Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

the real John Roberts revealed...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 03:35 PM
Original message
the real John Roberts revealed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. Did anybody ever get to the bottom of how he managed to adopt those Irish kids?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. What, a Good Catholic Rich Man Like Him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Irish laws are SUPPOSED to be pretty strict
There was some discussion about that when he was up for confirmation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. I need to see posters of HIM with the Hitler mustache.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. Good one.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 03:49 PM
Original message
Maybe Harriet Myers wouldn't have been so bad after all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. Some of us saw the Fascism marching along for the last few decades and warned others here.....
Edited on Sat Jan-23-10 03:50 PM by blm
we were ignored or laughed at.

Your graphic is TOO, TOO true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Sinclair Lewis warned the US about it in 1935
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
It Can't Happen Here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Unfortunately, even some DUers don't see the Fascism, even after the last ten years of blatant
corporatism and this Roberts' SC ruling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shireen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. why?
Edited on Sat Jan-23-10 03:57 PM by shireen
I don't like his conservative policies, but the use of the swastika makes me uncomfortable because of its association to the holocaust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. Using the swastika in this country as a political tool is a major
mistake, no matter who does it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. except when it applies. Ruling corporations have the same rights as people is blatantly fallacious.

Making a ruling that is nonsense, and completely unsupportable indicates he is doing this as a matter of ideology. Corporations are not people. THey are not "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". They are machines. Economic machines which are granted by the gonvernment certain powers in order to conduct business. Corporations are not mentioned in the constitution. The corporation was an adaptation to business needs that evolved in the law. That does NOT, however, mean that corporations enjoy rights as human beings do. Only people have rights.

The decision to grant corporations the unlimited right of free speech will result in the government being owned and managed by corporations. The system where Government is run with business and corporate interests as it's first priority is known as Fascism.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. It doesn't apply here.
You don't have a clue about the economic and political structure of Germany, do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Why not? Sounds like Fascism to me.
Germany was only one of many fascist countries.

--imm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. The Swastika has had many meanings thruout history...
Edited on Sat Jan-23-10 06:26 PM by BrklynLiberal
Its association with Fascist Germany is the latest..but currently best known.
It is a symbol of Fascism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

Because of its use by Hitler and the Nazis and, in modern times, by neo-Nazis and other hate groups, the swastika is largely associated with Nazism and white supremacy (see Western use of the Swastika in the early 20th century) in most of the Western countries. As a result, all of its use, or its use as a Nazi or hate symbol is prohibited in some jurisdictions. Because of the stigma attached to the symbol, many buildings that have contained the symbol as decoration have had the symbol removed. Steven Heller, of the School of Visual Arts, has argued that from the moment it was "misappropriated" by the Nazis, it became a mark and weapon of hate, and could not be redeemed.<57>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. Well now, are you talking about the Germany of today? That would be quite irrelevant wouldn't it?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. It's the easy way out. Instead of providing information regarding
the man's positions, you post a lame reference to Hitler's Germany. It's a lazy thing to do, and doesn't actually apply, in any case.

Perhaps it is the best you're capable of. If that's the case, then I'd advise skipping the commentary. If not, then please try harder.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I suggest you read what the hell I posted
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=512695&mesg_id=512718

" Making a ruling that is nonsense, and completely unsupportable indicates he is doing this as a matter of ideology. Corporations are not people. THey are not "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". They are machines. Economic machines which are granted by the gonvernment certain powers in order to conduct business. Corporations are not mentioned in the constitution. The corporation was an adaptation to business needs that evolved in the law. That does NOT, however, mean that corporations enjoy rights as human beings do. Only people have rights.

The decision to grant corporations the unlimited right of free speech will result in the government being owned and managed by corporations. The system where Government is run with business and corporate interests as it's first priority is known as Fascism."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. and here:
Do Corporations have a right to free speech, it looks like the Roberts court plans on granting it

"They want to give corporations the right of freedom of speech like citizens have. This is bullshit. They also keep talking like a corporation and a union are the same. bullshit. A union has a governing board elected on a one man one vote principal. A corporate board of directors is controlled by the largest shareholders. IT is NOT based upon each shareholder haveing an equal vote. A corporation is an economic artifice given certain rights (e.g. to form contracts, and to file suits in court) of individuals FOR PURPOSE OF ENGAGING IN BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. That does NOT mean they really are people, with inalienable rights recognized by the Constitution. They are economic machines. Machines do not have rights!

If managers, business owners want to form an organization of businessmen they can (and do) and they can engage in campaigning for candidates and issues just as unions can. That does not mean a corporation should be treated like an organization of people or like a person. A corporation is an economic machine. Arguing it has a right to free speech is bullshit."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. and read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=479748


This is just an excerpt go to link to read my entire post.

" Roberts: "...let's say, if you have 10 individuals and they each contribute $1,000 to a corporation, and they say, "We want this corporation to convey a particular message," why can't they do that, when if they did that as a partnership, it would be all right?"

ELENA KAGAN: Well, it sounds to me as though the corporation that you're describing is the corporation of the kind that we have in this case, where one can assume that the members all sign on to the corporation's ideological mission, where the corporation, in fact, has an ideological mission."


With regard to the hypothetical situation Roberts mused about, the reality is corporations are controlled by the stockholders who own the most shares of common stock. One or a few stockholders can hold a significant percentage of the stock outstanding and they have far more control over what the corporation does than thousands of other stockholders who own far fewer shares of stock. Influence over the what the board of directors and the CEO decides is based on how much of the corporation you own. This is entirely different than a pertnership or an organization of businessmen or a union where each member has a vote equal to that of each of the other members.

With a corporation millions of dollars contributed by thousands of stockholders and customers can be (and usually is) controlled by a relative few major stockholders. The concentration of control in the hands of a few, means Roberts hypothetical situation of stockholders with equal influence on what the corporation does, is not an accurate depiction of reality with regard to 99% of the corporations in the U.S. KAGAN could have pointed this out but did not.

The whole idea of Corporations having a RIGHT to Free speech is asinine. Corporations are granted limited rights as economic entities to engage in business transactions. They have none of the responsiblities of citizens. They are machines created to accumulate wealth. A machine does not have rights which we have recognized humans have. A machine does not have the right to vote nor does it have a right to free speech. Free speech can only be exercised by humans because human beings have a concience. Corporations, like all machines, do not have conciences. They only have 'purpose' but no sense of responsibility. Therefor there is no such thing as "free speech" as far as corporations and machines go. "
(more)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. I wonder what kinds of things this guy has hidden in his closet
I expect that we could open a goodwill shop of horrors if he were investigated thoroughly. Mr. Flynt, are you listening? Help us out here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-23-10 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. Isn't there some way his interview with congress can be made public
then each item he was asked and answered reviewed and checked to see if there is a blatant lie there. If they can impeach a president over lying about a sex act, why in the hell can't this creep be impeached for lying to congress. And while we are at it how about Alitio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Here's the link to the transcripts of the confirmation hearing of John Roberts. Once they're
approved and appointed, they are pretty much on there for life.

http://www.asksam.com/ebooks/releases.asp?file=JGRHearing.ask
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC