The U.S. wants to impose "democracy" on the end of the barrel of a gun, but doesn't see the need to actually democratic at home. This is the only western democracy that this purchasing of the electorate is tolerated, why?? It's unethical and hypocritcal to talk about "our freedoms" when we don't have the freedom of fair elections.
The wording describing each choice, beyond just a mere yes or no, is very "Thom-ish"! And I totally agree that we have a monarchy of sorts. Unelected (that's why I say their a "monarchy"---they're there for life!) lap dogs, er, pit bulls, that do whatever the GOP and their financiers want! And some of these guys aren't even considering both sides of a case. I'd hate to imagine what would happen if something like Dred Scott or Brown v. Board of Education (litigated by the Solicitor General's office, in the person of Thurgood Marshall. Anyone remember him? He was one of the more brilliant members of the court. When I was in school, we learned about the Constitution backwards and forward, up and down, and had to pass a comprehensive exam in order to pass from 8th grade into high school. When I think about it now, I'd be almost positive that at the time, I knew more about the Constitution than some members of the current court! I'm currently reading The Thom Hartmann Reader, and it is making me interested in once again going over the Highest Law of the Land, and learning it all over again! I highly recommend the book, and if you're a listener or a viewer of Thom's, (which sadly, since I live in Northridge, CA, I can't get Thom's show on KTLK 1150AM anymore, and I can't seem to find the radio broadcast on our cable TV. I can get "The Big Picture", but I much prefer The Thom Hartmann Program. If anyone who reads this knows of a station (I tried KPFK, the Pacifica outlet here, but no luck) where I can get the radio program here in Northridge,CA, please reply to this post.(I think it's important to note that it's called "The Thom Hartmann Program" and not "Show". I think that speaks volumes.) My mentor (an amazing woman affiliated with CalTech and Planned Parenthood both) told me on her death bed to "Always choose your battles. But always fight the good fight." I whispered to her in her hospital bed that I would do just as she said, and she squeezed my hand in approval. Thom's program always helps me choose my battles wisely.
I wouldn't exactly say it's tolerated, but it definitely crept up on a lot of people and caught many by surprise. It was done slowly and behind the scenes. Only in this past year has it become glarlingly apparent to most. Of course there are those who remain blinded to the truth since they only see that which they believe. Believing is seeing, not vice versa.
Off topic, but I was pleased to see that George Zimmerman was arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder. May we hope that this will end this very ugly law, which is in about 20 states now? Trayvon gave his life to bring this to the light and I honor his sacrifice.
We must get big corp money and lobbyists out of politics. Citizens Inited must be repealed NO more very con judges who make not interpret law. US fought for Freedom of / from religeon .. Now evangelical run GOP passes laws and makes demands like the King of England.. Christianity has been sullied by politics, pedophile priests & get rich evangelists.. Jesus did not preach hate. Jesus said ' feed the hungry Heal the sick ' HE took a vow of poverty.
hehehe, lol,...I was wondering when something like this was going to get polled! Of course the Supreme Court is Corrupt!
Exerpt from ---- History of the Supreme Court of the United States
Under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth ( 1789-1801 ), the Court heard few cases; its first decision was West v. Barnes ( 1791 ), a case involving a procedural issue. The Court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige, a situation not helped by the highest-profile case of the era, Chisholm v. Georgia, which was immediately repudiated by the Eleventh Amendment.
The Court's power and prestige waxed during the Marshall Court ( 1801-1835 ). Under Marshall, the Court established the "principle of judicial review," including "specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution" ( Marbury v. Madison ) and made several important constitutional rulings giving shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and the states ( prominently, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Mc Culloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden ).
The Marshall Court also ended the practice of each justice issuing his opinion "seriatim," a remnant of British tradition, and instead issuing a single majority opinion. Also during Marshall's tenure, ( although beyond the Court's control ), the impeachment and acquittal of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804-1805 helped cement the principle of judicial independence.
My question in this, where did the Marshall court derive the power to establish the "principle of judicial review," and to "specify itself the supreme expositor of the Constitution?"
Donald Trump just made the Republican push to repeal Obamacare a whole lot more complicated.
Thom at Dad & Mom's house when they were both still alive, circa '90s
Don’t miss out again. Receive our daily rundown of news, show highlights and random musings.