Dred Scott was Precedent... What say you Whiney Liberals?

[del]

I maybe wrong, and CFrank may in fact not be as dumb as he presents. In the post prior to his 'idiotgram', I presented my thoughts on the consequence of CU v. FEC in regards to individual liberty and the power of anyone individual to influence the Congress.
CFranks subsequent post may have been an effort on his part to censor a potential substantive discussion of the consequence of an activist conservative SC on an individuals' liberty and ability to influence legislation - locally and nationally.

then again, francis, maybe it was just a joke.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Dred Scott was Precedent... What say you Whiney Liberals?

"The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent..." from an e-mail from BarackObama.com, and in that, from the President.

So, if "Precedent" is Absolute, then I guess Dred Scott was Correct?

Too many on the Left are Irrational and Hysterical right now. It's called Losing... Learn to Deal with it... These instances won't be the Last.



peace...

From my perspective, Taney was being a stupid activist judge framing his own prejudices into law. The Constitution said one thing, Taney another.

And the result of that was a civil war.

We don't need judges who are in the words of HL Mencken "A tin pot Paul on a jitney Mars Hill."

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dred Scott was Precedent... What say you Whiney Liberals?

"The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent..." from an e-mail from BarackObama.com, and in that, from the President.

So, if "Precedent" is Absolute, then I guess Dred Scott was Correct?

Too many on the Left are Irrational and Hysterical right now. It's called Losing... Learn to Deal with it... These instances won't be the Last.



peace...

From my perspective, Taney was being a stupid activist judge framing his own prejudices into law. The Constitution said one thing, Taney another.

And the result of that was a civil war.

We don't need judges who are in the words of HL Mencken "A tin pot Paul on a jitney Mars Hill."

Great post. I knew little of Taney and now know a good deal more (I'm reading "American Lion", Andrew Jackson in the White House) so Taney will soon show up and now I won't need to put the book down and research another character); and, I looked up quotes by Mencken - who I read in college decades ago - and was once again impressed, amused and edified by his wit and wisdom.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Just amazing to see the right defending the results of this decision.

Its the death nell for Democracy.

They have tried for years now to keep people from even respecting the word.

How so? One set of people were allowed to have free speech, and another similar set were denied the same form of speech. Equal protection under the law is not the death knell of democracy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just amazing to see the right defending the results of this decision.

Its the death nell for Democracy.

They have tried for years now to keep people from even respecting the word.

How so? One set of people were allowed to have free speech, and another similar set were denied the same form of speech. Equal protection under the law is not the death knell of democracy.

How does one equate a set of people, each an individual, with another set of people, united in an instiution, as apples and apples?
Unions and coporations have agendas, as do individual citizens. The profound difference being individual citizens - exceptions stipulated to - have far less power than do unions, professional associations or individual companies; and, cartels (yes we can argue this definition) such as big oil, big pharma, big farma and insurance companies have billions to use as they please now that the SC changed the rules 5-4 on ideological lines.
It is wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent..."[/I] from an e-mail from BarackObama.com, and in that, from the President. So, if "Precedent" is Absolute, then I guess Dred Scott was Correct? Too many on the Left are Irrational and Hysterical right now. It's called Losing... Learn to Deal with it... These instances won't be the Last.

Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, among others, were reactionary activist opinions that were later overturned by the forces of liberal democracy on the court or by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

No precedent is set in stone, and reactionaries, conservatives, centrists, liberals, and radicals should all remember that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, once again a real discussion of issues, events and motives dies an untimely death.

 

[mal]

Wry was thinking about that famous 1973 case Sanford v. Son

peace...

 

[mal]

Wry was thinking about that famous 1973 case Sanford v. Son

"Wry was thinking..."; yes CFrank, Wry does think, and if you ever posted a substantive thoughful message Wry might think you think. As it stands, you seem to me to be a fool craving attention by posting half-witted idiotgrams.
If you actually thought, you might question why Wry's question to tha M has remained unanswered.

Was Dred Scott NOT Precedent?...



peace...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wry was thinking about that famous 1973 case Sanford v. Son

"Wry was thinking..."; yes CFrank, Wry does think, and if you ever posted a substantive thoughful message Wry might think you think. As it stands, you seem to me to be a fool craving attention by posting half-witted idiotgrams.
If you actually thought, you might question why Wry's question to tha M has remained unanswered.

Was Dred Scott NOT Precedent?...



peace...

It depends what you undersand a precedent is, does it not?
For example, "Precedents can only be useful when they show that the case has been decided upon a certain principle and ought not to be binding when contrary to such principle. If a precedent is to be followed because it is a precedent, even when decided against an established rule of law, there can be no possible correction of abuses because the fact of their existence renders them above the law. It is always safe to rely upon principles**"

** from the 'lectric law lexicon.

You do understand 'principles' don't you?

 

[mal]

"Wry was thinking..."; yes CFrank, Wry does think, and if you ever posted a substantive thoughful message Wry might think you think. As it stands, you seem to me to be a fool craving attention by posting half-witted idiotgrams.
If you actually thought, you might question why Wry's question to tha M has remained unanswered.

Was Dred Scott NOT Precedent?...



peace...

It depends what you undersand a precedent is, does it not?
For example, "Precedents can only be useful when they show that the case has been decided upon a certain principle and ought not to be binding when contrary to such principle. If a precedent is to be followed because it is a precedent, even when decided against an established rule of law, there can be no possible correction of abuses because the fact of their existence renders them above the law. It is always safe to rely upon principles**"

** from the 'lectric law lexicon.

You do understand 'principles' don't you?

Of course I do... And Silencing one Group in America is not Based on Constitutional Principles... "Precedent" or NOT.



peace...

 

[slackjawed]

Just amazing to see the right defending the results of this decision.

Its the death nell for Democracy.

They have tried for years now to keep people from even respecting the word.

That's a pretty dire prediction based on overturning a law that was passed in 2002.

 

[Sarah G]

MORAN: All right, Senator DeMint, quickly, are you on board for trying to limit the impact of this Supreme Court decision?

DEMINT: We can't promote freedom and democracy by repressing free speech. That's not the way to do it. I think people should be able to come together in associations and organizations and spend money to get their message out. I think that's going to promote the democratic process, instead of really what we've got now, is where you essentially give the labor unions carte blanche over our system, grassroots as well as spending.

I think this will give businesses a chance to participate in the process as well as associations.

MORAN: OK.

DEMINT: So I think free speech needs to come first.

MORAN: OK. And, finally, are you in favor of foreign corporations being able to participate in American elections through this decision?

DEMINT: I don't believe that -- right now, foreigners cannot give to the political process. And I hope, as this thing is sorted out, that we'll make sure that this is an American focus, so we'll have to sort all that out. I hadn't read all the details of the court's decision.

MENENDEZ: The problem is, a corporation is a corporation is a corporation. And a foreign corporation is going to be able to spend their monies in determining who is elected to the United States Congress. That's not good for the average citizen.

MORAN: It -- it is a tough problem going ahead. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, thanks very much for joining us this morning.

MENENDEZ: Thank you.

DEMINT: Thank you, Terry.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...endez_demint_transcript_this_week_100029.html

Of course Demint hasn't read the details of the court's decision but he sure has all the talking points down and ready, doesn't he?

The decisions is not the end of this conversation. Only the beginning.

Terry Moran kind of surprised Demint with that one, didn't he?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Was Dred Scott NOT Precedent?...



peace...

It depends what you undersand a precedent is, does it not?
For example, "Precedents can only be useful when they show that the case has been decided upon a certain principle and ought not to be binding when contrary to such principle. If a precedent is to be followed because it is a precedent, even when decided against an established rule of law, there can be no possible correction of abuses because the fact of their existence renders them above the law. It is always safe to rely upon principles**"

** from the 'lectric law lexicon.

You do understand 'principles' don't you?

Of course I do... And Silencing one Group in America is not Based on Constitutional Principles... "Precedent" or NOT.



peace...

The Oil Cartel, for example, is not one group of Americans. Nor is Toyota or Honda, Swiss Bankers, the Catholic Church or money changers on Wall Street . None of which are 'prinicipled' when it comes to power, control and profit. And all of whom are unrestrained in their ability to influence (read buy) members of Congress through secret campaign donations, thanks to the conservative block of Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy.

But, I digress, what principle did the Taney Court apply in Dred Scott?