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
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 #61