Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Thom Hartmann spanked a couple of DU'ers today on his show - [View all]ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)25. The only time I have seen that happen is when people were being disgusting toward
Alan Grayson when he got into a car accident. This is a bit different.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
136 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Probably because he didn't post it. I'll bet that staffers/interns handle that kind of thing n/t
RZM
Mar 2012
#51
Overall, I loved the clip, great history lessson and showed the problem: Congress.
freshwest
Mar 2012
#57
No, but I can imagine the scenario where SCOTUS rules in favor of segregation, because it did, 7-1
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#72
Sure. But progress goes one way, you can't expect, seriously, that decision to be reversed.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#74
The state governments make laws that pertain exclusively to states. Congress makes federal law.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#78
He said that the Constitution doesn't give the SC the power to declare laws unconstitutional.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#80
The court only applied it for the first time, to show that the courts didn't have that power...
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#81
It does not explicitly give sc the right to declare laws unconstitutional. it gives it jurisdiction.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#82
There is no explicit grant of power to strike down laws made by congress. Or states.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#84
It gives them jurisdiction to adjudicate. It doesn't explicitly give them to power to strike down
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#88
I am saying that the constitution does not state that EXPLICITLY. Which you claimed it did.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#91
It says the "judicial power" shall extend to all cases. But what is the judicial power?
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#93
So you actually do believe that if a case comes before them they have no right to judge against it.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#94
No. I believe that the constitution does not EXPLICITLY grant judicial review to the supreme court.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#95
I said aligned, his philosophy among others went on to be the basis for the civil war.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#131
I hadn't commented on the thread because I didn't question that SCOTUS was the final arbiter.
freshwest
Mar 2012
#58
Sid I agree with you strongly in this case. Poor form indeed, and cowardly as well.
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2012
#116
Does he ever respond or are his posts nothing more than an advertisment for his show?
FSogol
Mar 2012
#127
LOL! What's this baloney about him being protected from criticism somehow? That's not true.
Poll_Blind
Mar 2012
#16
Singling a DUer by name was verboten on DU2, under the 'discuss ideas and not people' rule.
freshwest
Mar 2012
#60
The only time I have seen that happen is when people were being disgusting toward
ScreamingMeemie
Mar 2012
#25
Did Thom Hartmann make fun of DUers the way DUers have childishly made fun of people like
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#86
The David Swanson affair. Epic flamefest. Set precedent for "calling out" other DUers.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#36
That was the old DU. There are now no mods to delete posts. Now things are handled by jury vote.
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#47
in the meantime, i would point out 'as to Law and Fact' in the judiciary const. section:
alp227
Mar 2012
#15
Indeed, Doe v. Bolton explicitly overturns law that was deemed unconstitutional.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#35
Gee, I guess that means that only lawyers are capable of understanding the Constitution.
Zorra
Mar 2012
#117
I'm pretty sure James Madison was capable of understanding the Constitution
DefenseLawyer
Mar 2012
#132
Wouldn't go that far as to suggest that. Don't know who pays him, anyway. He has his own business...
freshwest
Mar 2012
#63
Well, count me out. He's one of the best progressive voices on the air. Go ahead and boycott
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#87
Better to deal with his point. He's right in detail, if wrong in principle.
lumberjack_jeff
Mar 2012
#52
Gosh. And all this time, I thought we were supposed to have a government of the people, by
Zorra
Mar 2012
#67
In that world, no one has rights that the majority are obliged to respect.
lumberjack_jeff
Mar 2012
#111
The bill of rights is more often used to defend capital from labor than the reverse.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#89
I'd agreee, except that the discussion was not on DU. He argued with people by name
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2012
#119
what the hell are you talking about? how about some background on what this thread is regarding???
themaguffin
Mar 2012
#107
So what if he called a couple of DU'ers on the air. It's a public message board.
madinmaryland
Mar 2012
#113