Friday, January 29, 2010

Thought of the Day

Bob Burnett: The Conservative War on Democracy: The Puppet Supreme Court: "'In every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts [and his conservative allies] has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.'"

8 comments:

  1. Oh, my goodness, couldn't you have done better than a Huffington Post entry? I laughed throughout. Both the donkeys AND the elephants use class warfare to advance their agenda. Conservatives often lament about judicial activism on the Supreme Court, and the liberals are running around accusing a conservative assault on democracy via the Supreme Court. I saw this particular entry of yours coming a mile away. I suppose one's view of a "puppet" court depends on just which puppeteer is pulling the strings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Since you like The Huffington Post, see this one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/alito-was-rude-but-right_b_440207.html

    Of course, I disagree that it was Justice Alito who was in bad form. Shame on the President for insulting his fellow invited guests.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wasn't making any personal comment other than the fact of the fact thus the Huffpost comment. If I were trying to explain my personal thoughts I would have written a personal post. As often, you're half right about conservatives vs libs. From the Reagan administration the conservatives have made it one of their planks, their pillars, their raison d'etre that judges were activist. If you see that as both sides again you've got blinders on. Libs are guilty of plenty of insane thoughts over the years but have not made their mantra about the courts like the conservs. To be fair they have warned that they feel the court is becoming too conservative.
    But every single republican president, person in congress, mayor, and town council person has been REQUIRED since the 80's to say that they want to get rid of "activist judges".

    Do you disagree with that last statement? Or are you trying to rewrite history. Sheila, fair is fair. I certainly have been honest in this comment, you too. Admit that it has been the republicans that historically for the last 30 years made it their cause to change the court. And they have often described rulings that they didn't like as judicial activism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My oh my the huffington post digs now. OK, good one. Have you read http://dailycaller.com ? It's Tucker Carlson's new website competing with Huffingtons. You ought to check it out. I read it more or less every day to get a little different slant than Ariana. I have commented a little there but as at the daily journal, you can imagine I don't get too far.:)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I see Huffington Post as an online version of msnbc and also the NY Times. The liberal bias is as evident as Michelle Malkin's site, which I also read. I deliberately read what Huffington had to say about Citizens United because I wanted a divergent point of view. But I don't rely on Huffington. Nor do I rely on Fox. I didn't pay attention to a single pundit on Fox when it came to the Supreme Court ruling. Yes, it is the conservative party that has most recently had the ability to pack the Court. But our nation's history goes back far beyond the past 30 years. Both the left & the right have sought to shape its thinking, probably from the outset of the founding of our nation. This whole notion of campaign financing is very difficult, & the President used an easy sucker punch to the Court to get both the left & right on its feet. It's a popular view, but I'm not sure it is the correct one. The fact remains that people are allowed to spend their money the way they choose. You can't pass a law to stop business owners from donating money. It isn't just big corporations who lavish tons of money on candidates [sometimes donating to both parties in order to hedge their bets], but it is unions as well. From the NEA to Teamsters to UAW to SEIU to NJ's own CWA, unions give big money to candidates. They often support candidates the membership itself does not. But how do you stop such spending? I say, legally, you can't. Requirements on disclosure with the hope that people pay attention to who is greasing whose wheels is the best we can do. The foreign influence on the companies was not addressed in the ruling cited by the President. He tried to make the statement that foreign entities will influence the elections because of the ruling. I don't think so, and that opinion is based on the Huffington article to which I linked. Be that as it may, I see term limits as the best antidote to the endless grab for power in Washington. I used to believe it wasn't necessary, but I can't see term limiting the Presidency but not the Congress. It's probably a good idea to put term limits on the Supreme Court as well. Term limits is an issue which I have only recently been thinking about. I don't like it that whoever can get the most money ends up in office, but if the office holder knows s/he will only have a certain number of years in which to serve, perhaps that politician will care more about what can be done to serve the constituents rather than what can be done to ensure re-election. I'm still up in the air about it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I meant that Michelle Malkin's conservative slant is obvious, not that she is liberal, too. It's important to me to read both sides when an issue is as hotly contested as the Supreme Court ruling is. But I didn't read Malkin, either. I stuck with Citizens United, Huffington, Time, & abc.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I called you cold several months ago because of your seeming non-caring for people without health care. I didn't go as far as I wanted to because I was still getting to know you and also because I didn't want to come on too strong. Today you made a comment at TDJ about paying for paupers funerals and how we just can't afford to pay for everything. So now on this little comment page which is hardly read by anyone but you and I, I want to tell you that I think you are indeed cold, nay freezing. I wonder if you have ice water flowing through your veins. Would you go back to the dark ages and just throw the bodies in the sewers? Perhaps they should be donated to science if they can't afford a burial.

    I guess I would not even think of reaching you with all this but for the fact that you SURROUND yourself in your faith. Your main blog is all about your faith, the first thing at TDJ describes you as a pro-life Catholic. And then the fact that you're a nurse. I hold nurses in higher esteem that other occupations. We've discussed before that I think it takes a special, compassionatte person to be a nurse.
    With you I see no compassion, only hatred. You talk a good game but at least from your writing's you don't walk the walk. I know you said you paid for the food for the person in front of you one time at the grocery store.

    What does the Catholic church want you to do when a person doesn't have money to be buried? Please let me know. Then please announce that when commenting that "we just can't afford everything" bull crap that you write.

    ReplyDelete
  8. With all due respect, please don't lecture me again about the defecit.

    ReplyDelete