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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
29. So he's opposed to Brown and Miranda and Gideon and Brady and Roe
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 11:11 PM
Mar 2012

and all the other instances in which the courts have protected the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority? If so he shares the views of such geniuses as Scalia and Bork. Is his broader point that he thinks judicial review is wrong or is it more of a cutesy argument about the technical underpinnings of Marbury?

Who got spanked? bluestateguy Mar 2012 #1
I don't think it wise for me to cliffordu Mar 2012 #2
If he called out anyone by name or post, I'll put him on Ignore. freshwest Mar 2012 #4
couple of folks called out by name... cliffordu Mar 2012 #5
Bye, Thom. You don't pay us for your material. freshwest Mar 2012 #6
Thom fuckin hartman knows better than to call fuckin ME out, I'll tell ya! NYC_SKP Mar 2012 #45
Damn straight! freshwest Mar 2012 #55
Really... cliffordu Mar 2012 #59
I tell ya, I fukkin' WILL kick his pasty hairless fukkin ass, I will. NYC_SKP Mar 2012 #97
Shaw nuff!!! cliffordu Mar 2012 #109
That'll fix everything. nt Skip Intro Mar 2012 #53
Yeah, he'd quake in his boots at that, huh? freshwest Mar 2012 #56
All those that predicted the end of the world from the SCOTUS. freshwest Mar 2012 #3
I did, to start with, among others, elleng Apr 2012 #135
Could you give some indication... one_voice Mar 2012 #7
i listened to that segment, and it's on youtube. alp227 Mar 2012 #8
I am now glad to have never listened to Thom Hartmann before this post. n/t ellisonz Mar 2012 #13
really? whom do you listen to on the radio then? alp227 Mar 2012 #17
I'm just not into talking head radio... ellisonz Mar 2012 #33
Bah... titaniumsalute Mar 2012 #133
Meh... ellisonz Mar 2012 #134
"That clip WOUND UP on Democratic Underground...." Robb Mar 2012 #14
Yes, I think he did. stevenleser Mar 2012 #46
Probably because he didn't post it. I'll bet that staffers/interns handle that kind of thing n/t RZM Mar 2012 #51
Well, he's absolutely correct and he was liberalhistorian Mar 2012 #31
He doesn't even mention Article III once in that video. joshcryer Mar 2012 #43
Yeah, there's a lot of "much ado about nothing" going on here. Zorra Mar 2012 #49
Overall, I loved the clip, great history lessson and showed the problem: Congress. freshwest Mar 2012 #57
Well, Mike Malloy has been naming DUers for many years. Zorra Mar 2012 #66
That's silly. Barmury vs. Madison was common sense. joshcryer Mar 2012 #71
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
In what sense do you see him taking a states-rights position? HiPointDem Mar 2012 #76
He says SCOTUS should not have the power to overturn laws made by Congress. joshcryer Mar 2012 #77
The state governments make laws that pertain exclusively to states. Congress makes federal law. HiPointDem Mar 2012 #78
Yes, but you always have to consider the opposite scenario. joshcryer Mar 2012 #79
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
See post #32. joshcryer Mar 2012 #83
There is no explicit grant of power to strike down laws made by congress. Or states. HiPointDem Mar 2012 #84
It gives them the explicit right to determine all cases. joshcryer Mar 2012 #85
It gives them jurisdiction to adjudicate. It doesn't explicitly give them to power to strike down HiPointDem Mar 2012 #88
You're saying that they have jurisdiction but cannot strike down a law? joshcryer Mar 2012 #90
I am saying that the constitution does not state that EXPLICITLY. Which you claimed it did. HiPointDem Mar 2012 #91
The constitution states explicitly that they can rule on all cases. joshcryer Mar 2012 #92
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
ALL CASES is EXPLICIT. It's not implied, it's RIGHT THERE IN THE LANGUAGE. joshcryer Mar 2012 #96
I hereby declare joshcryer the winner of Democratic Underground. ellisonz Mar 2012 #123
Confederate?!? Robert Yates was at the Constitutional Convention, Josh. Zorra Mar 2012 #105
I said aligned, his philosophy among others went on to be the basis for the civil war. joshcryer Mar 2012 #131
I don't even know what this dispute is about. randome Mar 2012 #100
He's not absolutely correct, elleng Apr 2012 #136
Well, what he is saying is in the Constitution. Jamastiene Mar 2012 #75
Thanks for posting this. EnviroBat Mar 2012 #103
Thom is correct. Number one, we call our representatives lawmakers. mmonk Mar 2012 #9
Here's the thread in question... SidDithers Mar 2012 #10
He must be running low on material. n/t ellisonz Mar 2012 #11
I hadn't commented on the thread because I didn't question that SCOTUS was the final arbiter. freshwest Mar 2012 #58
Thanks Sid, I would have never found out all that or looked Rex Mar 2012 #115
Sid I agree with you strongly in this case. Poor form indeed, and cowardly as well. Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #116
I agree, it was poor form... Spazito Mar 2012 #125
Does he ever respond or are his posts nothing more than an advertisment for his show? FSogol Mar 2012 #127
HOLD UP.... one_voice Mar 2012 #12
LOL! What's this baloney about him being protected from criticism somehow? That's not true. Poll_Blind Mar 2012 #16
I honestly don't know if what you're trying to say... one_voice Mar 2012 #21
so expressing disagreement with other DUers = calling them out? alp227 Mar 2012 #18
Apparently... one_voice Mar 2012 #23
Singling a DUer by name was verboten on DU2, under the 'discuss ideas and not people' rule. freshwest Mar 2012 #60
well, he was essentially writing DU replies via his radio show. alp227 Mar 2012 #65
Yes, we do. And still think about the thrust of what he said and use it. freshwest Mar 2012 #68
And using their DU names was necessary? Lisa D Mar 2012 #106
The only time I have seen that happen is when people were being disgusting toward ScreamingMeemie Mar 2012 #25
I think there was a big discussion about David Swanson too...nt SidDithers Mar 2012 #27
Thank you... one_voice Mar 2012 #30
Oops, didn't see your post. Thanks. joshcryer Mar 2012 #37
No worries... SidDithers Mar 2012 #41
No there are a few other people... one_voice Mar 2012 #28
As I said, the only disgusting callout I ever saw was on Alan Grayson. ScreamingMeemie Mar 2012 #34
I didn't see them... one_voice Mar 2012 #38
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
yes. Thank you... one_voice Mar 2012 #39
Yes it did. Rex Mar 2012 #114
That was the old DU. There are now no mods to delete posts. Now things are handled by jury vote. stevenleser Mar 2012 #47
I liked the old DU. nt Skip Intro Mar 2012 #54
Me too... NYC_SKP Mar 2012 #130
in the meantime, i would point out 'as to Law and Fact' in the judiciary const. section: alp227 Mar 2012 #15
Damn!! -..__... Mar 2012 #19
Wow... Hartman namin' names... Thom, really? Ellipsis Mar 2012 #20
No, I think some of us might get spanked, though... freshwest Mar 2012 #64
I'm looking forward to todays show... I haven't listened in a while. Ellipsis Mar 2012 #101
Actually, I only recognized one name as a regular DUer. Cleita Mar 2012 #22
He named all of the first five posters on that thread. But so what. freshwest Mar 2012 #62
A little disappointed Thom would use DU in that way. pa28 Mar 2012 #24
Number one, he was respectful in his response and number two he probably... Poll_Blind Mar 2012 #26
I love that he always takes the time to enlighten his audience. pa28 Mar 2012 #40
He was disingenuous. The clip "ended up" on DU because ScreamingMeemie Mar 2012 #42
He does use his acct. to post videos, alp227 Mar 2012 #44
So he's opposed to Brown and Miranda and Gideon and Brady and Roe DefenseLawyer Mar 2012 #29
Indeed, Doe v. Bolton explicitly overturns law that was deemed unconstitutional. joshcryer Mar 2012 #35
His strong background as a disk jockey and vitamin salesman DefenseLawyer Mar 2012 #48
Ouchie Dead_Parrot Mar 2012 #69
LOL brilliant. nt TeamsterDem Mar 2012 #73
zing! Wow... you must be good on cross. Ellipsis Mar 2012 #102
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
Seems Thom is the one that need to read the Constitution. joshcryer Mar 2012 #32
Anybody got a list of his sponsors obey Mar 2012 #50
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
An incredibly insane state of affairs. bluestate10 Mar 2012 #126
Better to deal with his point. He's right in detail, if wrong in principle. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #52
Yep. cliffordu Mar 2012 #61
Gosh. And all this time, I thought we were supposed to have a government of the people, by Zorra Mar 2012 #67
Of, by and for the people has always been the vision or dream freshwest Mar 2012 #70
Seriously? Am I arguing this point with progressives? lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #99
Very seriously. Believing in democracy, a government of, by, and for people, Zorra Mar 2012 #110
In that world, no one has rights that the majority are obliged to respect. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #111
I'm not clear about what you are saying here. Zorra Mar 2012 #112
It's not ambiguous. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #122
The bill of rights is more often used to defend capital from labor than the reverse. HiPointDem Mar 2012 #89
Good publicity for DU. MineralMan Mar 2012 #98
Spanking? bvar22 Mar 2012 #104
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 does Hartmann think about this: Dr. Strange Mar 2012 #108
So what if he called a couple of DU'ers on the air. It's a public message board. madinmaryland Mar 2012 #113
He should read Marbury v. Madison more closely. rug Mar 2012 #118
OK, I've got a question for Thom... backscatter712 Mar 2012 #120
This message was self-deleted by its author devilgrrl Mar 2012 #121
Dis grrl got d'evils! ellisonz Mar 2012 #128
kick Zorra Mar 2012 #124
Thanks Thom for the gradeschool level book report about the Constitution and judicial review. Vattel Mar 2012 #129
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Thom Hartmann spanked a c...»Reply #29