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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Ginsburg: 'Radical' Hobby Lobby Ruling May Create 'Havoc' [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)114. Hartmann: WHY does SCOTUS have power to strike down passed laws signed by the Prez? (Mar 27, 2012)
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 72 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
143 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
The Supremes have turned this country into a constitutionally limited Monarchy
fasttense
Jun 2014
#57
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
... that would allow corporations to "opt out of any law … they judge incompatible with their
RKP5637
Jun 2014
#3
One can be absolutely sure the wheels have been set in motion for exactly this. What an
RKP5637
Jun 2014
#34
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
Are Muslims and Buddhists and Wickans and Hindu employers also celebrating the right to impose
Fred Sanders
Jun 2014
#5
It is so frightening that the women that follow us have LESS freedom and less rights than we did
etherealtruth
Jun 2014
#93
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
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
Can't wait for the outrage when a Scientoligist, or a Muslim business tries this...
truebrit71
Jun 2014
#8
Just what Teddy Tea Cruz ordered; pay taxes to your Church and not to the IRS. 501c3 not needed
DhhD
Jun 2014
#74
So if a family-owned business was anti-gay and anti-black too, we'd want to encourage them
Starry Messenger
Jun 2014
#33
That right there - what you just did to B2G - that, that is what is killing DU.
Skip Intro
Jun 2014
#109
OK for everyone who wants to protest & boycott Hobby Lobby stores, the Supreme Court ruled you don't
EV_Ares
Jun 2014
#35
Somebody was saying yesterday they hoped Ginsberg would write the dissent...
malthaussen
Jun 2014
#47
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
So now that the SC has expanded corporate 1st Amendment rights, will they move on to the 2nd?
Thor_MN
Jun 2014
#95
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
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
My post was a jab at the men here who are trying to shush and patronize women
Arugula Latte
Jul 2014
#142