5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4...

5-4

Almost always on the wrong side of the issue.

Sigh. The dissenting opinion now usually the CONSTITUTIONAL, reasonable, Democracy-principled, humane one. Saw this coming seven years ago - it was all any thinking person needed to know how to vote in the 2000 election. Instead, we got a lot of "That George W. Bush sure is good-looking," and "He's the kind of guy I'd like to drink a beer with," and "There's no difference between the Republicans and Democrats."

Heavy sigh.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/25/supreme-court-sides-with-administration-corporations

I thought you were making fun of my height!

:rofl:

:P

P)

yes, the supreme court made bush president, but if enough people would have turned out, it would have never made it to the supreme court

It is sad because the best we can hope for is maintaining the 5-4, since I do not see any of the corporate justices steping down soon

Geesh....:eyes:

I really have to question his judgement, especially when he said recently that Congress should not waste time with impeachment

Our Constitution has been violated, and we should turn our back?

He lays out exactly what needs to be done FOR impeachment.

Too quickly? He took it as far as he could. Can you imagine what the media would have done to him had he not cast that deciding vote? He did what he thought was right. I don't question his judgement. Actions speak louder than words.

However, impeachment is in the Constitution for a reason, and if it isn't exercised when TRUE high crimes and misdeameaners have been committed, then we are in deep trouble.

You are correct, he could NOT have cast that vote

His campaign was terrible, as was Kerrys, even though the corporate media helped present them both in the worst light, as they did Dean

I also would have no problem voting for Gore if he ran in 2008, which unfortunately I do not think he will, since he so superior to any of the others candidates running. However, he is not the same person he was in 2000 as he is today

We might as well have flipped a coin.

:eyes:

since otherwise people may take you seriously. That is my reply to people who say they will not vote if Clinton is the nominee, Supreme Court. Fine, a whole lot else may be no better, but for that 1 reason, people must vote.

But some things I had hoped were obvious enough not to need the dripping red emoticon.

Koresh help anyone who at this time really still thinks that there was no difference in all seriousness.

This is why search is a good function. Welcome to DU, by the way and yes, I hate using that emoticon but would advise it until people get to know you.

I've been here longer than my modest post count would suggest though, and I've already pissed off enough Naderites especially recently to know what you mean :-)

So, much for that argument huh?

The Democrats HAD THE POWER and every bit of information that they needed to block Scalia & Alito.

The "leadership" refused to do what it took to keep them off of the court- just as they have with countless other federal judges.

In other words- the Dems bear a considerable portion of the blame for these travesties- whether people choose to acknowledge it or not.

When Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson, etc. have to get re-elected in constituencies that are rabidly anti-abortion, no amount of coaxing by Harry Reid will get them to help filibuster Alito. That is why you need to get a Democrat elected to the White House, because the President can single-handedly make sure that no right wingers get on the court by not nominating right wingers.

That's a hell of a lot easier than getting 41 votes to filibuster.

But keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better... :eyes:

than having to operate from the weakest point possible.

that would be the vote of a motion to disband the constitution with this court and would occur with conservative blessings.

I am a beer drinker (in extremus) and I have no desire to be anywhere near that lying, disgusting, deserting sack of crap. I ain't very smart but by god if a person can't see the difference between Dems and repukes I guess they should not vote. (I'm being nice.)

I don't want ANY of the people I drink beer with to become President of the US... and that goes especially for me too!

:shrug:

a beer as a 'recovering' ( mmmhmmm) alcoholic.
Honestly, those who were stupid enough to vote for Bush need to bear a scarlet letter for all the suffering their stupidity has unleashed upon the world.

To vote your conscience a go for a third party if your candidate is not nominated in the GE...

edit for sp

still irks me. And you still hear it!

But you are right. While my vote for Gore was pragmatic, it was also, even without hindsight, a vote for the person who I felt was the besy candidate in good conscience.

That said, had I been so single-minded a Green as to think Nader was actually a better choice for ALL the responsibilities of the job (personally I think he'd make a good EPA director), I would still have voted Gore. I lived in MN at the time and that was close enough to swinging where utilitarianism trumped all. I can understand those of Ralph's ilk voting for him if they lived in Utah or New York where there was little chance of the spoiler effect, but I'll never forgive or forget those who did so in swing states.

SCOTUS is still my biggest issue and will probably remain so until I die.

When Kerry conceded, I went into a long depression. Knowing that * would appoint more to the bench was an awful thought. By 08 we would have a new president, but the buffoons in SCOTUS are there for life.

The test was in 2004. We all FAILED.

When the ballot and the process is so compromised the only people who looked smart were the non-voters.

i hear people claim if the vote were overwhelming they couldn't steal it, but how would anyone know either way?

And a big reason the majority no longer vote at all is they know that on the big issues of corporatism, empire, democratic pluralism, campaign finance, and the military industrial complex there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the two major parties. Perhaps differences of degrees, but even that is honestly debatable.

http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fhosted.ap.org%2Fdynamic%2Fstories%2FS%2FSCOTUS_BONG_HITS%3FSITE%3DNCBER%26SECTION%3DHOME%26TEMPLATE%3DDEFAULT

Jun 25, 11:17 AM EDT


Court Tightens Limits on Student Speech

By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.

Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.

Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all.

OMG! Conceptual Art! Shudder! Keep their poor widdle innocent minds away from it! :sarcasm:

"important" issue...


We need to keep focusing--and educating--on SCOTUS. SCOTUS has been where most of the damage will become permanent...

No need to say that both rulings were on the fascist side of things...

I always felt he looked and acted like a complete ass , alot like alot of the fellows I have worked with over the years . I would never have a beer with him or anyone like him .

And to think people actually voted for the freak , it just amazes me to no end , now I hope people are happy .

Does anyone know if we can impeach these motherf*ckers? I mean, aren't they supposed to be defending and protecting the Constitution?

:puke:

No contesting Alito or Roberts, impeachment and defunding the war off the table, is it any wonder that more and more people are becoming severely disappointed with the Democrats.

And when they lose, badly, in '08, they'll only have themselves to blame, though in fine political fashion they'll try to spread that blame to somebody, anybody else.

what an accomplishment, that shit will light up if you look at it wrong

to convince themselves that Alito wouldn't be that bad...

Convinced themselves that they didn't want to go home and deal with right wingers calling them baby killers because they filibustered pro-life judges.

I'm not saying they are right, I'm saying that an overwhelmingly majority of the Democratic Caucus was willing to filibuster Alito. Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Judas Lieberman made it so that it simply wasn't possible.

I don't know what his problem is lately on that issue. He had been pro-choice.

Then this past year, he supports the state's Catholic hospitals when they want to deny rape victims emergency contraception, and then the support for Bush on Alito.

He's so far out in right field now, and so far down the road with Bush, there's no coming back.

Change doesn't just occur every four years, it happens every day. If you don't think either candidate is progressive enough then work to change peoples' minds so that we can get more progressive candidates in the next election. In the meantime there are two candidates that can win and there are serious differences between the two. Vote for the candidate is the lesser evil and then the day after the election start working so that you won't have to do the same next time. It's a hell of a lot easier to change things under the lesser evil than the far greater evil.