Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 26, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!






Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Three Supreme Court Cases That Should Worry You

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 18, 2011
AP / J. Scott Applewhite

Justice Samuel Alito, left, and Chief Justice John Roberts in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington. The two have helped engineer radical legal change in America.

By Bill Blum

(Page 2)

The immediate legal issue before the court is vitally important and by now well known: whether Congress has the constitutional power to require virtually all adult U.S. citizens and legal residents to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. But as critical as health insurance is in the everyday lives of all people, there is an underlying legal issue the case raises that is even more critical: whether Congress and the president in enacting national health care legislation have overstepped their authority under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as “the Commerce Clause,” which grants Congress the power to regulate “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States. …”

Although it lacks the fanfare of the First Amendment and concepts like due process and equal protection, the Commerce Clause has been the basis for a vast panoply of progressive federal legislation, ranging from the National Labor Relations and Fair Labor Standards acts of the 1930s to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as Occupational Health and Safety, Equal Pay and Clean Air and Water acts of more recent vintage.

It took FDR’s threat to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 11 members to move the court to reconsider its once highly restrictive interpretation of the Commerce Clause that threatened to derail the New Deal. And it was not until the 1990s and 2000s that the judicial pendulum began to reverse course, as the court under Rehnquist inaugurated what some on the right have touted as an era of New Federalism, with decisions curbing federal regulation of education and invalidating portions of the Violence Against Women Act.

Since the federal circuit courts are split on the constitutionality of Obamacare, it’s understandable that the Supreme Court would step in to provide clarity. But here, as elsewhere, the trend is ominous. The challenge to Obamacare affords the Roberts court the opportunity to finish the job of New Federalism, and the implications for the country’s future could not be more profound. Would the demise of Obamacare have a legal domino effect, leading piece by piece, case by case, to future efforts to eviscerate Medicare, environmental protection and even Social Security? Oral arguments are set for March 26-28.

In Federalist Paper No. 78, Alexander Hamilton supported the creation of an independent court system, terming the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch of government because it lacked the capacity to “annoy or injure” what he called “the political rights of the Constitution.” But as the three cases topping its 2012 docket suggest, the Roberts court is moving to consolidate nothing less than a judicial counterrevolution.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

BR549's avatar

By BR549, February 19, 2012 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment

A. Benway, December 22, 2011 at 9:30 am
Nicely put. Short but sweet.

As far as Blum-boy’s idiotic rant and his statement, “Among its dubious lowlights, the court has “invented” [emphasis added] a Second Amendment individual right to bear arms”, ....... the Second Amendment was never meant to have to provide a justification for a man’s right to own and carry a firearm SOLELY to fulfill the occasional need to have a functional militia, ...... it addressed that part of a man’s civil responsibilities within a state’s militia that, AT A MINIMUM,  he had to at least be able to own and have proficiency in operating a firearm if we were to ever to thwart onslaughts from enemies from abroad ..... OR within. The militia part was secondary; the right to own, carry, and operate a firearm was primary.

The “well regulated ” part of the 2nd Amendment merely inferred that any person acting within a militia should at least be following the mandates of a higher form of law than that of an impetuous lynch mob seeking immediate justice. It also meant that those individuals in the militia should be familiar enough with their roles and responsibilities in providing defense that they had at least some modicum of understanding of the tactics necessary to defend one’s town or whatever. Being a part of that necessary militia was but one part of the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment; not the ONLY one.

As for Blum-boy’s discussion of Rick Perry’s redistricting ploy and Arizona’s immigration legislation, it would be nice if he made some attempt to understand the history behind both of those issues. I have no love for Rick Perry since he’s a Bilderberg globalist too willing to sell this country down the road, but at least this argument was partially motivated by a near total failure of the federal government to address immigration in any realistic manner. The Arizona issue is another story entirely and can be summarized by Obama’s telling Rep John Kyl that he wasn’t going to do anything about Arizona’s immigration problem until Arizona came on board with his (Obama’s) immigration plan. Since Obama is a huge NAFTA supporter, a bullet that he so skillfully dodged during the 2008 debate, it doesn’t take a lot of rocket science to figure out that the immigration issue would have reached the same level of functional incompetence as Holder’s “Fast and Furious” campaign, only earlier.

Report this

By heterochromatic, February 19, 2012 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

why? no nicknames allowed?

do you permit abbreviations such as AHCA or are they
also verboten?

Report this

By Dahlia, February 19, 2012 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

The law is called “The Affordable Health Care Act”, not Obamacare.  Please use the correct terminology.

Report this

By A. Benway, December 22, 2011 at 10:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bill of Rights was created because of Shay’s Rebellion, hence is attempt to do two things:
1) standardize (make regular) the kind of weapons, ie “militia-suitable and standard “regulation” arms.

2) re-assure the common people that they would be permitted to keep such “regulated” arms.

“The militia” is just saying “men capable of fighting”.

They would never have gotten the Constitution ratified without the Bill of Rights - that’s what Shay taught them…

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 21, 2011 at 4:56 pm Link to this comment

Sher~~~~ there wouldn’t be any provision for males outside the militia because
participation was supposed to be universal among the group.

The inference that the weapons were only to be brought out for the common
defense is a reasonable one, but it’s best to bear in mind that self-defense was
and is a central right, and that firearms were very commonly used for putting
meat on the table.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment

She, your point with the ethnic breakdown is?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 21, 2011 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

Why thank you heterochromatic, I appreciate your attention to this
matter and I now have much more information, definitive for that
matter, about the militias of the US.  I noticed on both websites,
reading both top to bottom, there is no provision for any man or
boy outside of the militia, even though it intended a standing militia
meaning at the ready for any call to duty for men and boys of a certain
age. 

Where does it say, maybe I missed it, that all citizens have the right to
bear arms at their will?  No mention of women, but I guess they were
not considered citizens at that time?  It would be good to have this
information in case other skeptics such as myself come along.  And of
course, I promise I would desist and not bring it up again.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 21, 2011 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment

Sher~~~~ The Militia Act of 1792

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

a discussion of militias citing a few texts

Part 3. - History of the Militia in America

http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp

Cress, Lawrence Delbert Cress. Citizens in Arms: The Army and the Militia in
American Society to the War of 1812
Cunliffe, Marcus, Soldiers and Civilians: The Martial Spirit in America, 1775-
1865
Mahon, John K, The History of the Militia and the National Guard
Millett, Allan R. & Maslowski, Peter, For The Common Defense: A Military
History of the United States of American: Revised Edition
Riker, William H, Soldiers of the States

——
if anyone’s interested in the origin and development of the right and duty to
bear arms in English history.I can offer a couple of references, but suggest that
you start by looking into the old word ” fyrd”

——-


the English (and their American cousins) always recognized the need for arms
but also feared the might of kings and the dreaded standing armies.
our history is entwined with the term “citizen-sloldier”

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 21, 2011 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

heterochromatic, December 21 at 9:46 am - However one wants
to interpret history, you are probably right in how the colonists saw
it, a history citation would be useful, nevertheless it is not written in
the Constitution or its Amendments.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 21, 2011 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

Sher~~~ militias were primarily for local self-defense and used for national defense
only in times of general warfare.
And there is much to support that the militias and the right of every household to
keep itself armed without encroachment by the national government was meant to
counter the chance that a strong federal government might prove to be a threat to
the liberties of the citizenry.
——

changes in the healthcare system will continue and hopefully we’ll get to where
basic medical services are simply provided for everybody just as public education is
provided.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 21, 2011 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

The US has 308 millions people compared to Iceland’s population of
318,452 as of Jan. 1, 2011.  On averageIcelanders equals per capita
that of the United States going to the movies five times a year and
buy about 1,500,000 movie tickets annually.  It is highly likely
Icelanders have seen Lord of the Rings.

The US Census Bureau reports the following:

White alone, 74.8% or 229.8 million
Black (or African American) alone, 12.4% or 38.1 million
Some other race alone, 4.9% or 14.9 million*
Asian alone, 4.5% or 13.8 million
Two or more races, 2.4% or 7.5 million
American Indian or Native Alaskan (Native American) alone, .8% or 2.5
million, and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone, .15% or .454
million

Iceland has a homogeneous mixture of Norse/Celtic descendants 94%,
population of foreign origin 6%

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 21, 2011 at 9:39 am Link to this comment

Don’t compare size when comparing a people who have unfettered their economic slavery ( Iceland ) and a people who are still arguing with themselves over which Lord of the Rings movie was best ( Amerika ).

So much disinformation here it is sickening.. and “I’m” called a troll?

HA!

I think more than half on here are brainwashed without hope ( which is good, since the concentration camps won’t be filled with you, only the labor yards you already work ).... and the other half are hired hands shilling out the Nazi regime’s garbage… but you’ll pay.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, December 21, 2011 at 9:04 am Link to this comment

Kugel, Dec. 19 10:58am gave a lucid observation.  Seems if more
information is desired, one should do one’s own homework.  This
article is not meant to be a definitive textbook.  If the author is left
of center, it only offsets the more extreme voices elsewhere.  If the
reader is confused to begin with they can either take the article at
face value or do their own research.  If it is only ‘somewhat’ left of
center, then it is negligible.  As far as providing insight goes, seems
his audience, if they have a discriminating brain, can come to their
own insights which would be preferable anyway.  The three cases
itemized will have ‘vast’ repercussions.

Outraged, Dec. 19 3:53pm invokes Godwin’s Rule, and so early in the
discussion, LOL Of course the worker is not to blame.  The Mexican
government bears most of the blame that encourages illegal immigration
to the US for which it subsidizes the already wealthy but corrupt Mexican
government.

While the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, it
shouldn’t take a Supreme Court re-ratification with another redundant
ruling to enforce it.  That right was installed as a defense against the
English who continued to force their sovereignty on the colonies and as
an afterthought against any aggression against the new country. 

Perhaps, heterochromatic, Dec. 19 8:58pm, but then that applies to the
people as a collective noun, not as individuals, when the safety of the
country is at stake.  A militia “is a [u[body[/u[ of citizens” conscripted for
military service when it is needed.

The Affordable Healthcare Act has provided 30 million of Americans
health coverage that would be without.  After 30 years of unsuccessful
attempts by liberal presidents and a year of viciously bitter partisan
combat, Congress passed the Affordable Healthcare Act that guarantees
access to medical insurance for tens of millions of Americans.  It should
not be forgotten it took Republicans to pass. The mandatory element
means the cost of health care is shifted to individuals but will affect the
health care insurers more who would then have to honor regulated
claims of those needing health care. Even though not all American will
need health care in any given year, over their lifetime it would be rare
that they would not. The costs for those without insurance fall as extra
government expenditures from federal taxes which in effect is a cost
spread over each and every American.  The mandatory insurance
requirement offsets this “veiled” cost for everyone.  What needs to
happen is control, enforced regulation, of the insurance that would be
reasonable for those needing to buy it.

The health care law seeks to extend insurance to more than 30 million
people, primarily by expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies
to help lower- and middle-income Americans buy private coverage. It
will create insurance exchanges for those buying individual policies and
prohibit insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing
conditions. To reduce the soaring cost of Medicare, it creates a panel of
experts to limit government reimbursement to only those treatments
shown to be effective, and creates incentives for providers to “bundle’’
services rather than charge by individual procedure.

Vast changes have been set in motion that are likely to persist no matter
what the court’s ruling.  Provisions already put in place, like tougher
oversight of health insurers, the expansion of coverage to one million
young adults and more protections for workers with pre-existing
conditions are already well cemented and popular. And the law, along
with economic pressures, has forced major institutions to wrestle with
the relentless rise in health care costs. Read an entire assessment here.

The size and multicultural make up of Iceland is not comparable to the
United States.

Report this

By Kevin, December 21, 2011 at 8:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All this talk of the “individual right” of gun ownership has me thinking.  I think the origin of the law is political not individual in nature.  That is to say, the right to bear arms is founded in the right of the people to protect themselves against tyrrany. This political right must imply some individual right unless you want to say that you have to have some kind of license for being in a militia to own a gun.  Bureaucratic regulation of militias seems to defeat the whole purpose of a militia. 

So gun ownership is an individual right with a political/collective justification.  There is a difference between: people have an absolute right to bear arms, and people have the right to bear arms in order to bear arms to protect themselves against tyranny.  There is a difference here, but the degree of difference between the two is up to interpretation.  You’ve got to be careful to interfere the individual’s right, because when you mess with the individual right you mess with the political right. Still the protection against tyranny must in some way qualify the right to bear arms.    I don’t think that the second ammendment necessarily protects an individual’s right to possess numerous assault rifles, bazookas, etc.  One could interpret it that way, but one could legitimately say that possession of multiple assault rifles presents a danger to the community that is not justified by the intent of the second ammendment.
Finally, the second ammendment seems to be antiquated. This doesn’t mean we should throw it out, but being able to bear arms won’t protect us against tyranny and an armed rebellion will hardly help a militia against the power of the world’s strongest military.  Political organization will protect us against tyranny and if violent revolution is necessary, you better hope that a big chunk of the military turns to the side of the proletariat.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 21, 2011 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

Marian Griffith~~~to truly understand the second, it would be good to know some
of the history of England, Ireland and of Europe….as well as understanding the
conditions of live in America at that time.

It’s about the right of people to use weapons to protect themselves from attack
from anyone and an understanding that the governmentt can not always, and
sometimes will not, protect them.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, December 21, 2011 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

Marian,
What the Second recognized was that in order to thwart internal tyranny or assaults from abroad, it was necessary to have the population armed. It says nothing about specific conditions about the arming of those citizens or what size weapons they could have except to say that it shall not be infringed, otherwise, any set of laws could do an end run around the intent of that amendment.

It would be wonderful if we never needed firearms at all. The money and energy we waste on firearms and wars is astounding. A real waste, but until we are able to convince those within our society who would always seek to further their own power at the expense of others, I guess we have to live with looking over our shoulder. Not a very trusting environment, I’m afraid, but if things really were so perfect as to not needing any firearms at all, then the Dalai Lama would be back in Tibet and the Bush and Clinton families would be giving away their fortunes to help all the remaining families they helped murder.

Report this

By Marian Griffith, December 21, 2011 at 3:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

*shrugs*
Aside from the awkward (by which I mean near incomprehensible) syntax, the only way I can read the second amendment is that it allows citizens to form a militia, and that the government shall not limit those by prohibiting them to bear arms.

Nowhere can I find in it that it allows citizens to wear assault rifles at any moment of the day at any place.

The second amendment would be followed perfectly if citizens were allowed to form and join a militia and that those militias were to have a cache of weapons for its members to use in the case they need to arm and defend themselves against an enemy. And I guess for training to use those weapons safely.

And to be honest, considering the time and immediate history when the constitution and amendment were written, I find the later interpretation the much more likely intent of the writers.

Report this

By BruceWKrafft, December 20, 2011 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

“Among its dubious lowlights, the court has invented
a Second Amendment individual right to bear arms”

Since all nine Justices agreed that the Second
Amendment protects an individual right, it’s hard to
see how this can be laid at the feet of the Chief
Justice.

Don’t believe me? Read the first paragraph of Justice
Stevens’ dissent (the dissent with which Justices
Ginsberg, Breyer and Souter agreed) which you can find
at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

It is really quite straightforward: “The question
presented by this case is not whether the Second
Amendment protects a ‘collective right’ or an
‘individual right.’ Surely it protects a right that
can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that
the Second Amendment protects an individual right
does not tell us anything about the scope of that
right.”

So much for the “Conservatives re-writing the Second
Amendment” theory.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 20, 2011 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment

di~~~~The Mexicans were brought in to drive American workers’ wages into the
ground ~~~~~


not the wages, the benefits…..the wages will stagnate, the bennies ‘ll get stripped
out….

lotta workers around the world can’t even fathom the benefits that the folks here
have been getting and the stuff that those poor folks manufacture ends up being
a lot cheaper than ours.

Report this

By Kevin, December 20, 2011 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It seems to me, that originalists point to the founding fathers to prove their point while those who believe in a more contextual interpretation of the constitution simply shrug off this claim to authority.  And why shouldn’t they? It is a choice to esteem the constitution as a sacred and immutable document, and it’s not a choice you’re going to make if you don’t like the results of such an interpretation. 
So what can the originalists do to prove his progressive foe that one should read the constitution their way?  They can try and argue that their position is objectively better, but this better will most likely rely on political assumptions that the progressive will reject.  The second thing the originalist can do is to simply reject the progressive as bringing politics into constitutional interpretation.  But hasn’t he just done the same thing?
  We can choose to interpret the constitution however we like.  There are limits based on the consent of the courts and the political community. For example, a federal law banning the sale of all firearms would clearly be in violation of the second ammendment. In the same way, most people would agree that the second ammendment doesn’t necessarily give someone the right to keep a tank in their garage.  Between these extremes we have a lot of room for interpretation and argument.  And this will necessarily be political.

Report this

By diamond, December 20, 2011 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

It’s simple, Mark S. They haven’t taken to the streets because most of them have two or three jobs and are so far in debt they can’t afford to cause trouble and have no time to think,let alone act. And that’s all exactly as it was intended to be. The majority of Americans are wage slaves, in every sense of the word. The founding slavers liked slavery very much and their descendants have found ways to return to it by other means.

These poor idiots rushing around with guns to gun down the ‘illegals’ just don’t get it. The Mexicans were brought in to drive American workers’ wages into the ground and that’s exactly what they’ve done. The Mexicans are being used and so are the schmucks with the guns. The Tea Party has latched on to the ‘illegals’ issue with great enthusiasm and they will use it to rally the masses to their cause. The masses don’t realize they’re being used and anyone who tries to tell them will be shouted down and drowned out by the white noise of the mainstream media of which Fox News is only the most obnoxious and mendacious example.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, December 20, 2011 at 11:09 am Link to this comment

Here is the best news and reality check you all have needed to hear / read for quite some time!

Let’s take the country back, folks.. like Iceland did ( and yet you haven’t heard about nor will TD even mention what those people have done over there ).

http://www.truth-out.org/why-iceland-should-be-news-not/1322327303

You’re welcome.

Report this

By felicity, December 20, 2011 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

Mark S. - right on.  Fore instance, there is no
mention of the ‘right to privacy’ in the
Constitution, interpreted by many to mean that there
isn’t any.  There isn’t any because ‘privacy’ had to
do with toilet functions in 1787 - apparently the
Framers didn’t think people needed a spelled out
‘right’ to go to the bathroom.

As to the Tenth Amendment - mentioned by someone
here.  Take it to the ridiculous, as Woo did when he
worked for Junior, the president can do anything the
Constitution does not expressly forbid.  If the
disastrous reign of Junior is any indication, that
‘interpretation’ made much of it possible.

(By the way, the Constitution has been called
primarily a “bundle of compromises.”  So much for the
almost Biblical status too many Americans give it)

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 20, 2011 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

OO~~ fuck Oathkeepers

Report this

By objective observer, December 20, 2011 at 9:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

if memory serves, Article 35 designates any male from 18-45 is part of the unorganized militia.

the government does fear an armed populace, people camping in parks and marching in the streets are of little concern to the powers that be, just an annoyance.  an armed populace is to be feared.  why is the conflict in Syria still an issue, killing UNARMED marchers? 

as far as apache gunships, they are effective in open warfare, not much in urban/guerrilla warfare without “collateral damage”.  the Israeli’s use them in Gaza with a lot of civilian casualites.  google “oathkeepers”, a group of military and police that have sworn to uphold the constitution, not unlawful orders to disarm the public.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 20, 2011 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

Mark S ~~~~ Americans still look for comfort in US Law. Why everyone hasn’t
taken to the streets is a mystery to me.~~~~

Judging by that and the balance of your comment, I would say that you’re correct.
Things are a mystery to you.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, December 20, 2011 at 7:56 am Link to this comment

Mark, the error is in thinking that the Constitution has somehow become archaic and particularly that “times have changed” enough to move on to something that works.

Heck, we haven’t even evolved enough into what that document had to offer from back then and since that time, our level of corruption and legislative lack of integrity has only increased by the amount of influence from the parasitic banks, which, by the way was EXACTLY what Jefferson and others had warned us about.

Eisenhower tried to warn us about the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex (striking the “Congressional” part at the last minute), but his speech writer, through countless interactions with Ike, knew all too well what Ike had really wanted to say on the issue.

Until such time that we, as a country, actually mature enough to be able to recognize and replace corrupt legislators and parasitic public sector employees with dedicated leaders, that document will remain as the best attempt to achieve individual rights in recorded history. And until such time comes around that we ever do actually evolve enough to live within the true merits of the Constitution, only then can have any discussion about changing it.

To do otherwise would be like what California did with the large number of motorists who were constantly passing on the right to drive around other slower drivers who were monopolizing the left lane. Instead of addressing the real problem, their liberal pussy legislature just caved in and made it legal to drive in the passing lane and for others to pass on the right. One of the real problems was that so many of their exit ramps were formed right from the low speed lane, instead of having a committed exit lane and leaving the low speed
lane alone. The consequence of this myopia was that all the traffic shifted to the left and self absorbed motorists now felt justified in using the high speed lane as their own personal convenience lane.

Our Constitutional situation is no different. Short sighted people with no sense of history have no trouble in throwing the whole thing out because they never understood it to begin with.

Report this

By Mark S, December 20, 2011 at 7:25 am Link to this comment

Founding Fathers this, and Founding Fathers that.  The Constitution says yuckity yuck and was intended to mean balderdash.  The founding slavers and Indian Killers are long dead, and the laws don’t mean anything close to what they read.  The times have changed drastically and the Nation’s “leadership” is a band of spiritually retarded money-grabbers.  Industry lays waste to the Land from Sea to Polluted Sea, and somehow, Americans still look for comfort in US Law. Why everyone hasn’t taken to the streets is a mystery to me.

Report this

By Libertarian1, December 20, 2011 at 7:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@Kookie

Roberts Court “restricting rights and freedoms unlike
Warren Court expanding them”

Both the Roberts Court’s Heller decision and CU
decision greatly expanded rights and freedoms.  It
just liberals have a select few rights they want to be expanded. Second Amendment to the constitution. Allow that?  heaven forbid- must be restricted

Freedom of speech- certainly they are all for that
except if they use non-PC words then fire them.  Ever
hear of the liberal speech codes?

In re asking for papers- the law says the police may
only ask in connection to stopping someone for an
illegal act eg speeding

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, December 20, 2011 at 7:02 am Link to this comment

NABNYC, December 19 at 6:30 pm
“There is no individual right to bear arms in our constitution.  The second amendment only allows the states to have a well-armed militia for the protection of the state.  http://nabnyc.blogspot.com/2009/04/columbine-ten-more-years-of-gun-pushers.html”

2nd:—> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First of all, as Heterochromic has stated, you are flat out incorrect. The Second Amendment, with or without the commas, is stating that an armed citizenry is necessary to keep itself safe from dangers, both foreign and domestic, and that out of necessity it must also have some manner of discipline within its ranks [that’s the “well regulated” part] so that what culminates isn’t just a lawless band of angry citizens carrying a noose and an excuse to go kick some ass.

And what was that panty-wetting liberal rag link you provided, and the last one on the “bribes” by NRA? Since when has “bribing”, as you call it, someone to remind them of their sworn oath to protect and serve the Constitution become a crime? I guess you have no problem with Fast and Furious or understand the implications of what transpired; the fist fights in BATFE offices over its totally illegal application. Let’s not forget that both Holder (and Obama) knew what was likely to happen when we intentionally shipped, not 200, not 1200, or even 2,000, but over 10,000 weapons to the Mexicans drug cartels; under any other circumstances any one of us would at least be doing time for manslaughter for the deaths of Brian Terry and the other officers.

You stated, “The first clause can fairly be read to mean that in order for each State to keep its own security, each State is entitled to have its own militia.” Yes, but the militia back then was NOT an extension of the federal armies unless directed by the individual governors to be so during a time of national defense. Today, since 1903 actually, the National Guard has been morphed into this local extension of the national military and bears no resemblance to what the founders had envisioned. I doubt the founding fathers would have ever envisioned the bastardization that took place when US Code Title 10 subdivided the militia in 1903 into the current “organized” militia [the National Guard] with its loyalties heavily leaning on the federal government and the “unorganized” militia which consisted of every warm body between 17 and 45, who were thrown in the back of the bus. You don’t have to join the militia, you already are in it, so suck it up and start practicing.

In 1833, Judge Abel Upsher, former Sec of the Navy and later Sec. of State, stated the following in his second in a series of letters to journalist Thomas Ritchie: “Suppose, for instance, that the President should send a regiment of his standing army, to turn our legislature out of doors, and pull down the capitol, I presume that Governor Floyd would be clearly right in calling upon the militia
to put every soldier of them to the sword, if the civil authority should prove unable to “arrest the progress of evil.” (Emphasis not added by me, BTW.) And while many current day interpreters of our Constitution inanely continue to view it as some stand-alone document, it is, rather, an evolution of at least a dozen agreements between regional and state governments that get their roots from the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, that show a deliberate development in civilized man’s understanding of his own inalienable rights. And along with power comes responsibility.

So you tell me how the current day National Guard in any way has their loyalties to the individual states and their governors, unless they refuse to obey unlawful orders they have been given by the feds. And are we really that far away from such a situation?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 20, 2011 at 1:52 am Link to this comment

So many interesting positions….. where to begin is
the question… but I will put it “out there” so to
speak.

@NABNYC

Your comment: ” I’m not advocating stopping people
to ask for their papers.”

Thank you. But that does not address the issue. If
you are advocating that “some” should produce their
“papers” if asked, how could or would this be
determined? Worker is being pitted against worker,
THIS needs to be acknowledged, only THEN will we find
its remedy.

@BR 549

Your comment: “Don’t tell me, you still haven’t
figured out that the Republicans AND Democrats are
BOTH part of the problem.”

Your assessment is a half-truth. Blatantly the Repugs
are 100% against against YOU, as in the average Joe.
The Dems are PART of the problem, who could deny
that. But even in this, WHAT IS YOUR BEST
BET…? Obviously, one must continue to fight for the
rights of ALL, and since we’ve GLOBALIZED….
this means Americans as well as our world brethren.

@Kookie

Your comment: “But tthis
court, unlike the Warren court, is dedicated to
restricting rights and freedoms, not
protecting and expanding them.”

You’ve got my vote! I agree. This
court(if one could call it that) places property OVER
civil rights…..a dangerous proposition in a
democracy.

@ Everyone (at least those who’ve side tracked to the gun rights issue)
I have no issue with folks having guns AS LONG AS
THEY ARE COHERENT. But you… as well as I know
that that is not always the case. So…. I’m
interested in knowing how we BALANCE this conundrum.
The NRA is nuts, plain and simple. So how do we
insure this balance…. any ideas.

Report this

By Kookie, December 19, 2011 at 10:36 pm Link to this comment

It’s true, as one early comment noted, that all courts have political points of view. But tthis
court, unlike the Warren court, is dedicated to restricting rights and freedoms, not
protecting and expanding them.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 19, 2011 at 10:28 pm Link to this comment

NAB~~~ ” But they have no right to take our jobs.”

I never quite figured out how they managed to take the jobs….I always figured that
they were given them…...

Could you explain how they seize the jobs, and why they, in general, seize the
shittiest ones?

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 19, 2011 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment

NABNYC, your reading of the Second isn’t correct.

read the plain text of it.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”


the right is not attached to the states… it’s a
right of the people… and the federal govt is barred
from acting to disarm the people.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 19, 2011 at 9:46 pm Link to this comment

Non-Compassionate Liberal~~~~ as much as I would like
not to have the country saddled with the Second
Amendment, it’s there and there’s no true reading of it
that doesn’t yield the conclusion that citizens have a
right to own guns for the common protection and for
their individual protection.

Conditions have changed a great deal from when the
Second was adopted, but the language and meaning of the
thing has not changed.

Report this
mpz's avatar

By mpz, December 19, 2011 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment

There is no question that the founders intended that individuals would have the right to keep and bear arms.  The most perfunctory research of the creation of the constitution would convince any reasonable person of this.  The founders were creating a nation where individuals had rights.  ALL individuals.  And they weren’t considering corporations as people, either.  The prominent nations of the time in Europe were controlled by monarchies and/or the Roman Catholic church, both of whom heavily restricted the rights and freedom of the people.  The constitution was a way of guaranteeing that the people of our nation would have rights that could not be taken by any government or religion.

Report this

By NABNYC, December 19, 2011 at 7:37 pm Link to this comment

To Outraged:  I’m not advocating stopping people to ask for their papers.  I’m simply saying that when people claim to be horrified at the thought of unauthorized migrants being asked for their papers, they apparently are not sufficiently knowledgeable about our immigration laws which specifically require lawful immigrants to carry their visa and work papers with them at all times.  If lawful immigrants must carry their papers (as you must do in most countries, by the way, if you are not a citizen but are present by permission and by visa), then people shouldn’t get so upset that an unauthorized migrant may also be asked to show papers.

In terms of blaming workers, I’m not.  But here’s the thing.  Millions of Americans are out of work.  It is not liberal, progressive or left to offer to give jobs to imported foreign labor while your neighbors are going hungry and can’t find work anywhere.  It is common sense to demand full employment for our own people before any foreign labor is allowed to come into our country to take our jobs. 

You must keep in mind that we already allow more legal immigrants to come here every year than does any other nation in the world.  The corporations are advocating that all immigration controls be privatized, and turned over to the unfettered control of business.  Go read about it on the Chamber of Commerce website.  They want to be able to legally import as many foreign workers as they want at any time.  We must demand full employment for our own people, with good wages, and oppose efforts by corporations to throw Americans out of work and replace them with lower-wage foreign labor.  This is not anti-worker, it’s just common sense that we need to stand up for ourselves.

Report this
race_to_the_bottom's avatar

By race_to_the_bottom, December 19, 2011 at 7:34 pm Link to this comment

objective observer, December 19 at 12:56 pm

The government does not fear the people because the people have guns. If someone tried to use guns to change the US system, they would be wiped out by Apache gunships in a few minutes. What the government, or more specifically the finance capitalist class which controls the government fear, is a people who have figured out the scam and take to the streets in their millions and demand that the rule of the oligarchy be overthrown. THAT is what they fear. Not guns.

Report this
Non-Compassionate Liberal's avatar

By Non-Compassionate Liberal, December 19, 2011 at 7:32 pm Link to this comment

@heterochromatic:  The federal government can call up the individual states’ National Guards during wartime.  The Second Amendment was a bone thrown to the states that . . . Yes, if we call up your guards, your state can form a militia if your states is threatened by some external force.
No big deal.

Report this

By NABNYC, December 19, 2011 at 7:30 pm Link to this comment

To BR 549:

There is no individual right to bear arms in our constitution.  The second amendment only allows the states to have a well-armed militia for the protection of the state.  http://nabnyc.blogspot.com/2009/04/columbine-ten-more-years-of-gun-pushers.html
And, of course, even if the federal government was restricted in some way from prohibiting individuals to own guns, that does not mean the states or cities are so restricted.  To the contrary, the better argument would be that gun ownership, bearing, possession are all subject to the health and safety concerns of any community, and gun bearing may be completely banned if a community so decides.
There is no question that the gun manufacturers have paid mightily to bribe politicians and buy entire political parties to allow them to sell guns to whomever they want.  Their entire advertising campaign to convince Americans that gun ownership is “the” important right is absurd, particularly given modern society in which most Americans are deprived even of the ability to earn a living.
Let’s look at the underpinning of the legal support for the position that everyone is entitled to have any gun they want, and the Constitution says so. The gun pushers rely on the ambiguous language of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads as follows:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The question is: what does this language mean? It is ambiguous on its face. First it refers to a “militia,” which is commonly understood to mean a local, or state-based group of armed citizens existing to protect the community or state. Second, it refers to the State. The first clause can fairly be read to mean that in order for each State to keep its own security, each State is entitled to have its own militia. Let’s consider what it does not say in the first clause. It does not say that in order for individuals to maintain their individual security, individuals have some right to own weapons. It is not discussing individual rights or security. The clause only is discussing the rights of a State.
The second clause refers to the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But that’s not a separate sentence, it is not a statement by itself: it is qualified by the first part of the sentence referring to the right of a State to have a militia—in other words, individuals have a right to bear arms for purposes of serving in a State Militia.

Let’s look closer: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” What does that clause mean, if it is not limited to a State Militia? The NRA argues this means that the federal government can do nothing to infringe the right of any citizen from bearing arms at any time at all. And the words “keep and bear” are equal in that clause, tied together. Which, if we accept the NRA view, means that the federal government can never “infringe” the “right” of individuals to keep and bear arms whenever and wherever they like. This means visitors to federal prisons must be constitutionally allowed to bring assault weapons in with them when they visit their criminal friends. Angry litigants can carry weapons into federal court. Visitors to the Supreme Court can enter fully-armed. We can all carry guns on airplanes, as many as we want. This would be the logical extension of the NRA’s absurd argument.

Report this

By heterochromatic, December 19, 2011 at 7:21 pm Link to this comment

mandated insurance is probably justifiable, but it’s a
real stretch.

the healthcare system in this country needs a complete
overhaul, and while I appreciate the effort needed to
overcome the massive resistance to it and pass these
extremely flawed first steps, they’ve got to be
regarded as just first steps…dubious ones

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, December 19, 2011 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment

Bill Blum stated: “.... the court has invented a Second Amendment individual right to bear arms”.... Excuse me, but we actually DO have that right. It’s been around for 220 years. Minor detail, but for people who have yet to learn why our founders, and most importantly, the States, insisted on it’s inclusion, I guess those people are doomed to repeat history. Roberts didn’t have to invent it. I don’t care much for Roberts, myself, or what that bunch of traitorous brethren in the Supreme Court has done to fail to squash the corporatizing of America, but as for the 2nd, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were all in favor of gun control. Just remember that during your “liberal” cocktail parties. Over 300,000,000 weapons now in the hands of the American population, that’s why the bankers weren’t able to take over this country long ago and turn into one big slave camp. It took years of swindling and deception, the adoption of the Federal Reserve, the Social Security scam, and statements made by Andrew Carnegie and others that the American public will just have to learn to adapt to a communist way of living; and that was from the 1920s.

Don’t tell me, you still haven’t figured out that the Republicans AND Democrats are BOTH part of the problem. You still think that all of today’s problems are being caused by recalcitrant Republicans. Ignorance must be bliss, I guess. It’s a GD tag team in Congress. That’s why, since and including Reagan, each and every president has led us down the same spiral staircase to hell and what these globalists on both sides of the fence want is to ultimately dissolve the Constitution, a document which they SWORE to uphold, and yet now the Grand Canyon is under UN control, the troops from at least 15 foreign countries are stationed on our soil while OUR fighting age men and women have been conveniently whisked away to over 100 different countries fighting fictitious wars. And while the majority of meathead grain and bible-belt Republicans, along with their equally neanderthalic liberal Democrats, are still engaged in blaming each others’ party for escalating our demise ...... articles like this only prove the continuing level of ignorance.

As for AZ’s SB-1070, defending a State’s borders SHOULD have been a federal issue, but Obama refused to cooperate unless AZ came on board with his excuse for an immigration plan. AZ was exercising its power to nullify the errant federal policy and Judge John Roll, in standing up the Obama Administration in support of that, was more than just unfortunate collateral damage. He was the intended target; not Gabrielle Giffords.

Keep up the good work, though.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 19, 2011 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

Re: NABNYC

Your comment: “People are outraged at the idea of
immigrants being asked to show their papers, but the
legal immigrants with visas are lawfully required to
carry their papers with them at all times.  Why is it
acceptable to ask legal immigrants to do so, yet
claimed to be shocking to ask unauthorized migrants
to show their papers.  If they are not here legally,
they should be deported.  It’s like getting caught in
the movie theatre without a ticket stub when you
snuck in through the side door:  if you’re caught,
you have to leave.”

What you are advocating is Nazi-like. Should we all be required to have “our papers” with us wherever we go? What does an immigrant look like….? Are you saying we should do this for a particular ethnicity or just any non-white un-European looking person….if so, which ones? Have you heard of Sheriff Arpaio, this type of reasoning leads to all sorts of abuses.

“An Arizona sheriff’s department with a reputation for being tough on crime discriminated against Latinos through a pattern of unlawful stops, arrests and biased jail practices, the U.S. Justice Department said.

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office engaged in a
“pattern and practice of violating the Constitution” and federal law, Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general in charge of the civil rights division, said today in a telephone news briefing. The continuing investigation also revealed “serious concerns” that Sheriff Joe Arpaio, 79, and deputies didn’t investigate crimes adequately or provide police protection to the Latino community.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-15/arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio-targeted-hispanics-unfairly-u-s-report-says.html

Comment: “One final thing.  Everybody gets all weepy about the poor people from Mexico who “just” come here to take jobs.  Yes, that’s the point.  We have actual unemployment of 20%, higher in some communities.  It is not liberal to give away your neighbor’s job to some foreigner who has no legal right to be here.  These people need to go back to their own countries and if there’s no work there, they can overthrow their own governments.  But they have no right to take our jobs.”

It is the one-percenters who are pitting worker against worker for their own financial gain,
it’s NOT the fault of the workers. When the maquiladoras were built across the border, that was the beginning of American workers being undermined. What about all those Southeast Asian countries and the jobs that were transported over there. How about all the Service related positions (x-ray interpretation, customer service…etc) that arose in India, all the handiwork of the American ONE PERCENTERS undermining American workers.

Don’t blame the worker, that is not where the trouble lies. They are trying to make the whole world into a banana republic, that should be obvious by now. Let’s not forget the Flintstone Repugs giving them all the help they can muster. Additionally, you claim we shouldn’t shed a tear for them with no job, but we should shed a tear for you with no job….if we care about the one, we should care about the other. If however, we shouldn’t care about the one jobless worker, why should we care about the other.

We are beginning to see some international unions and this might relieve some of that, but it remains to be seen. This is another reason Occupy is important, since it is a solidarity of the masses worldwide. This is what is needed.

Report this

By bob pomeroy, December 19, 2011 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

The SCt will have to redefine federalism to validate Arizona’s immigration law.  I don’t think this Court is above that, all the rw claptrap about activist judges notwithstanding.

Report this

By NABNYC, December 19, 2011 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

At least 2 of the 3 areas fall into the category of “be careful what you wish for.”  On the question of unauthorized migrants, the chamber of commerce proposes that all control over immigration, including temporary workers, be turned over to corporations (you remember “privatization”) and they would have unfettered and unrestricted rights to import as much foreign labor as they want at any time for any purpose and then, of course, to deport any of the workers who displease them.  Keeping control of immigration decisions in a body theoretically subject to citizen control (the federal government) is an important goal, but it will not succeed unless the federal government starts doing its job.  That means guarding the borders, restricting unauthorized migrants, requiring employers to verify the legal status of anyone they hire, and deporting anyone who is here without authority.  If the federal government wants to keep authority over immigration, they need to do the job.  They have not been doing the job for years now, looking the other way while corporations and some corporate-aligned unions have cooperated in firing off Americans, and bringing in foreign labor by the planeload to take our jobs.  Nursing is one great example, construction, manufacturing are others. 

On the healthcare, there is nothing in the constitution or commerce clause which under any theory gives the federal government authority to require individual citizens to purchase products or services from private suppliers, with no cost controls, no required quality or content being sold.  This is a terrible idea.  If the government agrees we need national healthcare, it should be funded through the general taxes, not this end-run around the constitution.

Just imagine a Republican in office.  Jeb Bush, for example.  He decides that our nation and commerce would be improved with better education for our children, so he orders all families to purchase educational software for their children to use at home, at a cost of $1000 per child per year.  Guess who sells that software?  Jeb’s brother, daughter, relatives, or some business in which he has an interest.  There is no limit to the use of this power to steal more money from citizens.  It is also a regressive way of funding a social benefit.  We need to demand that healthcare be funded just like public education, everybody pays on a sliding scale through a tax system, and everybody gets a seat in the same room, same textbook, same teachers.

As for immigration, the entire concept of preemption is not as many seem to think.  It does not necessarily outlaw all state regulation, just that which is incompatible.  People are outraged at the idea of immigrants being asked to show their papers, but the legal immigrants with visas are lawfully required to carry their papers with them at all times.  Why is it acceptable to ask legal immigrants to do so, yet claimed to be shocking to ask unauthorized migrants to show their papers.  If they are not here legally, they should be deported.  It’s like getting caught in the movie theatre without a ticket stub when you snuck in through the side door:  if you’re caught, you have to leave.

One final thing.  Everybody gets all weepy about the poor people from Mexico who “just” come here to take jobs.  Yes, that’s the point.  We have actual unemployment of 20%, higher in some communities.  It is not liberal to give away your neighbor’s job to some foreigner who has no legal right to be here.  These people need to go back to their own countries and if there’s no work there, they can overthrow their own governments.  But they have no right to take our jobs.

Report this

By faith, December 19, 2011 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

Dr. Bones, I agree.  Not only that, but the favorable opinion in Citizens United
which does allow international corporations to essentially spend unlimited
amounts to insure that certain candidates are elected is appalling.  Follow that up
with the Bill to hold citizens in prison without due process is just as you say, “a
fast trot to fascism”.  What I do not understand is why the American voters have
not been raging in the streets over these events.  I wish that I could say that I
cannot fathom why Congress has so lost its way that it votes in favor of
unconstitutional Bills.  But, until there is campaign finance reform, we will slowly
erode citizen rights, privileges and laws.  We are in very serious trouble.

Report this

By Marian Griffith, December 19, 2011 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Corporates are people too.

And we are still asked to believe that if we work really hard we, too, can enjoy all the rights that a corporation does.

I remember reading a science fiction novel where the corporations had simply outlawed private property. It seemed unrealistic at the time, but it increasingly appears like that was prophetic…

Report this

By Rixar13, December 19, 2011 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment

“Obamacare: Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services”

I reside in Florida and detest anyone willing to allow the working poor to die via for profit insurance companies…

Report this

By Namro, December 19, 2011 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment

This particcular Supreme Court, with Roberts appointed by W. to head a conservative majority with a crook like Thomas (who frequents events hosted by the Koch brothers at their invitation and expense) has shown through its decision on Citizens’ United that it is firmly entrenched in the pockets of the corporatocracy.

They are likely to be good GOPTPers and vote against the 99% in every decision.

Report this
Non-Compassionate Liberal's avatar

By Non-Compassionate Liberal, December 19, 2011 at 2:11 pm Link to this comment

Obama’s gift to the health insurance has got to be stopped.  I don’t know about the other implications regarding Social Security, etc.  If they judge Obamacare legit, my hours will be cut so the company I work for can avoid paying into the health insurance pools (the VA covers me for free).
Obama (for whom I voted) must go.

Report this
politicky's avatar

By politicky, December 19, 2011 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment

Matt Wuerker nailed this in one of his cartoons in January of ‘06:

Judge Roberts: Good kitty, bad kitty
http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=11873

Report this

By LillithMc, December 19, 2011 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

The other benefit to the right-wing are appointments
and elections to local courts.  The left has never been
awake enough to organize effectively.  Time to make our
own movement perhaps within the Democratic party.

Report this

By objective observer, December 19, 2011 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

sorry, couldn’t let this pass…

the second amendment is an individual right.  this court finally gave the correct interpretation.  with over a hundred million firearms in private hands, there is no other interpretation.  it will be an interesting day should a left wing type try to ban them.  history will forget Rwanda and Bosnia.  don’t bother with the “armchair commando” or “fear of government” or any other lefty diatribe.  the second amendment allows for the first, as it gives the ultimate power to the populace.  government SHOULD fear/respect the public, not the other way around.

it’s articles like this that i truly enjoy.  reading how the left wing of the spectrum gets it’s panties in a twist.  i’m still waiting for the answer to “what are you going to do about it?”.

Report this

By berniem, December 19, 2011 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

Theoretically, when we are dissatisfied with our “elected” officials we can vote them out of office next time around, impeach, or recall, or what have you to, again theoretically, remedy the situation. With the SCOTUS “WE THE PEOPLE” must defer to our “elected” officials to determine if the court has been naughty or nice and perform some manner of alchemy to rid us of one or other of the offenders(dear Clarence comes to mind). So what are we to do when the corrupt executive and legislative branches, which enjoy the legalizing rubber stamp of the judicial system to justify unconstitutional behavior and/or provide plausible deniability, refuse to even consider any action against this august body? To me the answer is obvious and will come as surely as Spring to the Middle East! FREE BRADLEY MANNING!!!!!

Report this

By Libertarian1, December 19, 2011 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Every single one of your past and future cases is
perfectly answered in the exact words of the
constitution.

I understand it is inconvenient to your view of a big
big federal government but please carefully read the
10th amendment.  Every single one of your proposals
is specifically prevented by the 10th.  All SCOTUS is
doing is following the exact words of our founding
fathers.

Only specifically enumerated powers belong to DC,
everything else belongs to the people in their home
states.  If you don’t like the law pass a
constitutional amendment

Report this

By Kevin, December 19, 2011 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Although I agree that the Roberts court is headed in a
scary direction, I’m not sure that “Obamacare” should
be considered constitutional.  I’m not for a narrow
reading of the commerce clause, and I lament the fact
that the Roberts court would consider any progressive
legislation unconstitutional.  However, “Obamacare” is
not progressive.  It forces the American people to buy
what is often a sub-par service provided by companies
that profit at the expense of human suffering.  I
simply don’t see how an individual can be forced to
purchase a private product.

Report this

By Anthony Swad, December 19, 2011 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am confused as to the purpose of this “Report.”  It fails to espouse effectively any reason I should worry about any of the three cases. 

The implication that I should be worried implies either a bias in the author’s perspective, a bias in the target audience’s perspective, or valid concerns about the impacts of the decision regardless of outcome.  Mr.Blum’s perspective appears to me to be somewhat left of center.  I cannot speak regarding the perspective of his target audience.  I am confident that persons on both sides of each case could enumerate multiple reasons I should be concerned (if not worried) about the outcome of their respective case.  Mr.Blum has not provided much insight into these concerns.  I am able, I believe, to infer, with some degree of confidence, his preferred outcomes with respect to these cases.

This report does little to inform.  It does less to influence.  It certainly does not entertain.  At this point, I am left to ponder “What was the point?”  I believe this report barely qualifies as an OpEd piece leta alone a report.

Disappointed

Report this

By Kugel, December 19, 2011 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

Once again Blum offers us an important perspective about our legal system.
Though frightening it underlines the dangers for our democratic system if we elect
more republicans to office.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, December 19, 2011 at 11:10 am Link to this comment

All I have to say is this:

If Americans believe the SCOTUS is a branch of the government charged with the protection of the constitution and of protecting the interests of the American people…....I have a big f**king bridge to sell you.

Report this

By felicity, December 19, 2011 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

Years ago I took a graduate course on the Warren Court. 
Even though I agreed with almost every one of its
decisions, the arguments used to arrive at the
decisions were not only flimsy, they were blatantly
biased.  To assume that any Court will rule free of
bias is dangerously naive.

Report this

By Rodney, December 19, 2011 at 9:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We already know the outcome of the cases before they
are even heard. The Supreme Court will turn this
country back to pre labor laws and the pre civil
rights era. Remember corporations are people too!
Just that one ruling has taken away the right for our
vote to mean anything. It gave the right for
corporations to buy and own the executive legislative
and judicial branches of our government.It allowed
the billionaires to actually own this country. We are
moving into an era that was started by Reagan and the
Republicans where a few wealthy people makes all of
the decisions that affect the entire nation. They
have taken away hard fought rights that have taken
over one hundred years to earn. The few haves, with
the rest of the population just being able to make it
financially. All done with no accountability which
was the signature of the Bush administration. In the
past thirty years the freedoms the Republicans preach
about, was stolen right from under us. And unless we
have mass demonstrations in the streets of America we
will never get them back. The Republicans have used
to legislative system to block judges they don’t
agree with, and ram through the ones they agree with.
We are politically back in the 1800’s. And America,
it ain’t coming back for another thirty years.

Report this

By Jim Yell, December 19, 2011 at 7:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It matters not if this mess was by design or by accident, the court no longer functions to protect the intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It has been deflected from its course by money, Fundamentalist clap trap and evil people.

This has come about by the near total appointment of Far Right Wingnuts to the court and even when we have a supposed liberal or progressive President to appoint a judge the pressure from a minority of rabid, monied people creates an atmosphere of apeasement on the part of the supposed Liberal/Progressive President and we get an appointment of someone who will never actually do anything to disappoint the minority powerful.

As the court now funtiions it no longer protects the people and the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. More the pity for us all.

Report this

By Dr Bones, December 19, 2011 at 5:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The US Supreme Court lost it’s legitimacy when it stole the 2000 election by refusing to count the votes.  Since then it has turned into a supporter of illegal wars, war crimes, crimes against humanity, illegal spying.  And it is on a fast trot to fascism.

There is no justice when the justices are hell bent on deciding everything outcome in favor of the ruling case and/or the corporate criminals.

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.