the mouth. i know your tantrum is because i called you a dunce. but i only called you that because it's true.
let me know when you've taken a law class and i might engage in legal discussion with you.
Same thing she did in other threads when I pointed out her errors.He is not stamping his feet. You are running away and calling names.
The question is valid. Does a collection of people organized for a particular purpose lose its first amendment rights?
Could it possibly get any worse? It just recently came to light that
so-called "Citizens United", nothing more than a corporate sponsored
astroturf lobbying organization, the very same group he ruled in
favor of to decimate our campaign finance laws last year, was the
driving force in paying for and running ads to promote the
confirmation of Thomas himself to the Supreme Court.
The standard for a justice to step aside from hearing a particular
case is supposed to be whether there might be an "appearance of
impartiality". Yet here we have a member of the Supreme Court handing
decisions to the people who were instrumental in putting him on the
court in the first place. It is simply unacceptable to have a someone
sitting on the Supreme Court with such patent contempt for simple
fairness.
Impeach Thomas Action Page:
Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas For Ruling In Favor Of His Own Campaign Contributors
That was received by me as an email from a progressive action group known as The Pen.
From Time Magazine, 1991:
Not-So-Hidden Persuaders - TIMEWashington-area television viewers were startled last week to see three familiar senatorial faces pop up on their screens above the words WHO WILL JUDGE THE JUDGE? The follow-up question -- "How many of these liberal Democrats could themselves pass ethical scrutiny?" -- was hardly necessary, since the faces were those of Edward Kennedy, Joseph Biden and Alan Cranston, all scarred veterans of highly publicized scandals, from Chappaquiddick to plagiarized speeches to the Keating Five.
The ad, produced by two independent right-wing groups, was intended to bolster Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas' confirmation chances by pointing the finger at three liberal Democrats who seemed likely to oppose him. Not coincidentally, the ad was produced by the same people who launched the 1988 Willie Horton spot that branded Michael Dukakis soft on crime but left George Bush open to charges of racism. Anxious not to be associated with such negative campaigning this time around, Bush quickly labeled the attacks on the Senators "counterproductive." Thomas pronounced them "vicious." His chief Senate supporter, Missouri Republican John Danforth, called them "sleazy" and "scurrilous."
Although Bush and chief of staff John Sununu demanded that the ads be pulled, their right-wing sponsors -- L. Brent Bozell III, chairman of the Conservative Victory Committee, and Floyd Brown, chairman of Citizens United -- refused. Calling the campaign a "pre-emptive strike" to counter anticipated anti-Thomas commercials, as well as retaliation for the 1987 spots that helped defeat Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, they vowed to keep running the messages for at least two weeks "until the left agrees to discontinue all its efforts against Judge Thomas." Thus far, that has been a mostly fitful effort at best, but Brown and Bozell appeared to see the flag of revolution rising above it.
"Unfortunately," the two men declared in a written statement, "the Administration has no desire to confront the radical left."
The commercials, shown only in Washington at a cost of about $100,000, have reaped millions of dollars' worth of free publicity through network television and print-media reproductions that have accompanied news stories about the flap. That probably was the intent all along.
I have to say, I agree. Time to impeach Thomas.
What say you?
(I swear, I am not piling up the Thomas threads...this shit really did come on the same day.)
Not surpizing, common is about as far as your understanding seems to go.Breyer is a prime example of a judicial activist.... Scalia not so much.
not by any definition of activism as commonly understood.
Not surpizing, common is about as far as your understanding seems to go.Breyer is a prime example of a judicial activist.... Scalia not so much.
not by any definition of activism as commonly understood.
silly liberal, there is no contradiction.There is nothing activist about citizens united, they struck down a law based on previous precedent which found the assemblage of persons called a corporation did not lose their other first amendment rights based on the purpose of the assemblage. Now, if they had reversed the precedent and somehow found that an assemblage of persons could lose its other 1st ammendment rights based on its purpose for existing, that would have been activist, and wrong. It would seem your arguments as just a shallow as ever.
Judicial activism on the SCOTUS level is not defined by the courts doing something you or I don't agree with. It's a defined term where justices stretch the law, and the constitution beyond all reccognition by say, citing phrench law, to reach a predetermined opinion and/or write in some law that didn't exist in the process, like say Roe. The justices upholding a prior precedent and utilizing the judicial/legal philosophy of stare decisis is by definition... NOT ACTIVIST.
It's not surprising that you contradict yourself in the very same post. Tearing down established law and precedence is fine in the case you like..but not so much in the case you don't.
There's no way to have a serious discussion here.
Citizens united struck down a law by sticking with precedent (stare decisis) as prior courts had found the assemblage of persons known as a coporation did not surrender their other 1st amendment rights by virtue of thier assembladge
Heller struck down a law through incorporation doctine (stare decisis) by sticking with the constitution where there was no previous precedent, as no previous court had ever ruled on whether or not the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.
Perhaps you need some context... it's almost impossible for a justice to be "activist" in striking down a law. As to be "activist" they would almost certainly have to insert something into it that was not there before they did it. The exception would be in lower courts which strike down laws against prior precedent, which they are supposed to be bound to follow.
Breyer is a prime example of a judicial activist.... Scalia not so much.
not by any definition of activism as commonly understood.
finding that corporations are people for first amendment purposes was the most activist decision i can recall in my lifetime.
What are they if not people? Are unions people?
Its not even so much that...**gasp** he doesn't play court politics...As was noted before...
Asking questions, in most instances, isn't about getting information you don't know, its about steering the conversation. This can only happen if you have a direction you'd like the conversation to go. That can only happen if you have your mind made up.
Not asking questions means you're listening, not steering.
My point exactly....Clarence Thomas is a truly unique Justice. He is the first Justice in over 40 years who has not had to "steer" once in over five years of cases.
That must be why he is such a respected legal mind
Not that you have any capcity to show any such thing.None. It's not his being black thats at issue, its rejecting your ownership of his opinion while black.
Wouldn't it be racist of me indeed if I rah rah the man even though I think he's a sexual predator, a vacant lot as a legal scholar, an ethical violator and has a nearly fascist world view?
Just exactly how much ice is being black supposed to cut with me, Ben?
i know. racist rightwingnuts like saying that because it deflects from thomas' incompetence.
pretty weak seeing as how I linked the quote showing you were wrong. I am correct that a coporation is an assembly and that that assembly does not lose their first amendment rights by virtue of the purpose of their assemblage. I know this because I not only have reading comprehension which you lack, but I laso have SCOTUS decissions which state it.Not surpizing, common is about as far as your understanding seems to go.not by any definition of activism as commonly understood.
please do tell us where your expertise and education comes from.
because you haven't been correct on a single point yet.
you're just too stupid to explain it to. but feel free to let us know when you stop throwing this giant temper tantrum.
False. Citizens United was not about corporations contributing to a campaign, it was about them spending their own money on their own commercials.silly liberal, there is no contradiction.It's not surprising that you contradict yourself in the very same post. Tearing down established law and precedence is fine in the case you like..but not so much in the case you don't.
There's no way to have a serious discussion here.
Citizens united struck down a law by sticking with precedent (stare decisis) as prior courts had found the assemblage of persons known as a coporation did not surrender their other 1st amendment rights by virtue of thier assembladge
Heller struck down a law through incorporation doctine (stare decisis) by sticking with the constitution where there was no previous precedent, as no previous court had ever ruled on whether or not the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.
Perhaps you need some context... it's almost impossible for a justice to be "activist" in striking down a law. As to be "activist" they would almost certainly have to insert something into it that was not there before they did it. The exception would be in lower courts which strike down laws against prior precedent, which they are supposed to be bound to follow.
Again..you are incorrect on both counts. Citizens United spoke to a particular instance..and the judges expanded the ruling to be global. They did not stick with precedence as well, since the precedence is to limit contributions, right down to McCain-Feingold. So not only were they activist in this account, they were pretty radical about the whole matter.
Same with Heller, for very much the same reasons.
Could it possibly get any worse? It just recently came to light that
so-called "Citizens United", nothing more than a corporate sponsored
astroturf lobbying organization, the very same group he ruled in
favor of to decimate our campaign finance laws last year, was the
driving force in paying for and running ads to promote the
confirmation of Thomas himself to the Supreme Court.
The standard for a justice to step aside from hearing a particular
case is supposed to be whether there might be an "appearance of
impartiality". Yet here we have a member of the Supreme Court handing
decisions to the people who were instrumental in putting him on the
court in the first place. It is simply unacceptable to have a someone
sitting on the Supreme Court with such patent contempt for simple
fairness.
Impeach Thomas Action Page:
Impeach Justice Clarence Thomas For Ruling In Favor Of His Own Campaign Contributors
That was received by me as an email from a progressive action group known as The Pen.
From Time Magazine, 1991:
Not-So-Hidden Persuaders - TIMEWashington-area television viewers were startled last week to see three familiar senatorial faces pop up on their screens above the words WHO WILL JUDGE THE JUDGE? The follow-up question -- "How many of these liberal Democrats could themselves pass ethical scrutiny?" -- was hardly necessary, since the faces were those of Edward Kennedy, Joseph Biden and Alan Cranston, all scarred veterans of highly publicized scandals, from Chappaquiddick to plagiarized speeches to the Keating Five.
The ad, produced by two independent right-wing groups, was intended to bolster Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas' confirmation chances by pointing the finger at three liberal Democrats who seemed likely to oppose him. Not coincidentally, the ad was produced by the same people who launched the 1988 Willie Horton spot that branded Michael Dukakis soft on crime but left George Bush open to charges of racism. Anxious not to be associated with such negative campaigning this time around, Bush quickly labeled the attacks on the Senators "counterproductive." Thomas pronounced them "vicious." His chief Senate supporter, Missouri Republican John Danforth, called them "sleazy" and "scurrilous."
Although Bush and chief of staff John Sununu demanded that the ads be pulled, their right-wing sponsors -- L. Brent Bozell III, chairman of the Conservative Victory Committee, and Floyd Brown, chairman of Citizens United -- refused. Calling the campaign a "pre-emptive strike" to counter anticipated anti-Thomas commercials, as well as retaliation for the 1987 spots that helped defeat Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, they vowed to keep running the messages for at least two weeks "until the left agrees to discontinue all its efforts against Judge Thomas." Thus far, that has been a mostly fitful effort at best, but Brown and Bozell appeared to see the flag of revolution rising above it.
"Unfortunately," the two men declared in a written statement, "the Administration has no desire to confront the radical left."
The commercials, shown only in Washington at a cost of about $100,000, have reaped millions of dollars' worth of free publicity through network television and print-media reproductions that have accompanied news stories about the flap. That probably was the intent all along.
I have to say, I agree. Time to impeach Thomas.
What say you?
(I swear, I am not piling up the Thomas threads...this shit really did come on the same day.)
She makes so many wrong claims its hard to keep up.Actually, she claimed that Roe was following on Griswold, not Plessy.
Brown overturned Plessy.
