Quiche-Eating Surrender-Monkeys & Liberal Media Lies...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by HeinousMark, Apr 4, 2012.

  1. HeinousMark

    HeinousMark Creepy-Ass Cracka VIP

    Reputations:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    19,630
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Jack Shit

    Jack Shit New Member VIP

    Reputations:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Messages:
    2,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maureen Dowd lets 'em have it:

    [HR][/HR]April 3, 2012

    Men in Black

    By MAUREEN DOWD

    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-search.

    Last edited: Apr 4, 2012
  3. MatthewT

    MatthewT Awaiting The Rapture VIP

    Reputations:
    156
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    63,524
    Likes Received:
    2
    what a hack

    SCOTUS=POTUS=Congress
  4. BeetTheBoxer

    BeetTheBoxer New Member

    Reputations:
    0
    Joined:
    May 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,887
    Likes Received:
    0
    Liberalism is a mental disorder
  5. Jack Shit

    Jack Shit New Member VIP

    Reputations:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Messages:
    2,482
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. Droog

    Droog Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    2,083
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,744
    Likes Received:
    165
    Can blame both parties for the shitty Supreme Court we have today. I realize why the court needs to be beyond reproach, but I don't like it that presidents appoint them and that the position is for life. Nothing in government should be lifetime. Stuff that's going on now in the Supreme Court is going to lead to another civil war. The country is divided enough as it is. I don't see how these judges can sit and make foolish decisions like Citizens United. They obviously have no concern whatsoever for how these decisions are viewed in history.

    As for Dowd's opinion on the 2000 election, she fails to observe the fact that numerous outlets have done their own recounts and came to the conclusion that Bush's lead would have actually INCREASED over Gore's. This idea that the election was stolen is about as much full of shit as the idea that Obama is a Socialist Muslim.
  7. Jack Shit

    Jack Shit New Member VIP

    Reputations:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Messages:
    2,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Screen Shot 2012-04-11 at 3.37.19 PM.png

    Not true.

    But it doesn't matter because the non-activist Supreme Court took the decision out of the hands of voters and the legislature and handed the prize to Bush. Now if only Obama could unfuck the 8 preceding years of fucking we got, then we'd be in great shape, but it's going to take a least a generation to overcome the Bush disaster.
  8. Droog

    Droog Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    2,083
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4,744
    Likes Received:
    165
    Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed
    By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY


    [TABLE="class: sidebar, align: right"]
    [TR]
    [TD][​IMG][/TD]
    [TD][​IMG][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD="class: inside-label, align: right"][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD] Click to see an interactive analysis of Florida's undervotes. [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD][​IMG][/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.





    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As for Florida deciding on their own, the Secretary of State was a Republican. She was the one in charge of certifying, and was following the statutory deadline of November 14 for the recount. Gore put it in the courts' hands, and the Florida Supreme Court started with the first activist decision by setting a deadline that was contrary to the deadline established by law in Florida. The U.S. Supreme court then ruled against that court's ruling of a statewide recount. The 5-4 ruling by them is the one that ended everything and could be seen as an activist decision.

    The vote was in the hands of voters and they fucked up the vote plain and simple. Ignorance is not a legitimate excuse for turning in a vote improperly. Forget the hanging chads and dimples on the ballots. The ballot itself created problems for Gore because Pat Buchanan was the recipient of many votes intended for Gore. Fucking Florida. I hate that state. I wish a hurricane would bury it for good.

    [​IMG]

Share This Page