Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Chas. Fried, Reagan Sol. Gen.
http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2012/03/reagan-solicitor-general-charles-fried-critical-of-conservative-activist-scotus.htmlReagan Solicitor General, Charles Fried, critical of conservative activist SCOTUS
[font size="3"]
Charles Fried is a professor of law at Harvard University. From 1985 to 1989, he served as President Ronald Reagans solicitor general. He specializes in constitutional law and is the author of many books on the subject, including 2004s Saying What the Law Is: The Constitution in the Supreme Court. He also wrote a brief on behalf of 104 law professors arguing that the individual mandate is constitutional.
Professor Fried spoke to Greg Sargent after three days of oral argument on the Affordable Care Act and was highly critical of the conservative activist Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. How did legal observers and Obamacare backers get it so wrong? - The Plum Line:
[font size="3"]
Charles Fried is a professor of law at Harvard University. From 1985 to 1989, he served as President Ronald Reagans solicitor general. He specializes in constitutional law and is the author of many books on the subject, including 2004s Saying What the Law Is: The Constitution in the Supreme Court. He also wrote a brief on behalf of 104 law professors arguing that the individual mandate is constitutional.
Professor Fried spoke to Greg Sargent after three days of oral argument on the Affordable Care Act and was highly critical of the conservative activist Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. How did legal observers and Obamacare backers get it so wrong? - The Plum Line:
<F>ormer Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried was scaldingly critical of the willingness of the conservative bloc of Supreme Court justices to traffic in some of the most well-worn Tea Party tropes about Obamacare.
[font color="red"]I was appalled to see that at least a couple of them were repeating the most tendentious of the Tea Party type arguments,[/font] Fried said. [font color="red"] I even heard about broccoli. The whole broccoli argument is beneath contempt. To hear it come from the bench was depressing.[/font]
It's very telling that Fried said the Partisan Five were using Tea Party "arguments"... this indicates what he was thinking but didn't explicitly say: that Roberts Raiders (of Democracy in favor of Corporate Feudalism, ie. corporate over-Lordship) showed in what were supposed to be questions, they were arguing their case against the ACA - which they have already decided before hearing anybody's testimony!
... I guess we can see where Scalia, Alito et al get there judicial philosphy from ........
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 1641 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chas. Fried, Reagan Sol. Gen. (Original Post)
Bill USA
Mar 2012
OP
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)1. SC should not be a life appointment
And you should be required to know Constitutional law.
socialindependocrat
(1,372 posts)2. If they won't make a ruling according to the law
then something is deffinately wrong.
They show their bias and they don't care.
What do we do, get congress to impose a term limit on the SC justices?
They need to develope a set of specifications that need to be met by any new ruling in order to show any bias and make the new law unenforcable. Something needs to be done to jog these people out of lala land.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)3. k/r
dhpgetsit
(1,917 posts)4. Unrec for a bad title
Sorry
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)5. This is pure gold. K&R