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

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
114. Hartmann: WHY does SCOTUS have power to strike down passed laws signed by the Prez? (Mar 27, 2012)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 11:15 PM
Jun 2014

Warning for those who don't like him, Kucinich is on this video:



Published on Mar 27, 2012

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH, 10th District) joins Thom Hartmann. The Supreme Court began hearing arguments today to determine the constitutionality of Obamacare. How does the most corrupt Supreme Court in history have the power to decide what healthcare Americans can get? All eyes are on the Supreme Court - as today kicked off three straight days of oral arguments to determine the constitutionality of Obamacare. The issue at hand is whether or not the "individual mandate" - also the core of "Romneycare" - is constitutional

A discussion took place at the DU thread on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act as mentioned in the video:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101718710

Most DUers on that video thread disagreed strongly and there was controversy over Thom's later calling out what he saw as errors by DUers.

Will DUers now call the USSC wrong because they support the rights of women, or accept the Court's intrepretation of the First Amendment?

I know the answers are more complex than one issue. And I'd agree with Lars77, regarding unexpected corruption, except the Founders knew their new nation was not going to be perfect, and said that it needed to be perfected.

That process never ended and hopefully never will, to make this nation better as it changes. As MLK, Jr. said, America is more of an ideal than a country. One might say, America is not a finished product. At this rate, it may very well be finished, and the product permanently damaged as we fall into a corporate theocracy.

George Washington said he hoped America would become the most liberal of all nations. I cannot forget that the USSC handed down the Dred Scott decision, negating the meaning of the Constitution as we have come to think of it from the progressive era:

Dred Scott



Dred Scott (circa 1799 – September 17, 1858) was a slave in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott Decision." The case was based on the fact that although he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, they had lived with his master, Dr. John Emerson, in states and territories where slavery was illegal according to both state laws and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory).

The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.

While Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and Congressional authority by this decision, it aroused public outrage and deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern U.S. states. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the post-Civil War Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments nullified the decision...


As to those unexpected results:

Following the ruling, Scott and his family were returned to Emerson's widow. In the meantime, her brother John Sanford had been committed to an insane asylum.

In 1850, Irene Sanford Emerson had remarried. Her new husband, Calvin C. Chaffee, was an abolitionist, who shortly after their marriage was elected to the U.S. Congress. Chaffee was apparently unaware that his wife owned the most prominent slave in the United States until one month before the Supreme Court decision. By then it was too late for him to intervene. Chaffee was harshly criticized for having been married to a slaveholder. He persuaded Irene to return Scott to the Blow family, his original owners. By this time, the Blow family had relocated to Missouri and become opponents of slavery. Henry Taylor Blow manumitted the four Scotts on May 26, 1857, less than three months after the Supreme Court ruling...

The Dred Scott Case ended the prohibition of slavery in federal territories and prohibited Congress from regulating slavery anywhere, overturning the Missouri compromise, enabling "popular sovereignty", and bloody Kansas.[9]

The ruling of the court helped catalyze sentiment for Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the three constitutional amendments ratified shortly after the Civil War: the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, abolishing slavery, granting former slaves citizenship, and conferring citizenship to anyone born in the United States (excluding those subject to a foreign power such as children of foreign ambassadors).[9]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

Interesting that his case arose in the region where Paul Ryan has called for the elimination of those three Constitutional amendments. He claims when the GOP control enough state legislatures they'll call a Constitutional Convention and re-write it. As a Koch lackey, we know pretty much what the new Constitution will look like. Remarks by the GOP show it, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024770080#post17

I found it horrifying that Scott argued his case so well, using the Bill of Rights, and lost. But the USSC decided that as a black person, those rights did not apply to him. The USSC seems determined to apply that standard to women now.

Please note the picture in that thread by Ashling:

Have you seen the new uniforms... er, costumes?



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024770080#op

And now VT and CA are calling for Paul Ryan's Article 5 Constitutional Convention. It's alleged it it will take care of the USSC's Citizens United decision, which is not what the Move to Amend organization calls for in their work to overturn Citizens United. They want one Amendment, not opening the whole of the federal government, tossing the tools into the hands of wingnuts. Be assured, they will be the majority that show up.

It's a Trojan horse being given to us by the Koch brothers and theocrats. This newest decision, like the buffer zone, is prepping Americans to accept what will be the Kochstitution. Few seem to understand we're falling into their hands.

BTW, I enjoyed Thom saying 'Newt fricking Gingrich' as he is usually very polite. But then, the Newt was never known for his manners:



to madfloridian:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023759636

Very interesting thread there from 2013.

Go, go Ginsberg! Coventina Jun 2014 #1
Justice Ginsberg is PISSED. GoCubsGo Jun 2014 #15
You noticed that, too? knightmaar Jun 2014 #42
good point. BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2014 #104
Thanks for that, GCG Cha Jul 2014 #121
I haven't read her dissent yet, but... GoCubsGo Jul 2014 #137
The Supremes have turned this country into a constitutionally limited Monarchy fasttense Jun 2014 #57
This message was self-deleted by its author chknltl Jun 2014 #68
Constitutional Monarchy is what Thom Hartmann calls it too. chknltl Jun 2014 #70
Yes, there are a few rulings that the Supremes make that are barely liberal fasttense Jun 2014 #72
Well said! Marthe48 Jun 2014 #111
chknltl Diclotican Jun 2014 #81
There are different types of constitutionally limited Monarchies. fasttense Jul 2014 #134
fasttense Diclotican Jul 2014 #136
Well put. fasttense Jul 2014 #138
I don't disagree, fundamentally, with what you're saying. But frankly I have no wish to "come nomorenomore08 Jun 2014 #106
It's a pity at least one of these right-wing justices can't be impeached and then Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #76
Corporations aren't human Marthe48 Jun 2014 #112
Exactly ColumbusLib Jul 2014 #120
don't worry, smirky and the chimp boys work in a protected zone. roguevalley Jun 2014 #103
CATHILIC males Bickle Jun 2014 #69
NATIONAL DAY to BOYCOTT & PROTEST Hobby Lobby's Rockyj Jul 2014 #132
Employer mandated religion. JEB Jun 2014 #2
... that would allow corporations to "opt out of any law … they judge incompatible with their RKP5637 Jun 2014 #3
At least the MIC can't be too cavalier dickthegrouch Jun 2014 #28
Yeah, selective religion. n/t RKP5637 Jun 2014 #32
And it wouldn't surprise me... 3catwoman3 Jun 2014 #29
One can be absolutely sure the wheels have been set in motion for exactly this. What an RKP5637 Jun 2014 #34
Yes. It's like the courts are ruling in a way to allow lawlessness. cui bono Jun 2014 #54
Yep, that's basically how I see it too. It is such outright discrimination, unbelievable! Whine RKP5637 Jun 2014 #61
The problem is with forcing people to buy insurance in the first place. Single payer, NOW! reformist2 Jun 2014 #4
Thom Hartmann's current guest is suggesting something on those lines as a remedy to this. GoCubsGo Jun 2014 #17
^^READ THIS^^ BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #41
3 step plan to have the decision over-ruled Moostache Jun 2014 #99
People have pointed out many possible options BrotherIvan Jun 2014 #100
+++ Voice for Peace Jun 2014 #52
Amen to that! eom BlueMTexpat Jul 2014 #125
Are Muslims and Buddhists and Wickans and Hindu employers also celebrating the right to impose Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #5
perhaps time for some judicious monkey wrenching? dhill926 Jun 2014 #16
i expect to see every female at muslim owned businesses in Burkas from now on. Takket Jun 2014 #18
As an atheist I want to impose my lack of religious belief on employees csziggy Jun 2014 #20
I heard John Fugelsang this morning... 3catwoman3 Jun 2014 #31
It really scares me csziggy Jun 2014 #36
It is so frightening that the women that follow us have LESS freedom and less rights than we did etherealtruth Jun 2014 #93
Where can one find Fugelsang these days? cui bono Jun 2014 #56
The truly awesome JF can usually be found... 3catwoman3 Jun 2014 #64
Yeah, the only time I can take Stephanie's show for any length of time anymore is when he is on. cui bono Jun 2014 #82
JF will be subbing for Stephanie Miller all this week. IggleDoer Jun 2014 #73
Thanks! cui bono Jun 2014 #80
Wiccans Marrah_G Jun 2014 #113
Unbelievable. First they take away access....closing Planned Parenthood Clinics, etc Horse with no Name Jun 2014 #6
Exactly. There is a war on Women. I wonder if that'll change after Hillary's Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #78
K&R nt stevenleser Jun 2014 #7
Can't wait for the outrage when a Scientoligist, or a Muslim business tries this... truebrit71 Jun 2014 #8
As a Jehovah's witness, christx30 Jun 2014 #53
Are you missing something... truebrit71 Jun 2014 #55
You're right. christx30 Jun 2014 #65
No apology necessary... truebrit71 Jun 2014 #66
Alito believe in the separation of corporation and state Johonny Jun 2014 #9
I don't believe in war. Can my tax money go to something other than war? valerief Jun 2014 #10
an "American Consumer"... Salviati Jun 2014 #11
It would seem that this decision panader0 Jun 2014 #12
Can I stop paying taxes that go to paying for vouchers for schools csziggy Jun 2014 #21
That is an excellent question. femmocrat Jun 2014 #13
Just what Teddy Tea Cruz ordered; pay taxes to your Church and not to the IRS. 501c3 not needed DhhD Jun 2014 #74
This was my first thought. Good, I can finally challenge so that my pay toby jo Jun 2014 #60
"Havoc" is EXACTLY what they want. GoCubsGo Jun 2014 #14
"a for-profit corporation's religious beliefs" MindPilot Jun 2014 #19
What's the saying? Rider3 Jun 2014 #22
I think the saying is that "if a man could get pregnant KatyMan Jun 2014 #45
The original: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Hekate Jun 2014 #58
Here is the Actual Opinion happyslug Jun 2014 #23
As a Pastafarian I guess RoccoR5955 Jun 2014 #24
As stated earlier in another post rtracey Jun 2014 #25
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2014 #26
So if a family-owned business was anti-gay and anti-black too, we'd want to encourage them Starry Messenger Jun 2014 #33
You are neither liberal or progressive... joeybee12 Jun 2014 #37
What are these incoherent ramblings? LexVegas Jun 2014 #40
Its bait. BootinUp Jun 2014 #89
That opinion is daft. MadrasT Jun 2014 #44
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2014 #71
"Dear Sisterhood of Perpetual Outrage"??? CreekDog Jun 2014 #85
they never can help displaying their misogyny, can they? Skittles Jun 2014 #92
How about treatment for Scizophrenia ... Bipolar disease .... etherealtruth Jun 2014 #87
Your hypothetical compares funding FGM, which is illegal in the USA... countryjake Jun 2014 #96
Jury results B2G Jun 2014 #77
of course you voted to leave CreekDog Jun 2014 #86
That right there - what you just did to B2G - that, that is what is killing DU. Skip Intro Jun 2014 #109
you're the one with the screencaps CreekDog Jun 2014 #116
oh, one more thing: PUMA CreekDog Jun 2014 #118
So did the other 6 jurors B2G Jul 2014 #133
there is NOTHING "pro-life" about those misogynist bastards Skittles Jun 2014 #90
Post removed Post removed Jun 2014 #101
Again, your conflation is disingenuous. countryjake Jun 2014 #108
Many thanks to our MIR Team! (or Skinner or EarlG or Elad) countryjake Jun 2014 #110
This is BS. I think you're on the wrong site. octoberlib Jun 2014 #102
I wrote pretty much what she stated, on another site... Javaman Jun 2014 #27
its time to start boycotting Hobby Lobby weissmam Jun 2014 #30
A lot of us already... 3catwoman3 Jun 2014 #39
This message was self-deleted by its author ksdascribe2 Jun 2014 #59
OK for everyone who wants to protest & boycott Hobby Lobby stores, the Supreme Court ruled you don't EV_Ares Jun 2014 #35
Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast Jun 2014 #38
Who decides a corporation's religious views? tclambert Jun 2014 #43
Been posting on their Instagram but they keep deleting comments! BuddhaGirl Jun 2014 #46
Somebody was saying yesterday they hoped Ginsberg would write the dissent... malthaussen Jun 2014 #47
The Supreme Court is being ruled by a dicktatorship nt Xipe Totec Jun 2014 #48
Ooohh... 3catwoman3 Jun 2014 #83
Fell free to use it and widely and as often as you can. Xipe Totec Jun 2014 #94
I'm so mad I haven't been able to comment. I need a day to digest it mountain grammy Jun 2014 #49
This is such utter bullshit. cui bono Jun 2014 #50
Exactly Tetris_Iguana Jun 2014 #62
True. Impeach them all. Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #79
may ... ? Oh, trust me Ginsburg. It already has !! LOL. K and fucking R to the BIG TIME. Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #51
So is the Hobby Lobby thing a backdoor way to discriminate based on religion? progressivebydesign Jun 2014 #63
There goes our pal Justice Elena Kagan again - building that ol' consensus! calimary Jun 2014 #67
So, Christian Scientists can opt out of all health care coverage? Half-Century Man Jun 2014 #75
Post #10 raises a question I have... 3catwoman3 Jun 2014 #84
It's a good thing the GOP doesn't nominate activist judges nikto Jun 2014 #88
This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Jun 2014 #91
So now that the SC has expanded corporate 1st Amendment rights, will they move on to the 2nd? Thor_MN Jun 2014 #95
The Oligarchs are about to become -very- religious... HereSince1628 Jun 2014 #97
Just call me Havoc. nolabear Jun 2014 #98
Work for a Scientologist--no mental health care. Work for Christian Scientists--no health care. McCamy Taylor Jun 2014 #105
And that is exactly WHY they ruled it. The Supreme Court wants chaos and to dissolve the federal gvt freshwest Jun 2014 #107
Hartmann: WHY does SCOTUS have power to strike down passed laws signed by the Prez? (Mar 27, 2012) freshwest Jun 2014 #114
Wonderful post! Thank you. octoberlib Jun 2014 #115
The Backward Nation: USA. Thanks 5 to 4. n/t Jefferson23 Jun 2014 #117
More from Justice Ginsburg's dissent octoberlib Jun 2014 #119
And it may not. Kablooie Jul 2014 #122
Justice Ginsburg.... supercats Jul 2014 #123
The Five Shameful Supremes ... BlueMTexpat Jul 2014 #124
Well written! emsimon33 Jul 2014 #126
Theocracy Now! Theocracy Forever! blkmusclmachine Jul 2014 #127
The ruling is pure judicial horseshit. King_Klonopin Jul 2014 #128
+1 BootinUp Jul 2014 #129
So some chickens came home to roost. nolabels Jul 2014 #130
K&R ReRe Jul 2014 #131
kick & recommended. William769 Jul 2014 #135
Lol. The blowback against corporations will be funny. The decision helps remove the separtion Katashi_itto Jul 2014 #139
I'm waiting for some of the DU men to tell her to calm down and not get hysterical. Arugula Latte Jul 2014 #140
Perhaps you missed something nolabels Jul 2014 #141
My post was a jab at the men here who are trying to shush and patronize women Arugula Latte Jul 2014 #142
Excuse me then too, i thought it was something different nolabels Jul 2014 #143
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ginsburg: 'Radical' Hobby...»Reply #114