Given the fact that probably three Supreme Court justices will retire in the next presidential term, we should think about who the elected leader of the country will nominate to fill the jobs. Right now there is a small tip toward conservative thinking on the SCOTUS, but if Romney is elected the right wing could end up in complete control.
Here’s something to think about:
This, in itself, is one of the best reasons not to vote for Mittens. It would be important to preserve a court that upholds civil rights, women’s rights, diversity in college admissions and support of health care legislation. Should we lose these, the United States goes back to where it was in the first half of the last century and years of development and reform will get flushed down the drain.
It’s up to us to preserve years of important reform.
- Judge Napolitano: Next Supreme Court Challenge to ObamaCare Could Result in ‘Different Outcome’ (foxnewsinsider.com)
- Carter Slams U.S. Supreme Court for its Endorsement of Corruption (dissidentvoice.org)
- This Far-Right Supreme Court Is Reason Enough to Vote Obama (truthdig.com)
- Why are candidates silent on Supreme Court? (cnn.com)
- Big Supreme Court Term Starts Today (abcnews.go.com)
- As The Supreme Court Returns, More Historic Decisions? (ibtimes.com)
- What else is at stake in the election? The Supreme Court (leanforward.msnbc.com)
- Poll: Swing Voters Find Obama Would Pick Better Judges then Romney (legaltimes.typepad.com)
From the NY Times:
This year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg continued to work after breaking two ribs during one of the Supreme Court’s busiest months, and just a few weeks before the court released its landmark decision on President Obama’s health care law.
Justice Ginsburg spoke about the injury for the first time in an interview with Reuters, published on Wednesday.
When Justice Ginsburg fell at her home on the evening of June 4, she initially “thought it was nothing,” she told Reuters.
Good for you, Justice G… I’m sitting here with 5 cracked ribs, a clavical and a scapula from my fall and I’m impressed that you went right back to work without spending 4 dreary days in a hospital.
I hope your next couple of months is relatively painless.
- Justice Ginsburg Made June’s Historic Decisions With Two Cracked Ribs (nymag.com)
- Justice Ginsburg cracked her ribs days before health care ruling (theblaze.com)
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg: The Toughest Supreme Court Justice, Ever (theatlanticwire.com)
- Exclusive: Justice Ginsburg shrugs off rib injury (news.terra.com)
For instance, with all that has been said in relationship to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare, wouldn’t it be really disappointing to know that almost half of all Americans were in the dark about the decision?
Or maybe it would be frightening. These are people that vote.
A new Pew Research poll finds that 45% of Americans either didn’t know what the Supreme Court had decided with regards to President Obama’s health care law (30%) or thought that the Supreme Court had overturned the law (15%).
My guess is that the same number of Americans know exactly who Kim Kardashian is dating.
- The amazing number of people who know nothing about the health-care ruling – Washington Post (blog) (washingtonpost.com)
- Polls: Public Division Remains Over Health Care Law (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare (thefrisky.com)
2. Who will suffer the most if it is overturned?:
– Young people under 26 years old who are able to be on their parents’ health care plan, who could lose that advantage unless the insurance company itself allows it.
– Protection for sick patients who can lose their coverage due to a mistake in paperwork.
– People in southern states who have the least amount of state-mandated protection on their health insurance as opposed to more progressive states.
– The risk of coverage will increase immensely for insurance companies who will not be as supportive of the users and more supportive of themselves.
3. Will the Court separate the Mandate (the requirement that everyone have insurance) from the rest of the law?
So we await the decision which will be written by Justice Roberts and see if they use it as the standard anti-Democrat response the court has made since putting George W. Bush into office.
- No matter SCOTUS ruling, health care cost going up (illinois.statehousenewsonline.com)
- Supreme Court decision on polarizing health care law looms (cnn.com)
- Obamacare in the Balance: Will the Court Ruling Really Matter? (dailyfinance.com)
- The Real Face Of Obamacare: Suddenly-Unemployed Young People (thecollegeconservative.com)
- If Obamacare Is Ruled Unconstitutional (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
- GOP plan for ‘Obamacare’: Nothing (politico.com)
- Attorney General Bondi confident Supreme Court will strike down ‘Obamacare’ (tampabay.com)
- ObamaCare Will Define John Roberts’ Supreme Court (newser.com)
- How the Obamacare Verdict Could Crush Drugmakers (fool.com)
- Obamacare Supreme Court decision roadmap (themainewire.com)
New Bloomberg poll results show a plurality of Americans, 43 percent, say they want to retain the 2010 law with only small modifications, while 15 percent say the measure should be left alone, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. That’s 58 % for keepers! Only 33% say it should be repealed.
Next week the Supreme Court is expected to rule “on the constitutionality of the law, the centerpiece of which is the mandate that most Americans buy insurance or pay a fine.”
Do you suppose the Court pays attention to people, or to Republican campaign rhetoric?
- Most Don’t Want Health Care Law Repealed (politicalwire.com)
- Robert Scheer: Health Care: Give the People What They Want (huffingtonpost.com)
- No Supreme Court ruling on national health care law – Boston.com (boston.com)
- Supreme Court pushes health care ruling to next week (bostonglobe.com)
How would you like a Supreme Court and other Federal Courts to have their appointees selected by Robert Bork? Remember Robert Bork… the Supreme Court Nominee who was rejected by Congress and has been grousing about it ever since.
The following article will make your skin crawl:
YES, AMERICA, ROBERT BORK IS BACK
Many presidents leave their most enduring legacy to the nation in the Justices that they name to the Supreme Court and the federal judges that they put on the bench. So what inspired former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to name former judge Robert Bork to co-chair his presidential campaign advisory committee on law, the Constitution and the judiciary?
Read the rest HERE.
Jamie Raskin is a professor of constitutional law at American University’s Washington College of Law, a Maryland State Senator, and a Senior Fellow at People for the American Way. He wrote this report while teaching at Yale Law School in the fall of 2011 and wishes to thank both the Yale Law School Library and the Washington College of Law Library for their assistance.
- Mitt Romney has a Robert Bork problem (thegrio.com)
- Why (verydemotivational.memebase.com)
- Conservative Law Prof Henry Monaghan argues Obamacare is Constitutional (jdjournal.com)
… and by all accounts it has been a success.
In fact, Romney also claimed at the time that his plan would be a good model for the Nation.
The fact that President Obama agreed with him and promoted what has become known as “Obamacare” – a national duplicate of “Romneycare” – seems to be meaningless to the Republicans, to Mitt, to the Conservative side of the Supreme Court.
Why can’t we all have the successful plan that Massachusetts has? And why does Romney now say that he would repeal the law as soon as possible if elected?
Why do they play politics with our health?
- Happy Birthday, RomneyCare! You’re Growing So Expensive So Fast! (reason.com)
- Happy 6th birthday, RomneyCare! Obama’s campaign releases video (miamiherald.typepad.com)
- Would ‘Obamacare’ demise mean end of ‘Romneycare,’ too? (yubanet.com)
- Rick Santorum Was Right: Romneycare Increased Free Riding in Massachusetts (healthcarebs.com)
- Mitt Romney Misleading Conservatives on Romneycare, Santorum Whines (inquisitr.com)
- Mitt Romney’s Suggested Three Times In 2009 That Obama Imitate Romneycare (buzzfeed.com)
- How Romneycare Saves $ (thedailybeast.com)
Some excerpts on his commentary on the Supreme Court vs. the Health Care legislation:
Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Senator, excuse me, Justice Samuel Alito quoted Congressional Budget Office figures on Tuesday to talk about the insurance costs of the young. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts sounded like the House whip in discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell. He noted that without various provisions, Congress “wouldn’t have been able to put together, cobble together, the votes to get it through.” Tell me again, was this a courtroom or a lobbyist’s office?
It fell to the court’s liberals — the so-called “judicial activists,” remember? — to remind their conservative brethren that legislative power is supposed to rest in our government’s elected branches.
The irony is that if the court’s conservatives overthrow the mandate, they will hasten the arrival of a more government-heavy system. Justice Anthony Kennedy even hinted that it might be more “honest” if government simply used “the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single-payer.” Remember those words.
…a court that gave us Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United will prove conclusively that it sees no limits on its power, no need to defer to those elected to make our laws. A Supreme Court that is supposed to give us justice will instead deliver ideology.
See what I mean. Clear and concise with an ability to combine seriousness with humor. After all, we have to live with this stuff.
Read the whole column HERE.
- Supreme Court says jail strip searches after minor offenses are allowed (pennlive.com)
- Dionne v. The Supreme Court on Obamacare (nationalinterest.org)
- Will a Tea Party Supreme Court guarantee Obama a second term? (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
- If the Health Law Is Struck Down… (themoderatevoice.com)
- “An Alternative Legislature”: Judicial Activists In The Supreme Court (mykeystrokes.com)
- Activist Judges On Trial (themoderatevoice.com)
Keith Olbermann’s show brought up the relationship between the Debt Ceiling battle and the 14th Amendment.
Keith brought up and interviewed a couple of people on the 14th Amendment’s specific requirements of meeting all National debts on his program tonight… something that hasn’t been mentioned in any other budget discussions of late.
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (You know – that document that the Tea Party says everything has to be based on?) confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt legislated by the Congress.
In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that voiding a United States government bond (ie: a debt… like the National Debt…or like the cause of our current deficit) “went beyond the congressional power” on account of Section 4.
Republican economist Bruce Bartlett argues that Section 4 renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and obligates the President to consider the debt ceiling null and void. Gee… I guess that means that there are no required budget cuts to abide by Constitutional law.
Let’s see if Obama will use this instead of giving in to Republicans again.
– and –
Kevin Siers in the Charlotte Observer:
… and their lawyers were reduced to second raters…
– and –
– and –
… and women are persecuted by society in general…
– and –
… of course, we are following precedents from other countries.
– and –
What if some day the Supreme Court didn’t support Corporations over Citizens?
What if some day the Senate and the House put our country first and the lobbyists a distant tenth?
What if all Billionaires begged the government to tax them at the same rates that Ronald Reagan did?
What if ALL workers, teachers, firemen, police officers, public employees and salespeople were encouraged to join Unions by receiving significant tax perqs?
What if everyone in government believed they were working “in service” to America and not to themselves?
- Thomas’s ongoing ethics problem, and Chris Murphy’s potential solution (dailykos.com)
- Stepping Toward Single Payer in the Green Mountain State (hcfama.org)
- Why Daydreamers May Become Visionaries (eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com)
- Another Useless Friday Daydream (goodcomics.comicbookresources.com)
According to the Christian Science Monitor, the SCOTUS today embraced a strict reading of a federal arbitration law, making it more difficult for individuals with small claims to join together in a class action against large companies accused of fraud or other wrongdoing.
With the new finding in the 5 to 4 Supreme Court vote, individual purchasers not only cannot change an arbitration agreement, even if the corporation violates its contract, but they also can’t join with other consumers in a class action suit in the same challenge.
“Today’s decision reduces corporate accountability by making it impractical, if not impossible, for consumers to hold corporations accountable for their wrongdoing. [The decision] continues a disturbing trend favoring large public companies at the expense of individuals.”
Want to hear a good one? AT&T said the Court’s decision was actually a “victory for consumers.” Heh heh.
According to consumer fraud attorney Gibson Vance:
“This is a death blow to Americans’ chances for justice when faced with forced arbitration clauses. This devastating decision has the potential to result in virtually no consumer or employee cases involving small claims being heard anywhere.
“Corporations will now be allowed to get away with sweeping wrongdoing, particularly where the damages would be too small to justify pursuing individual claims.”
- Supremes Uphold Arbitral Class-Action Waivers (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
- Supreme Court: AT&T can force arbitration, block class-action suits (arstechnica.com)
- Supreme Court rules in favor of AT&T in arbitration case (intomobile.com)
- Supreme Court imposes limits on class actions (chron.com)
- Supreme Court rules against consumers. Again. (dailykos.com)
- Supreme Court backs AT&T, limits class-action suits (usatoday.com)
- Supreme Court flips decision allowing class actions vs. AT&T (electronista.com)
- Statement of Ralph Nader on Supreme Court’s Attack on Consumer Rights (nader.org)
- The Wheels of Justice (Scalia): Will Nino Fight His Traffic Ticket? (abovethelaw.com)
- Justice Scalia Gets Caught in a Fender-Bender (abovethelaw.com)
- Scalia in fender-bender on way to court (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
Now we’re pleased to direct you to:
Click on the picture and then settle back and enjoy. Then get ready to support the organizations behind it. There’s at least one petition and lots of contribution areas.
- The Story of Stuff Does Democracy (strongerdemocracy.org)
- Watch the “Story of Citizens United” video: Help rescue democracy (texasvox.org)
- The Story of Stuff Project – or why did I need this do-dad again? (gourken.wordpress.com)
- 5 Ways You Can Fight ‘Citizens United’ and Reclaim Our Democracy (alternet.org)
- The Story of Bottled Water (freetech4teachers.com)
- The Story of Stuff: An Inspiring Example of A Network in Action (bethkanter.org)
- Review: The Story of Stuff (thegrinningdogs.wordpress.com)
But they’ll bring it up again…
This from the Herald Mail:
- US Sen Schumer: ‘No Way’ Senate Will Vote To Repeal Health Law (forexlive.com)
- Repeal Of Affordable Care Act Falls 13 Votes Short In Senate (outsidethebeltway.com)
- Senate votes on Affordable Care Act repeal: Rejects it (dailykos.com)
- GOP senators force vote on health law repeal – Washington Times (news.google.com)
- “All Senate Republicans appear ready to repeal health care law” and related posts (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
- Senate Republicans forcing a vote on health law (boston.com)
CLM: In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
Scalia: Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
Wow! This means that it is perfectly legal to discriminate against women… pay them less, keep them out of major universities, require them to accept conservative sex laws… and there is nothing in the Constitution (read: the 14th Amendment) to stop it.
This from the Huffington Post:
“In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger,” Adam Cohen wrote in Time in September. “It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection — or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so.”
Looking a little farther into this issue of Scalia versus Women is this piece from the Young Turks from last September:
This gives less respect for the Supreme Court’s Conservative majority than I had already.
- Scalia: Women Have No Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination (towleroad.com)
- Scalia: The Constitution Does Not Prohibit Gender Discrimination (themoderatevoice.com)
- Scalia Says Constitution Allows Discrimination Against women, Gays (themoderatevoice.com)
- Women Bewarned, You Have no Constitutional Rights Protecting you from Discrimination (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Justice Scalia Will Teach Tea Party’s Constitution Class [Video] (gawker.com)
- Antonin Scalia: The 14th Amendment Should Not Apply To Homosexuals (pinkbananaworld.com)
From the LA Times This Morning: The Supreme Court May Take Us One Step Further into a Corporate Dominated America…
- Senator Leeland Yee discusses Supreme Court hearing, Delaware rep ready to introduce similar legislation (gonintendo.com)
- Clarence Thomas’s Ex Speaks Out About His Harassing Habits [Doubting Thomas] (jezebel.com)
- Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ‘Obsessed With Porn,’ Says Ex [Revelations] (gawker.com)
- Lillian McEwen, Others, Back Up Anita Hill On Clarence Thomas (oliverwillis.com)
- Tell Clarence Thomas To Apologize To Anita Hill (newsone.com)
- Doubting Clarence Thomas (psychologytoday.com)
- Letters: Justice Thomas’s Wife, and the Call to Anita Hill (nytimes.com)
- “Clarence Thomas’s Delusional Wife Asks Anita Hill For An Apology” and related posts (guerillawomentn.blogspot.com)
This is the kind of job to have. Be elected to maintain and improve our Nation, get swamped by letters and blogs and broadcasters from the great majority of Americans pleading with you to attend to the problems, blame each other for doing nothing, and go home to campaign for office again. On top of that, you get paid pretty well to do all of this.
I am disgusted with Congress, both the people I voted for and trusted and supported and the people I already expected this crap from. As I have said in previous posts, we seem to have no system that works to really keep this political joke from being told. Voters seem to have no real control… that control is granted (and now endorsed by the Supreme Court) to major corporations and foreign countries.
Will questions be raised in the next month of campaigning which will find truth in what a candidate will actually stand for, actually DO? Is honesty too much to ask for? If candidates are prepared to spend outrageous amounts of their own money to shut opponents out of the media (Linda McMahon has pledged to spend $50 Million of her own dough in CT, a state where a Senate election used to find $13 Million as outrageous), will we find out what they would hope to accomplish when (not if) elected?
I doubt it sincerely. And yet, if I decide not to vote, I am paying into the problem. What choices remain? Think back to a country founded by patriots who saw the domination of money (ie: the British Government and The King) and power as a threat to their lives and freedom. What would they say if they saw us today?
- Tax Cut Extension in Limbo as Lawmakers Skip Town (politics.blogs.foxnews.com)
- And They’re Out! Congress Flees D.C. to Campaign for 2010 Election (politics.usnews.com)
- And they’re out! Congress flees DC to campaign (sfgate.com)
- Linda McMahon’s Surge: Ads, Voter Anger Propel Senate Bid, but Doubts Linger (politicsdaily.com)
- Bob Burnett: The 2010 Elections: What’s at Stake? (huffingtonpost.com)
Commenting on Newt Gingrich’s recent suggestion that Obama was displaying anti-colonial Kenyan behavior, Powell, on Meet The Press yesterday, warned Americans to “think carefully” about Gingrich’s accusations and went on to debunk some of the right-wing’s conspiracy theories:
I would just tell my fellow Americans, think carefully about what was just said. Think carefully about some of the stuff that is coming across the blogs and airwaves. Let’s make a couple of points. One, the President was born in the United States of America. Let’s get rid of that one, let’s get rid of the birther thing. Let’s attack him on policy, not nonsense. Next, he is a Christian, he is not a Muslim…And I think we have to be careful when we take things like Dinesh D’Souza’s book, which is the source of all of this, and suggest that somehow the President of the United States is channeling his dead father through some Kenyan spirits. This doesn’t make any sense. Mr. Gingrich does these things from time to time with a big, bold statement. He did it with Sotomayor, she is a “reverse racist.” He did it with Elena Kagan, she ought to be taken off the nomination for Supreme Court justice. And he does it occasionally to make news and also to stir up dust.
It’s good to have a Republican comment on other Republicans when they are such schmucks.
Here’s the video:
- Colin Powell Knocks Down Gingrich and Birthers (themoderatevoice.com)
- Colin Powell decries attacks on Obama (msnbc.msn.com)
- Gingrich Draws Fire For Remarks About Obama’s “Kenyan Worldview” (outsidethebeltway.com)