The war on the courts.
By on Mar 15th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
The war on the courts.
“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor have been the targets of death threats from the ‘irrational fringe’ of society, people apparently spurred by Republican criticism of the high court.” The latest right-wing campaign: “J.A.I.L. 4 Judges“
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
rethugs stack the court, and now unhappy?…Republicans, the Party of HATE.
March 15th, 2006 at 9:29 pmThat is Odd isn’t it?
The right wing extremists, Hate the ‘Conservative Court? Whaaa?
And the 30% or less that approve of Bush, approve of a president that lies, A Corrupt Congress and Crooked Lobbyists?
Only in Wacko World of reverse logic would this make sense.
Go Duhbya
March 15th, 2006 at 9:56 pmAhh the Rushdoonies.
March 15th, 2006 at 9:59 pmLet’s write a book. We could entitle it “What’s the Matter with South Dakota?” named after Thomas Frank’s best selling “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”
March 15th, 2006 at 10:10 pmWhat could cause such behavior? What if an authority figure,like say a Congressman or a Senator were to blurt out that if a judge were to issue such offensive opinions,they might have to pay. That it wouldn’t be a surprise if people took justice into their own hands? Who would be thoughtless and careless enough to do such a thing?
When you practice speaking in code to the base (think Dred Scott),the base might start to forget it’s code and take the threats literally. Look what happened in the abortion doctor’s case in Buffalo.
Cornyn and DeLay should speak out in this case if they were honorable men. But of course,they’re not.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:11 pmNo Seriously, What in the Hell is a matter with those people(if you can call em that) in South Dakota. They vote Republican because they honestly believe that the Rethugs are gonna keep government off of their backs and lower their taxes, and then they turn around and do things that go against their own personal belief in small non-intrusive governmet. These wingnuts have really gone off the deep end. No wait! They did that 25 years ago. Now they have wrapped themselves into such a perverse pretzel of right-wing crazyness and radical social conservative orthadoxy that they would leave George Orwell scratching his head. A guy could make a fortune in South Dakota starting funny farms.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:17 pmThis just in…
Refusing to bow to the inevitable, Republican Congresswoman and 2000 GOP recount heroine Katherine Harris is staying in the 2006 Florida Senate race. Sidestepping a major address planned for this evening, Harris instead used the friendly confines of the Fox Hannity and Colmes program to declare her intent to continue her quixotic campaign the Democratic incumbent, Bill Nelson:
“I’m staying. I’m in this race. I’m going to win. I’m going to put everything on the line.”
For the details, see:
March 15th, 2006 at 10:19 pm“Harris Stays In.”
I think the Roman Empire went through this kind of phase right before it collapsed.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:20 pmWhat happened to all the freedom in America? It all got exported to………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..crickets chirping………………………………who knows where?
March 15th, 2006 at 10:23 pmKatface Harris just won the ‘bobbing for frenchfries’ contest.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:32 pmSouth Dakota….the new Idaho. What a slogan.
Who remembers when the Terri Shavio case went down (finally)? I was writing over at redstate (they were soon to boot me, what do you expect?), all the bushies were going on and on about what an activist court the Supreme Ct was. Even after you pointed out to ‘em that MOST the members were republican they just went on about what a terrible “actavist” court it was. I wish I had had a mirror for ‘em. Hello? Anyone here know the definition of IRONY? How about Your the idiot’s who want cases decided the way YOU want them decided, and if conservatives SCOTUS’s don’t agree with you then THEY are the activists. Jeez. I’m surprised I didn’t get it earlier really.
My take on this? Let ‘em go national. Thank god it’s in South Dakota & not here. Never happen here but that doesn’t matter.
Reminds me of the survivorists & fringe libertarians gone WILD.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:54 pmFrom the likes of talk show hosts to the religious wackos who have declared themselves arbiter of all things, they are not satisfied that they dominate the courts, they will not be happy until they control everything. These people are so full of hate, they have lost all rational thinking, and the loose nuts who agree with them will feel empowered.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:09 pmThis is getting really scary, folks.
This is getting really scary, folks.
Comment by Marie — March 15, 2006 @ 11:09 pm
If you think they are scary now, wait til November and they realise they are losing the center of this country, they’ll be down right lunatics on crack, balls to the wall insane
March 15th, 2006 at 11:27 pmTommorrow, Bush will tell the American people that “Preemptive war” will continue as a directive of this administration. No matter what we the American public think or say, this is to be gospel. G.W.Bush has now waged war against Past, Present,and Future American Citizens…….This has to stop NOW!!! Protests havent worked, nor will rhetoric…..We THE PEOPLE MUST TAKE BACK THIS COUNTRY ANYWAY WE CAN BEFORE WE INVADE IRAN AND DOOM THIS COUNTRY FOREVER!!!!!
March 16th, 2006 at 12:17 amYes, I heard that too, Vance.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:38 amI also read that Bolton is saber rattling at the UN, and Rice is making speeches here and there denouncing Iran as home of the terrorists, etc. They are preparing for another war.
We must stop them; our country is sliding so quickly down hill, I don’t know if we will survive until 2008.
Pitchforks and torches at the ready, folks. Few in Congress have sufficient courage to stand up to Bush; we will have to do it ourselves.
Marie heres what you heard……“Just like Sept. 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that’s the threat. I think that is the threat,†Bolton told ABC News’ Nightline. “I think it’s just facing reality. It’s not a happy reality, but it’s reality and if you don’t deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant.†If this isnt Dejavu what is…….these people must be stopped now. If you think the draft was shot down during Afganistan and Iraq…..wake up!!!
March 16th, 2006 at 12:47 amIran isnt some sand bitch country thats just gonna lay down and take it…..I cant believe people are still behind this worse than HITLER BUSH!!!!!
Bolton and Rices words are meant to whip the retards in this country into a frenzy. Bush supporters think “well we didnt win in Iraq or Afganistan, so lets try Iran…America cant be seen as losers”. These are the same people who fly the confederate flag…..the flag of a losing side!!!
March 16th, 2006 at 12:50 amWelcome to South Dakota! Our motto: Sieg Heil!
March 16th, 2006 at 1:45 amEven more scary, heard on some program tonight that behind the scenes our country is building more new and improved terrible bombs like the ones droped on Hiroshima and Nagasake, only bigger. What the hell is going on.? Why aren’t the public being informed. Our representatives have to know about all this crap….We had better hurry and get these nut job’s out before it is to late….Blessings
March 16th, 2006 at 3:01 am#4 Let’s write a book. We could entitle it “What’s the Matter with South Dakota?â€
#2 And the 30% or less that approve of Bush, approve of a president that lies,
#6 No Seriously, What in the Hell is a matter with those people(if you can call em that) in South Dakota.
#15 Few in Congress have sufficient courage to stand up to Bush (You mean all of the Democratic Congresspersons who are either listening to their constituents or so dumb they possibly can’t fathom what you know for fact?)
#17 Bolton and Rices words are meant to whip the retards in this country into a frenzy.
So basically everyone in South Dakota and Florida are idiots? As well as the rest of the retards in the country? If all us retards could just have the brain power of the elitists on this board we could follow you instead of having our own thought? Sweet!!!
March 16th, 2006 at 3:21 amHardball had an even worse attack on the Democrats than usual; Tries to promote Hillary as presidential candidate. She’s definitely the Republicans choice to run against; seemed to be in favor of Bush attacking Iran because that’s what “he’s good at”. (Good grief! He even has that Monica Crowley on. I have to turn it off.)
Reuters reported on yesterday’s DoD press conference which caused a bit of a stir, with Gen. Peter Pace saying, out loud, that there really was no evidence at all whatsoever that Iran as a state was supplying insurgents in Iraq with weapons materiale.
BUZZFLASH.COM HAD THE FOLLOWING:
Feingold, Kerry & the ‘Strategists’ 3/16
(describes John Kerry’s heroics in DC against Iran-Contra and current political matters.)
{excerpts follow:}
In life, you often don’t get a second act. Except, of course, for Democratic “strategists,†who always seem to get a second act, even a third and a fourth, no matter how often they lose. Strategist Bob Shrum, for instance, has been a chronic loser in presidential races but is still sought out by Democratic hopefuls, including John Kerry in 2004.
And, when they’re not applying their cold hands to Democratic campaigns, the strategists can put a chill on any Democrat’s principled behavior by whispering in the ears of journalists that a seemingly noble act is reckless, calculated or somehow both.
……….
March 16th, 2006 at 3:35 amSorry, I missed reading the posts above mine tonight. I was reading the things I posted about.
to #16 and some others, I saw John Bolton on Lou Dobb’s tonight, (now last night) and might have been distracted briefly, but think that if he had told Lou Dobbs what he said on “Nightline” Lou would have still been yelling at him and we’d been able to hear him without a tv. I’m going to watch the 4:00 repeat which is coming right up.
I had heard around 3 months or so ago that they were making plans to attack Iran at the end of March. But, have heard Republicans state emphatically that they do not have the authority to do so.
Repeat: Reuters reported on yesterday’s DoD press conference which caused a bit of a stir, with Gen. Peter Pace saying, out loud, that there really was no evidence at all whatsoever that Iran as a state was supplying insurgents in Iraq with weapons materiale.
March 16th, 2006 at 4:02 am#22 Heard tonite on mathews that october would be the best time to improve Bushs’ poll numbers (That they dont care about…lol) interested to hear what you heard on the 4am rebroadcast of Dobbs.
March 16th, 2006 at 4:28 amLOU DOBBS TRANSCRIPT:
March 16th, 2006 at 4:29 amhttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/15/ldt.01.html
And dear hearts if we do go to war with iran….the draft will come. Cant fight wars in Afganistan, Iraq and Iran without it……..Dems and Independants should seize that talking point!!!!!
March 16th, 2006 at 4:30 amWonder how many war supporters will pat heads and wave flags when the draft orders target junior during soccer?
March 16th, 2006 at 4:33 amThroughout history someone has become bodly awake during times like these. Someone to shake us and hold our hands and say “Yes, this is wrong, are you willing to change” I just hope this time they have big hands and can walk on water,so no one doubts.
March 16th, 2006 at 4:43 amHey Vance,
What is the best option for dealing with Iran in your opinion?
March 16th, 2006 at 5:06 amWell Tundra, thankfully im not charged with making that decision, unlike the republiklans, but heres a shot. First, go easy on the rehtoric….they know we are weak troop wise….everyone knows this. Second, Sanctions and talks with those who Iran will listen to…No matter how much we flex our flag they will never lsten. China and Russia have a better chance. Next, Stop telling China and Russia how they should act. If they wanted they could hurt us and being as we have few friends left, I think it prudent we dont piss off the ones with nukes. Lastly, Americans should tell this Drunken thumbsucker Bush, we wont stand for another “Im taking my ball home” war!
March 16th, 2006 at 5:16 amOK,
So what I gathered is Shut up about it and let China and Russia deal with it.
First, go easy on the rehtoric
China and Russia have a better chance. Next, Stop telling China and Russia how they should act.
Fair enough
March 16th, 2006 at 5:28 amPlease dont YOU ever shut up tundra……this country needs people like you to ask questions and gauage answers…..WE, YOU and I are the ones who have to live in the stew they create and if ya havent noticed there arent many potatoes left in the broth. Im a nobody in the great scheme of things…..but I have a voice as do You.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:33 amLets get some bisquits…whaddya say??? lol
Sorry bout that!
Vance: The URL for the transcript is above.
I’m going to get some sleep before the rooster crows!
Nite all!
March 16th, 2006 at 5:38 amand if ya havent noticed there arent many potatoes left in the broth
Not many with eyes anyway hehe (OK, bad potato joke)
Im a nobody in the great scheme of things
As am I, sadly as am I
Lets get some bisquits…whaddya say???
I’m all for that, I make a mean southern sausage gravy to replace that stew!!
Thanks Vance, brought a nice human side to the board, I got to crash But I will see you on here somewhere I’m sure (I’ll be the one questioning ALL authority)
March 16th, 2006 at 5:42 amSharon Cox the bombs that rumsfeld/cheney/bush/rice are building was started during the occupation of the Afganstan. rumsfeld was using the Tora Bora as an excuse to build bigger better buster nuke bombs so that the Iranians will die faster and more so that bush & co can then safely take over the Middle East. The Book “Behind the War On Terror’ shows the Neo Con blueprint to take over the Natural Resources and… World Doma-Nation. All this was pre planned before bush even ran for president by the Neo cons. bush is just their empty but dangerous suit.
Our Two Houses may as well not exist as they have been weaken to the point of just rubber stamping this Regime.
The Courts was also in the sights of this take over as they are the 3rd branch of our government.
This is a well thought out plan to take over will it work? So far it has been sucessful. We need more Russ Feingold’s and Tom Daschele’s and less Lie-berman’s and far less thuglicans…
March 16th, 2006 at 6:17 amCornyn,
Delay,
Coulter
Republican values. Threatening Judges.
March 16th, 2006 at 6:24 amThis is just another issue not addressed by Democrats who keep going on Fox-
March 16th, 2006 at 6:34 amFox, who regularly has Coulter as a guest.
Coulter, who very specifically called for the assassination of a Supreme Court Judge.
Democrat: I’m going to be a guest on Fox.
Normal Person: Isn’t that the Entertainment Show that lets Ann Coulter threaten to kill judges?
Democrat: I’m going to be a guest on Fox.
March 16th, 2006 at 6:54 amThat is pretty sad. The supreme court is highly conservative at this point: they elected bush you remember, and now they have two new neocons on the bench.
Bono is Brian Peppers!
March 16th, 2006 at 7:47 amI guess the Republican’s “Contract with America” is really a hit list of judges and those that don’t think as they do. America at its worst.
March 16th, 2006 at 8:01 amThe National Socialists are on the march.
March 16th, 2006 at 8:07 am#33 – Tundra wrote: “I’ll be the one questioning ALL authority”
Good for you! Eveyone in authority deserves to be questioned about their motives and agendas. It doesn’t matter if they have a “D” or an “R” or an “I” following their
name. If you cannot withstand questioning, then you’re really not that great of a leader, are you?
While I disagree with some of your opinions, I respect your right to have those opinions. By the way, what do you think of the following article:
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays6p/nutshell.htm
Something I find interesting is that when a judge makes a decision that is not supported by the Republican party, they are derided as an “activist judge”. The claim the Republicans make is “they are legislating from the bench!”
“For every activist, there is an equal and opposing reactionary!” ;-) I guess this axiom has been proven tru!
March 16th, 2006 at 8:47 amNo one should be threatening death to the justices although I am sure if a justice is knocked off, it will be an anti-Roe that gets it by some fringe pro-abortion type. That said, we have duty to criticize the justices when we disagree with them. The use of foreign law in our ruling is absolutely unconstituional and dangerous to our democracy. How dare Ginsburg imply I don’t have a right to criticize (or politicize) her rulings. This is not communist Russia.
Interesting that the same folks at ThinkProgress who threw a temper tantrum over Alito, are now so concerned about politicizing the Court.
March 16th, 2006 at 9:17 amThe most likely suspect for an attack against sitting justices is Pat Robertson or Ann Coulter. The radical-right wing-nuts are the only people who have made threats against the lives of justices. It makes total sense that an anti-choice activist will be the most likely corner from which violence will come in support of their lunatic leaders.
What I find interesting is that the Republicans immediately blame the courts when they can’t have their agenda rammed down the throats of the American public. And Republicans have the gall to claim support for “states rights” but rush for a federal court solution when the states don’t swallow their agenda whole.
March 16th, 2006 at 9:34 am#43 – we’ll actually have a chance to make sure you’re right. When Bush is done with the Court, Roe will at least be gutted and sent back to the states, as will the death penalty, gay marriage and a host of issues that the Court has leaned left on for so many years. If your right DS, liberals will still respect the institution of the Court and not preach hate against the conservative justices. Of course, that whole Alito thing aside….
March 16th, 2006 at 9:38 amPeople who threaten judges in the guise of criticizing their rulings are deliberately threatening the very foundation of this Republic. Our Founding Fathers wanted an independent Judiciary that was not beholden to any political group, and the current crop of pseudo-conservatives want to do away with that, transforming the USA into another banana republic where the judiciary is merely a follower of the executive branch. Why do conservatives hate America?
March 16th, 2006 at 9:42 am#44 – Right, keep saying “liberals preach hate” until you believe it’s true. It’s the only possible solution to the calumny and mendacity you continue to spread.
Completely ignore Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson. Can’t listen to them and believe that “liberals preach hate”. It would cause “cognizant dissonance†to the point where your head would explode from the major contradictions you are trying to logically explain away. Does the kool-aide you’re drinking remedy the headaches of trying to believe the lies being generated by the Republican party?
Don’t hold your breath over Roe v. Wade being overturned. It’s the only thing that keeps the Republican party hateful from eating themselves over the massive spending Pres. Bush supports, the further dismantling of constitutional civil rights, the pro-big-government and anti-states-rights that is being perpetuated by Republicans, and the pro-special interests that the neo-Cons have hitched to your political party.
March 16th, 2006 at 9:45 amSparkye;
So Ann Coulter IS WRONG?
Pat Roberson is off his rocker?
Our “temper tantrum” was about his confirmation, with out Alito answering any questions and the STAGED false attack non the drama queen he calls a wife by a republican senator they blamed on Ted Kennedy. Nobody called for his untimely demise that is the realm of the right wing moon bats.
Have a nice day NeD
March 16th, 2006 at 9:59 amYes, things such as the Magna Carta are so foreign to our system of justice. We should close out the doors on ANYTHING that isn’t born & bred here in the US.
Once again libs/stalin dresses up a Strawman only to knock it over and blame liberals. Dude, give us ONE example of the US bowing to a law that isn’t on the books here in the US. Treaties with foriegn governments even count, but then again, I’ll bet you support the WTO, NAFTA and all those other lovely treaties that subverted our environmental & labor laws so corporations could make even more money.
1 example, that’s all.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:00 am#45 – give me a BREAK! As long as the Court rules in your favor on the most divisive social issues of the day, everything is fine. NO matter how bad the rulings or how creative, liberals have no problem letting just FIVE people decide those issues.
You people have used the Courts to acheive what you would never achieve at the polls. AND Democrats have been relentless in trashing conservative judges. The left-wing smear machine has intimidated originalist nominees for years and that’s not a breach of the independent judiciary????
The Days are numbered for the liberal thought police. The Court is shifting back to sanity and you can crow about conservative attacks on Ginny and O’Connor and they won’t matter. Neither of them will be there in a year because they are retiring.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:00 amWe have had some pretty bad Secretaries of States over the years e.g. Kissinger.
But the laziest, most incoherent one I can recall is Condi Rice. With hotspots all over the world all she does is go around and spout the Bush losing line, if she spouts anything at all.
She is the shrubs concubine.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:04 am#47 – do as I say, not as I do. You would make Stalin proud.
Well this conversation is pointless. Liberals are losing their grip on the Court and crying about it won’t help your cause. Ginsburg is ill and she has been proving in spades lately. First, literally sleeping at the wheel in Court and now these paranoid delusions she’s crying about. She’ll be off the bench by July.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:05 am#49 – “originalist”?!?!? How out of touch with reality can you possibly be??? (Well, you’re giving us a perfect example of it right now!)
Lets try this one for your so-called “originalist” argument:
Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Now, lets hear you BMW (bi*#%, moan and wail) about how the ORIGINAL wording of the Constitution is CHANGED by adding “So help me God” by Pres. Bush and Pres. Clinton. (Actually by all modern Presidents.)
Come on, I want to hear you adhere to your “originalist” argument and call on Pres. Bush to abolish any CHANGING of the CONSTITUTION! How about the “original†constitution that supports slavery? Hmm? How about THAT “original†Constitution?
No, you won’t do it because you lack the moral fortitude to actually follow what you say you follow. You want to hijack the courts to make free speech “illegal’ when it doesn’t suit your agenda. You want to excise the parts of the Constitution that you personally dislike in favor of the parts you personally dislike.
You, sir, are the exact opposite of “progressiveâ€, you are “regressiveâ€.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:19 amWhere in the constitution does it mention slavery? Please, I am dying to know this one.
You are projecting again.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:26 amChrist lib/stalin, take your meds! You are making even less sense than ever.
better yet, go bother folks over at lil green footballs, redstain or some other fascist site that you belong to. Yea, that’s right fascist. You lil Hitler Youth you.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:26 amthe Constitution mentions slavery when it counts a slave as being equal to 2/3 of a “regular” citizen for census purposes. Jeez, have you even read the document? Obviously not.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:28 amKindness – Hitler would have never been brought down if people with your mentality ruled back then. (and don’t claim the FDR mantle). Also, why did FDR keep the media off the battlefields of WWII? Does that make him a fascist?
March 16th, 2006 at 10:30 am#55 – Text, please?
March 16th, 2006 at 10:31 amSo the Anthrax letters went to Democrats, the death threats of judges are toward more liberal judges, the “right to life killers” are conservative, my guess Tim McVeigh was a radical right winger. And people like Ann Coulter and Tom Delay advocate the killing of judges.
I haven’t heard of wishes of death or death threats going to conservative congressmen and judges by any Dem or prog.
So who’s really the radical nut jobs here.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:34 amSaddam has launched his own war of madness on the courts…
http://blogdebogs.blogspot.com/2006/03/saddam-on-trial-part-vi-please-dont.html
March 16th, 2006 at 10:36 am#53 – Article I, Section 2, prescribes for the means of apportionment, or the method by which representatives are allocated to the states. Because political power would inevitably flow to the states with the most congressional representatives, this was a controversial topic at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Whereas each state receives two votes in the Senate, the number of representatives each state receives in the House is determined by an enumeration, or census, to be conducted every ten years.
According to this same section, a state’s population is to “be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” Thus, an indentured servant was counted as a whole person, and an African American slave was counted as only three-fifths of a person. This last provision arose out of differences between slave and nonslave states. Counting slaves as equal persons would have given southern states a greater number of representatives and more power in Congress. Northern states vigorously opposed such a scheme, and the resulting compromise was called the Three-fifths Compromise.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle! By the way, I think you’re a bit confused. You’re the one projecting your hate for the judiciary on anyone who doesn’t drink your kool-aide.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:40 am#57 – See post 60. It proves your lack of understanding of the “original†Constitution.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:41 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_2.2C_Clause_3:_Apportionment
The number of Representatives for each state depends on its population, but each state is entitled to at least one Representative. The population of a state originally included all “free persons”, three-fifths of “other persons” (slaves) and excluded untaxed Native Americans. This “three-fifths clause” did not deny the humanity of slaves, but rather it limited the political power of slave-holding states by reducing their share of the House of Representatives.
The fourteenth amendment changed this provision by removing the three-fifths clause, slavery having been abolished following the Civil War. There are at present no untaxed Native Americans, so all persons inhabiting a state—whether voters or not—count towards the population of that state. The Constitution mandated that a Census be conducted every ten years to determine the populations of the states (the Constitution provided for the temporary apportionment of seats until a Census could be conducted).
Under Section Two, the amount of direct taxes that may be collected from any state was tied directly to its share of representatives. On the basis of this requirement, the income tax was found unconstitutional in 1895, as it was not apportioned among the states. Writing for the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Melville Fuller dismissed precedent to the contrary as “a century of error”. To permit the levying of an income tax, the Congress proposed and the states soon ratified the Sixteenth Amendment, which removed the requirement that income taxes be apportioned among the states.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:43 amThanks DC, my bad. Off the top of my head I thought it was 2/3. 3/5, now that’s MUCH more reasonable.
uhhh libs/stalin….where are you you lil fascist puppet?
March 16th, 2006 at 10:50 am#63 – I guess he’s researching the “original” words of the US Constitution to find the above references to slavery that he didn’t know were there.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:51 amNeD should be dismissed as he is our little brand of insurgency. He is Eric Rudolph disguised as, okay, not disguised at all. He seems proud of being an angry bigot who listens to drug addicts for his news.
These are deeply hateful people that thoroughly represent the new republican party as we know it now. Santorum sleeping with fetuses, Rush doctor shopping as he talks of, well, evil doctor shoppers and let’s not forget Delay actually saying he uses the wacko christians for votes. Argggh, this has to end or we will have another revolution. History will repeat itself yet again.
Rush and his type of monger incite violence and are proud of it. They are on the fringes of society and are merely salesmen. Education is key here.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:53 am60, 61,62, thank you for PROVING that Ned aka LLS has never read and COMPREHENDED the constitution of the Unites States,
Have a nice day NeD
March 16th, 2006 at 10:58 amLHS (NeD) We will be addressing this again. You have proved to all here that you know absolutely nothing about the Consitution. You need to take a couple of classes at your local college; the New School comes to mind. Education is key, as I always say. When you think you know something and turn out wrong, it should force you to reconsider your thoughts.
Seeing as though you were embarrassingly corrected as to the Constitution, maybe you are wrong about other things as well. I know, Rush sounds smart, but he is just a con who is using you to sell products on his show. That is how he makes money. You are a rube.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:59 amThe 14th amendment eliminated the reference to slavery. There has been no such amendment for abortion or the death penalty. Of course, you could prove me wrong!!! (No, the death penalty is not cruel and unusual).
You’re the ones who incite violence and hatred. I am sure this is a sad day for all of you now that the US has launched an air campaign against our enemy in Iraq. Dont’ worry, the MSM will report we’re still losing!
March 16th, 2006 at 11:03 am#67 – slavery was not explicitly mentioned and the 14th amendment removed any such reference. Where am I wrong here?
March 16th, 2006 at 11:04 amIt is cruel and unusual punishment to force us to have to scroll through lhs’s rants & misguided diatributes.
Couldn’t we get some educated conservative with dignity here, like maybe Bill O’Liely?
March 16th, 2006 at 11:08 am#67 – The 14th amendment didn’t “excise” the “original” wording of the document, it replaced the original wording in order to CHANGE the original document so that slavery is abolished.
If you were the “originalist” that you claim to be, you would understand this fine point. I guess you’re not quite the “originalist” that you state.
By the way, you’re putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that the death penalty was “curel and unusual”, nor did I claim that abortion was written into the constitution.
It’s the Republicans that want to take the Constitution and re-write it in favor of their special interests over the civil rights guaranteed to all Americans. Since when does the Constitution state that “free speech” is only allowed in special “zones”?
Don’t worry, your conservative-biased MSM will continue to portray Democrats as anti-Constitution as they work to uphold the Constitution for all Americans.
March 16th, 2006 at 11:19 am#71 – ok, points taken. Should we abolish the electoral college?
March 16th, 2006 at 11:23 am#72 – Yes
March 16th, 2006 at 12:00 pmNo one should be threatening death to the justices although I am sure if a justice is knocked off, it will be an anti-Roe that gets it by some fringe pro-abortion type.
Comment by Liberals Heart Stalin — March 16, 2006 @ 9:17 am
Are you serious, are there any pro-abortion types that have been documented as a murderer over their cause? The right to life nuts are the ones who bomb, kill, and threaten lives for their cause, many documented cases.
You are not aware of reality.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:05 pm#72 – Very good question!
If we did, would that mean that urban areas would dominate the political landscape? What would it mean to our congressional makeup? Don’t forget, the Electoral College is basically one-vote for every congressional member state-by-state. This provides an extra two votes per state regardless of the population of that state.
Could you imagine if this was the case in 2000? President Gore! ;-)
Personally, I think that the Electoral College is another layer of bureaucracy imposed upon an already overly-bureaucratic system. Yes, I would agree with elimination of the Electoral College. It would take us one step closer to a democratic system.
Wasn’t the original purpose of the Electoral College to make sure there was a way for the leaders to pick a President over the objection of the “people� I’m going to have to do a bit more research on this.
By the way “LHSâ€, I much prefer this type of dialogue rather than our previous “flame throwingâ€. Lets keep it up!
March 16th, 2006 at 12:09 pm#72 Lose an debate and change the discussion, GOOD TROLL move there Sparky
March 16th, 2006 at 12:09 pmPro abortion? Stupid MAN. Hey NeD, how about getting your balls smashed? I’m guessing an abortion is worse and your hatred for women either says you are a closet homosexual that hates himself or just had a really strict mother influence and, in turn, hate her. No matter the cause, you are troubled and will never find a happy marriage, probably not a girlfriend. I’m guessing you are on the online dating scene.
Now, go find TRY to find some woman that will accept your views. Or, like most repub men, lie. Remember, as NeD says, better to keep the embryos and kill the prisoners. Why don’t you ask your leader what he did with his leftovers?
March 16th, 2006 at 12:12 pmAfraid you are all wrong. It was not the 14th Amendment that did away with slavery. It was the 13th.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:13 pmPS we aren’t PRO ABORTION. We are PRO CHOICE. There’s a big difference. We allow people to follow their own concience whereas antiabortionists want EVERYONR to follow THEIR choice rather than their own.
Yea, after what happened to Gore in’00, I’m all for getting rid of the Electoral Collage. Why should any one citizens vote count more than another citizens in a national election?
March 16th, 2006 at 12:13 pmUmm Stalin, the 14th Amaendment does reference slavery, you need to look it up and actually read the document. The word slave is twords the end of the amendment
AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
Anyhow I have no clue as to why there is a discussion of #14 going on here. What does that have to do with the radical right (which is truely their mainstream now) advocting the murder of judges.
Stalin is one of those knowledgeable conservatives who continually spouts off about the constitution and original intent without knowing anything about the constitution. Had he ever actually read Roe he would find that the conservative propaganda on it is wrong and that the case is reasoned from beginning to end. If he truly had an original intent interpretation of the constitution he would know that the founders original intent said that further unknown rights might be discovered in the future..i.e. the right to privacy. If he was truly an original intent guy he would realize that the founders knew language would change over time as would societies and that the constitution should change with the times, thus the phrase cruel and unusual would change over time. If Stalin was truly an original intent guy he would realize that the executive branch does not have the power that Bush say’s it has. If he was truly an original intent guy he would realize that torture is not allowed.
If he knew anything about the American legal system he would know that we are based on English Common law and Roman Code law. Code law has various laws that are codified and actually written down, while common law is interpretive and heavily based on precedent (something ALito does not believe in, in other words Alito will make his own law as he sees fit) and is frequently dealing with Judge Made Law. Hmmmm 1000 years of judge made law thus far, and society has not decayed to the point of collapse? Where codes are silent judges are to look to case law and precedents (which Alito for his personal activism does not believe in) and in these cases the judge makes the law.
However here in he US we have the constitution which no laws written or unwritten ( I only toss unwritten in here, bevcause this administration has wild ideas) may trump. When a law comes in which restricts rights granted by the constitution, then the law must be struck down. However an original intent judge would recognize that the founders, in their writings on the subject maintained that new rights not specifically granted in the original constitution would be discovered in the future. Sometimes the judges do things that a strict constructionist might not understand, like granting a right to privacy, but an original intent guy would understand, because he would understand the original intent of the founders. Of course Stalin has no clue on the topic. He just knows what to hate and to continue hating until the RNC says otherwise.
Of course strict constructionists get into binds and make decisions not popular with the rightwing nuts like Stalin too. For instance the reference to congress shall make no law… made judges in the past to strike down any law regarding speech. That got people in hot water with the radical right and people like Stalin who wanted it their way despite what the strict constructionists said. This was kind of funny because at the time they were clamoring for strict constructionists, or so they claimed. What they really wanted then, and now are judges who will interpret that law and make law and be judcial activists as long as they further a political agenda first and foremost. They will never agree with any decision which does not further their political aganda, ever.
Then we have Mr. Scalia who claims a philosophy that is some where mixed on original intent and strict constructionist. He claims if it is not in the constitution as it sits, then it does not exist (strict constructionist). He also claims that the constitution is static and can only change via the amendment process (vaugely original intent), which is in direct contradiction to the founders will that the interpretation can change through time as society and language changes. Yet he had no trouble over riding the constitution as written in December 2000 because the decision to be made he felt was more important than the procedures and rules laid out in the document he claims can’t be changed except via the amendment process. Hmm, a case of judge made law… So even Scalia and Thomas will interpret things into the constitution that are not there when it is convenient for them and their political ideology.
However Stalin is not truly an original intent guy, he is a political opportunist who desires to have his social agenda shoved down the throats of America with HIS activist judges.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:15 pmP&P – the more I see it the more I think you’re right. I think ned is back. Sounds just like him. Anyone got that link to his old blog? Let’s post that dumb mug of his again….
March 16th, 2006 at 12:16 pm“Where in the constitution does it mention slavery? Please, I am dying to know this one.”
LHS
Try section 2 of article 4, to do with runaway slaves:
“No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
13th amendment more or less banned slavery (In theory one could still be sentenced to slavery, but no crime in America currently carries that sentence so the point is moot.) Don’t believe me? Read it yourself:
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:43 pmKindness, oh yeah, it’s Northeast Dilemma. You can find him easily, mustache and all.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:06 pmHey kindness, he took his photo down. Bad for dating I assume. His favorite books are from Ann Coulter and any right wing propaganda. I think that says it all. He is on blogspot, sans HUGE mustache.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:10 pmToo bad. I was hoping we could post it here and continue to make fun of him.
Yea, we’re REAL progressive when we get like this. Me, I’m OK with that because as much as my political bent is progressive, I’m not anything 100% of the time. Gotta have some fun, even if you are making fun of yourself (and lil ned).
March 16th, 2006 at 1:22 pmL’il NeD. Very funny stuff. Well, good grief, he ASKED for it. G’day.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:32 pmbad breath home remedy…
Gum Disease victims need not suffer any further. There is now a breakthrough…
December 30th, 2006 at 11:16 amMoot Court Bankruptcy
Hi – just wanted to say good design and blog -
March 25th, 2008 at 1:51 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 8:01 amPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 3:04 pmEric
This is real good info. Thanks for sharing.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pmHarris Online Bill Pay
Internet Banking Interest Rates
April 4th, 2008 at 10:13 amGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 4:54 amPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 1:52 pmJessie
Thanks, this is good stuff. You are spot on.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:29 am