and the Supreme Court plus voting machines decide the generals.

I still love voting, though!

polls, no matter what.

Still, though, they'd all better shape up and stop messing with the vote.

Roberts has been trying to gut the voting rights act for years

a very radical right wing court.. Not sure how much more hard right radical rightwing radical to the core it has to get before people actually rise up and revolt with pitchforks in tow.

would be utterly enraged by such a thing.....yes, even some moderate Republican women, too.

Republicans gain more from Roe V. Wade on books by way of GOTV and campaign $$ they'd lose more by doing away with Roe than by allowing it to still be on the books. (Albeit hanging by a thread.)

The Republicans are already pissed they can't run on gay marriage.

It probably won't happen, but many demands, letters to the editor, etc. might at least raise awareness and remind the Justices that their impeachment, too, is a possibility.

Today. The Supreme court is Republican.

When has it ever been bi-partisan?

ever taken away peoples rights or overturned long established laws that protected rights?

You may not mind that. You may even be enormously happy all Americans who are not otherwise provided for lost that right. But we all lost it anyway. And, since the rrationale was based on the taxing power, and not restricted to health insurance, I am not sure what stands between us and a Congress that may make us buy something else from private vendors.

But for that decision, govt may have had to figure out how to deal with ridiculous heath care costs and health insurance costs without passing the buck to us.

And the Court has, in the past, allowed some other government actions--at least for a while-- that I might have preferred it struck down. I bet if we did the research we would find that all those courts were not dominated by Republicans. On the other hand, one of the most liberal Chief Justices ever, if not THE most liberal? Earl Warren, who, as Repubican AG of California, interned the Japanese for FDR and was appointed by Republican Eisenwhower, who called that nomination the biggest mistake of his 8 years in office. One of the most liberal Justices ever-some even say more liberal than Ginsburg--Justice Stevens, nominated by Ford. Souter was as much as a swing voter, if not more so, than Kennedy.

Problem is, we have become so bitterly divided--as they work to make us--and that includes people who become judges and justices.

in the recent past, even Republican Justices protected rights, this current group is more partisan, more corrupt and more activist than any we have seen in years.

And the ACA was not enacted by SCOTUS, so it's not relevant to the conversation.

As far as making your case or not, my goal was neither to destroy you case nor to make it. I simply posted facts. However, the question of yours to which I responded was not limited in time. It was:

When has a Democratic or Liberal leaning Court ever taken away peoples rights or overturned long established laws that protected rights?

Of course the indvidual was not enacted by the SCOTUS. Nothing is. The SCOTUS neither creates rights nor takes them away. The SCOTUS simply rules on whether a law of Congress (in this instance) violates the Constitution or not. And the SCOTUS upheld the individual mandate against a Constitutional challenge.

You asked if when a Democratic court had ever taken away a right. I gave an example of a right that we had lost--whether we wanted to lose it or not--because four Democratic Justices voted with Roberts.

You really want to compare that to the Voting Rights Act, which the Court just decimated?
That is your argument for a Right the Court has taken away?


Talk about apples and oranges.
Yeesh!

You asked a different and specific question and I responded.

As far as whether there is no Constitutional right not to buy insurance, that is so, but only since the Court's relatively recently ruling on ACA.

Until then, government had never forced us to buy anything from private vendors. So, yes, you certainly could say that until then, you did have a right to be free from a government mandate that you purchase something from private vendors. It was far from assumed that the the government could impose an individual mandate without violating our constitutional rights, or the issue would never have reached the SCOTUS and Roberts almost ruled the other way. So, it was far from settled as to whether we had a constitutional right not to be forced to buy from private vendors or not.

That's how the system works. The Court decides, then we know. Until 1956, no one knew there was a right to desegregated schools. Had Brown v. Bd. of Ed gone the other way, people would be saying "There is no right to a desegregated school." So, saying we have no right to be free of government mandates to buy from private vendors misses the point, when you are talking about whether the Court took away a right or not.

You asked a very specific question. I responded. I don't know why you you feel you have to ridicule my answer. But, since you seem to feel you must, rather than be as respectful to me as I have been to you, I bid you good day.

When did a Democratic COURT take away any rights.

And it as in response to your "they are all the same" post.


Brown vs The Board of Education was unanimous.

in comparison, this Court struck down a major Civil Rights law.

That is close to unprecedented.

You have said nothing to support your "all the same partisan" claim.

You asked when. I replied as to historically and the ACA. I never said Democratic Justices have taken away as many rights as Republican Justices. If that were my point, my post would have read very differently. Have a nice day.

we are actually more or less on the same page when it comes to the Robert's Court.

My guess is we were talking past each other.

Take care.

Take care.

You, too. And I mean that very sincerely.

over-reacted to what I thought you were saying.

did not say that all voting rights bills are unconstitutional. It said that Congress can't keep infringing on states rights' based on data that is 50 or 60 years old. So,k if Congress wishes, in theory, it can hold new hearings and/or gather new info and enact a voting rights bill based on fresher data.

The reason I disagree with the SCOTUS is that it's Congress's business whether to renew a law or not and the Court is supposed to go out of its way not to declare a law of Congress unconstitutional. If Congress renews a once valid law, the Court should assume the legislators took the passage of time into consideration before they voted. However, I think it's clear that, since Bush v. Gore, the SCOTUS has been in the business of doing whatever it can to make sure Republicans win elections.

But, back to the voting rights act: The ball is still in play and is now in Congress's court.

Roberts is so obviously wrong because the act was renewed in 2006.
And as Ginsberg just pointed out, the Court ignored that every district in Texas was in violation.

No hope for Congress unless we retake it in 2016. But this is doubtful due to gerrymandering.

but their job is to make decisions based on the Constitution.

Also a progressive Congress and overturning Citizen's United. It's going to be a LONG road.

Whether she would get a liberal or a corporatist or a centrist, or, if she lives past this admin, an outright Republican, though, is anyone's guess at this point.

I shudder to think what will happen when that tiny, frail fighter is no longer on the SCOTUS bench.

Done to keep divided government which allows both parties to continue with an excellent excuse for not getting what they tell their voters they are trying to achieve.

Economic policies favorable to the wealthy and corporations manage to trickle through while anything substantive economically for the 99% is effectively blocked, meanwhile social policies for the 99% are moved somewhat more toward social justice since social justice is really no skin off the nose of the 1%, all they really care about is the economic policy the other stuff is just a means to an end. Why should the rich care if the poor all starve together under one bridge or under separate bridges?

The Republicans use the social justice themes and the economic ones to scare/entice their voters into voting for them, the Democrats use the social justice themes and the economic ones to scare/entice their voters and both parties can continue to quietly do what the 1% actually want while shouting and pointing fingers at each other.

- They hate black people and are out to get us.

And every single person on the Left needs to start stating this, thow the mic, and walk away.

No discussions and debates with that guy at the diner, the mechanic shop, the doctors office.

Make the statement and drop the mic. If a lie can become truth by stating it over and over again . . .

Then a truth can become truth.

Oh - and add in that Clarence Thomas is an opportunist dirt bag if you must say anything else.