Let the fun begin anew!

There's enough popped corn for everyone!

Here you go:

is he referring to members or trolls?

Posters are a different matter, of course. Maybe he thinks he's a mind-reader, and can tell what those who view a website are thinking.

Alp started a thread about it earlier- it had another link to the
show segment...
It was on a SCOTUS thread in GD, I think-

It's great that Thom mentions us- builds our membership and all!



BHN

He wasn't wrong. I love it when know-it-alls get called out for being wrong. LOL

I know we're smart, but my bet is on him.

in a polite and articulate style.

however, see the need to have publicized the names of the DUers he wanted to debate.

The debate would been just as "rich" and he could have made his arguments equally persuasively by using the quotes without the names.

was unnecessary. This is one of the times when I wish I had cable so I could follow this story. Good observation, K Gardner.

did that serve except to embarrass the posters unnecessarily?

that "Some people say" crap. He is quoting the posters and naming the source.

And it's not like Judicial Review was a novel concept before Mabry, either.

And here I thought Thom was against that 'strict constructionist' interpretation (when it suits him, I suppose.)

...it wasn't like the judicial power of the courts was some nebulous concept with a vagueness of significance. The Constitution is fundamentally about the rule of law in social contract and Hartmann isn't just being a "'strict constructionist'" in his argument, he's expressing a fatally flawed argument about the basic question of where sovereignty is held under our system of government, by the people in the government and all its bodies. Our forefathers understood exactly what they meant in drafting and ratifying the Constitution of the United States, they did not consent to its effect in haste, error, or confusion.

Our system of government is not a leviathan - it is us, the people, and us alone:

Congress and signed into law by the President of the USA."? Where exactly is that part?

Right there. Judicial review is settled law. Hartmann is howling at the moon.

It is no small wonder, then, to find that the power of the federal courts to test federal and state legislative enactments and other actions by the standards of what the Constitution grants and withholds is nowhere expressly conveyed

...in the Constitution that it would have been overturned? I mean consider cases like Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade. If the Court has no power to strike down laws and uphold Constitutionality that such would be reality by now? But it's not and Hartmann is off dreaming in left field with this argument.

It's express, and that is exactly why I hate the "strict constructionist" blurring of these issues...

Leading in any real way in the last 50 years?
Is your argument really that unless we have a civil war we cannot negate unjust SCOTUS decisions?

Tom made the point that the Constitution of the US does not grant the SCOTUS the power to rule on the constitutionality of the laws.
You point out that the court is the last appeal in the cases arising from disputes about the laws created under the constitution.

Your own link shows that no power to review the constitutionality of laws is in the constitution.
THAT IS TOM's POINT. He goes on to explain why this power grab by the SCOTUS is a bad thing.

Either argue that you want the SCOTUS to be able to impose its' will in place of the laws passed by our elected representatives or agree that Tom is correct.

...does not mean that SCOTUS has done something unconstitutional.

Hartmann is making a political argument against a settled constitutional question.

one of the three branches was reserved for the people.
The SCOTUS and the GOP are the ones messing with settled constitutional issues.
I do not believe I am going to get you to believe that Tom Hartman has a point.
I know you are no closer to getting me to admit the constitution says something it clearly does not.
I say we should just drop this conversation.

He was disagreeing with some posters here about how the Supreme Court works. You can see it in the clip.

I happen to agree with him. Not everyone here does. But I didn't interpret it as a 'calling out', just a disagreement which happens here all the time.

argument is that the SCOTUS has no power to declare the law and mandate unconstitutional?

I mean, that is what is mean by "striking down" the law.

Hartmann also states that the SCOTUS has been doing this illegally for decades.

and rather than discuss it with people on his thread, he did a drive by video segment.

I'll miss his commentary.

the law to stand, but I doubt there is a case to be made that the SCOTUS has no power to declare a law unconstitutional. I mean, lower courts strike down and uphold laws all the time.

If his argument is correct, the SCOTUS illegally struck down McCain-Feingold.

That was my first thought as well. If that isn't their role, then why are they even hearing these challenges?

He's arguing that the Supreme Court operates outside of its bounds as laid out in the constitution. What he thinks about this, however, doesn't really matter. How the Court operates in the real world is what matters. I see the guy's name around here a lot, but I'd never seen his show - seems like quite a silly character.

We may even be learning. Trust me on this one I am not a lawyer.
Tom sounded reasonable. Can anyone give him an argument?
Not bare baiting here. Tom may be spot on, just the curtain may not have opened for all of us.
Let us reason together.

so a discussion is impossible

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101718710

heh heh

...say that Skinner can strike that lock down!

The SCOTUS 'installed' George W. Bush as President so they 'can' control the Presidency. They control the Presidency all the time. Example: Declaring a corporation as an individual with individual rights subverts elections with amounts of money no regular individual can produce to impact an election. Unconstitutional voter suppression is going on as I write this. I Have read the Constitution and apparently some of the US Supreme Court members have not. Scalia says it is just a piece of paper. It does not matter what is written in the Constitution if the Senate, Congress and the President ignore it and subvert it. War crimes and treason committed by past federal officials goes unpunished. Endangering the nation's security because financial institutions can rob the people of billions and bankrupt them because they can't pay for health care and go unpunished tells me that people in power with university educations have not and refuse to read or uphold the Constitution. Apparently they have become smart enough and rich enough not to give a rats rear end what We the People think or want. There are no more 'checks and balances' no matter how much Thom Hartman quotes Thomas Jefferson. The check that matters is the one corporations use to buy subversion of our freedom.

May have him confused with someone else?

Don

They are essentially kings and queens, and we have no way, NO RIGHT, to redress any grievances we may have with their decisions.

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
Thomas Jefferson--1823

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v.
ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
[December 12, 2000]

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 45.2, the Clerk is directed to issue the mandate in this case forthwith.

It is so ordered.

Note: The following is a pdf.file

GEORGETOWN LAW
The Scholarly Commons

What's So Bad About Bush v. Gore? An Essay on
Our Unsettled Election

GEORGETOWN LAW
Faculty Publications

Table of Contents
I. IN'TR.ODuCTIoN ........ III III .................... III III III .. III ...... III ................ 953
ll. TIm DECISION ................ III .................................... III ............ 964
A. Prologue: How the Supreme Court Ran Out the Clock .. 964
B. The Supreme Court's Frantic Search for a Constitutional
Problem. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. III .. .. .. .. .... III .. .. III .. .. .. .. 971
1. The Mythical Equal Protection Problem .......... 972
2. The Mythical § 5 Deadline .....••............. 984
3. The Mythical Article n Problem ..•............. 992
m. THE DEEP POUTICS OF BUSH V. GORE • . . • • • • • • . . . . • 1005
A. In Partial Defense of a Political Decision ..•........ 1005"
B. Towardan Unsettled Constitution •. .....•........ 1019

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1213&context=facpub

Thank you for posting this. I am no deep thinking scholar of the Constitution like some here but intuitively I sense the SCOUTUS is currently a power above and beyond We The Peoples elected representatives. I do not believe that our founding fathers intended it to be this way, your quote from T. Jefferson in part confirms this for me.

Intuitively, I do not believe that one leg of our three legs of government should have veto powers over the other two. Congress creates the asked for Legislation, the Executive branch signs it into law. That's two of three legs of our supposedly 'co-equal' government in agreement. One leg being able to veto the combined wills of the other two is not in my uniformed way of thinking: 'co-equal'!

I do not understand how these things work but it seems to me that the SCOTUS is beyond the reach of the true ultimate power of this great nation: We The People. In a government Of, By and For the People, that just doesn't seem right to me.

But I watched the video and didn't take offense to the claims made. For me, just one more guy stating an opinion. I was always taught that the three branches of government were coequal and that when the Executive and Legislative disagree, the Supreme Court decides which is aligned to the Constitution better.

Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2012, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

I have been monitoring this each day since Monday. I have searched in vain for the DU thread he responded to on Tuesday. I believe Thom, in his own way 'pwned'* one of our fellow members but I could not find that particular thread so that may or may not be the case. Lastly, I have not been at all successful in bringing Thom's notions regarding the powers of the SCOTUS and how they derived those powers to my own debate on this topic.

I would very much like to see my fellow DUers in action debating Thom's thinking on the SCOTUS, Marburry vs. Madison and what our founding fathers were trying to do here when first they set this all up.

At the moment, without seeing the persuasive thoughts of my fellow DUers, I side with Thom Hartmann in believing that the SCOTUS should not be in the position of power that it is in today.
Without Thom's help, I can not go toe to toe with any of you on this topic and frankly I am not even sure that Thom's position is right. For this reason, I hope the big DU will take this ball and run with it. (Please??!)

Thank you very much Skinner for getting this out there. Bookmarked and strongly recommended.

*(edited to add: Thom may be a mentor to me but truth be told I was not pleased that he called out a fellow DUer on the radio. He IS a fellow member and it seems to me that we have rules regarding this. I dearly love what Thom does for this nation but that was at best, 'poor judgement' on his part, imo. If Thom wanted to be fair about things, he should join us right here in the trenches and play by the same rules we DUers are governed by.)

I did not know that posters on DU were required to be right about anything. So what if a post is wrong. Isn't that what it is all about? It is just a Web Site for people to communicate easily in ways that were never possible in the past. It is like the Old Meeting House or the corner Pub. Why pick on them? This media is in its infancy. Shame on him.

Regarding his presentation about the Supreme Court. The Founders did not set the Constitution in stone. They truly intended it to be a "living breathing document." However they did not intend it to live and breathe the way it is. They put in constitutional ways to change or eliminate it. The power to change or eliminate it was left to the States. Through amendment or a new convention.
Our problems and arguments revolve around the way the Governments...plural, State and Federal try to do things they consider convenient without the hassle of or the difficulty of Amendment or Convention.

Now here comes the 26 States with their lawsuit. Hey! Federal Government! You are trampling on States Rights!!! This is unconstitutional!!
Excuse me? States, have you not been happily giving up your precious sovereignty, your "rights." For a hundred years in order to happily accept federal money. We give you States so much money we even have to borrow it from China to hand it over.

So whats a SCOTUS to do?

To the question...is the SCOTUS operating according to they way the Founding Fathers intended...of course not nothing is. They never intended for things to always stay as they were when it was written.

Furthermore I like how you described the living breathing Constitution and the fact that it has changed from how our founding fathers set it up BECAUSE that is how they intended it be. Again thank you for the education. Your patience is commendable to say the least.

What is a SCOTUS to do you ask. This I have no good answer to. I like that the SCOTUS be the final word on the Constitutionality of these matters. I believe where things break down for me, where I am just not getting it:

Is the SCOTUS, (regardless of who petitions it), when rendering it's decision regarding legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, exercising a power to approve of or veto that federal law?
Or:
When rendering it's judgement regarding that federal law, (regardless of who petitions the SCOTUS to render that judgement), is the judgement without any real power to approve of or veto that law.

If the former, then you already know my position that this makes the SCOTUS a power higher than and not co-equal to the POTUS or the Congress. (and worse than that unanswerable to the citizenry).
If the latter, then I have no idea how the petitioners seek further redress should the SCOTUS judge that Federal Law to be unconstitutional. In this case too, the SCOTUS is not a co-equal to Congress or the POTUS.

There is no question in my mind that you are trying to help me understand this, I apologize for being particularly,slow in getting things figured out.

Btw: it appears that Thom Hartmann will be here in the DU this weekend discussing and (hopefully), debating these powers of the SCOTUS. I consider him to be one of the most enlightened progressive educators of our times. It is my strong hope that you will be there contributing.

Rendering a decision on the Law passed by Congress. It is simply deciding if the ruling of a lower court, appointed by Congress shall stand or fall. In its entirety or partially. It does not have what they call original jurisdiction in this lawsuit. This is an appellate case. An appeal by a loser in the lower court. As are all but a few. It is what they do.
I too am slow. I have just begun my journey in to the legal system. Even though I am getting a late late start. But I tell you I have never been more excited.
Don't take my word for it. I am far from an expert. Just a neophyte. But I think the judgement may surprise many of the speculators. These Justices are all very well versed in the law. And the Constitution. Our system is based on precedents. Prior cases. Both sides made great arguments. The Plaintiffs lawyer was a smooth operator but the Solicitor General is no slouch.
Only recently have I started thinking about things in a less political point of view. I was letting others do my thinking for me. I guess I was lazy. I am amazed at the results. I will not make that mistake again. Believe it or not one of the turning points was when I found out that Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, were Gay.

and therefore they're not going to pay it.

Not only does he seem to be ignoring the wording highlighted in reply #27, he also ignores how the USA works in practice.

he put out the idea as an idea to be argued. It's not like his original video got a lot of good response. So he then goes out again and stirs the nest. This time a lot more real discussion. The idea being he seems interested in how the government works and how the government was originally designed to work. I think many DUers agree with the court that it is implied power and if the court did not assume this power the country would work vastly differently and probably not to the better of the people. Although the counter argument that a crappy pack court can also do a heck of a lot of damage is also true. He seems to have at least gotten this subject up to debate which is probably what he wanted.

He did not ignore how the US works in practice, in fact he emphasized it. And for those who are taking offense, they should know that he is a huge supporter of Obama and does not want to see the law struck down.

I think he became emotional and defensive at the media and even here on a Democratic site, deciding that it probably would be. And he was pointing out how the SC has, as Jefferson predicted, assumed way more power than it should. Can anyone dispute that after Bush V Gore?

He would probably fit in very well in the Obama Group here, just for everyone's information.

Basically he was trying to stem the tide of negative predictions about what the SC will do in the case of Mandated Insurance and while he acknowledges that the SC, as it has assumed more and more power, could strike it down, he does not believe they have the right to do so.

In a way he was arguing what many of us have argued about the SC ruling on the 2000 Election. They did not have the right to do it, but they did it anyhow.

It's rare for him to become this impassioned over an issue to the point of calling out anyone, let alone people on a forum like this, but he is afraid of what a SC decision to strike down this bill would do the Election.

Having watched him for years, he is one of the best progressive commentators in the media, much like Amy Goodman. I don't always agree with him, eg, I was never in favor of Mandated Insurance and predicted it would be challenged in court, but I see where he is coming from and I don't get why anyone is upset with him for trying to curb the power of the SC and not see people taking it for granted when we should be challenging it, especially after the 2000 election.

while telling us, again and again, to read it; and he ignores 200 years of opinion and practice in favour of his own idiosyncratic interpretation (his quotes of Jefferson prove nothing; they don't show Jefferson saying the SC cannot strike down laws, they show Jefferson saying he fears overly-powerful courts. Yeah, well, that's our point, Thom, not yours).

This is the crux:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"

So when a case arises under the constitution, about the powers of the federal government to make laws, involving areas such as commerce between states, the first amendment, or the tenth amendment, then the Supreme Court has the judicial power to be the final arbiter. The constitution overrides later laws, and when there's a conflict, the SC gets to say what part of the later law is unconstitutional.

He thinks they don't have the right to strike down laws; but the vast majority of people involved in government over 2 centuries think they do, and have allowed them to do so. He seems to have mistaken his wish (or even Jefferson's wish) for a less powerful SC with the reality of what is in the Constitution, and how it has been interpreted. His constant appeals to what he thinks the first American politicians wanted are not enough to ignore the actual wording of the Constitution.

When I said you were wrong, I meant about your characterization of Thom Hartmann. He is far from a right winger. And is very knowledgeable about the Constitution. People do disagree on Constitutional issues all the time, he made a good case for his position. And being familiar with him, I believe he is trying to make a case for not striking down the HC law knowing how Republicans will use it in the upcoming election.

of the Constitution (and I don't see that any of the quotes he gives say people agree with him on how it is; just how it ought to be, if it had been designed better) that reminded me of the earnest types who are trying to convince others that no-one need pay income tax, or similar bees in people's bonnets.

Article III Section 2 of the US Constitution reads...

who were horrified what the court had turned itself into. they had not at all envisioned the Supreme Court giving itself the power to rule on the Constitutionality of laws. Read the Federalist Papers for what minimal role they had intended for the Supreme Court.

The Federalist Papers were written to convince people to accept the Constitution. They were a propaganda device meant to calm the fears of the anti-federalists. They would never talk about exactly what the anti-federalists feared. That is the context that they were written in. Today we claim other things. They are false.

Interestingly you may want to reread your Federalist Papers as well...

http://election.democraticunderground.com/101718710#post16

Specifically, #78:

in this thread: http://election.democraticunderground.com/101718710

You ARE welcome!

There were perhaps 3 others. You weren't one if you were wondering.

Thom Hartmann did name one of those names, gave his disagreement, then suggested that the named DUer read the Constitution. My original impression at that time was that Thom was rebutting something this DUer had concluded regarding a specific challange Thom had made on Monday. After reading the DU thread I think Thom was referring to, (which is now linked in this thread), it appears that my original impression was in error.

very sporadic due to his smug & preachy tone. He obsesses, and his word is gospel (he thinks).
But in was in very poor taste to use this site's bandwidth, and go on the attack in public. They dropped him from the lineup that I listen to during the day, and I'm not sure anyone misses him.

**WAVES**

They do research and report on actual current events like Occupy Wall Street. DU members should be happy that Hartmann even bothered to mention them on a news station that isn't bought off like most of the U.S. media.