It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this the Worst Supreme Court in History?

page: 2
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

I'm not going to get into whether this is the worst Court, yet. Part of the problem is that I suspect you are unsure what constitutes a bad Court. What I have for information on that is what you have posted in your OP.

The Court is composed of two Justices nominated by Reagan, Clinton, and Obama each. Three were nominated by Bush. Since 1969, five justices were nominated but not confirmed. They were all nominated by Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. Every nominee under Obama and Clinton has been accepted.


First they decided that it is perfectly OK for a government to take poor peoples' property to redevelop it for business so they can make lots of tax money off it.
This was a pro-government, pro-liberal decision. It was a 5-4 decision, and the justices who opposed it were the Conservative wing of the Court. Eminent domain had been around a long, long time. The Liberals wanted to widen the use of it, the Conservatives didn't.


Then they issued the horrific and insane Citizens United ruling which claimed that organizations are citizens, so they have a right to spend money on campaign advertising, but unlike citizens who have at most a few thousand dollars to donate, these organizations can spend millions giving them in essence extra votes.
Except that's not what they ruled.

Since at least the 1930's the Supreme Court has maintained that corporations have the First Amendment right to free speech. And political speech is the most protected of American speech. The Court in Austin ruled that a state could make it a felony for a corporation to make an independent political expenditure for political speech. Notice, though, that the law allowed an exemption for corporations if they happened to be in media. The Court looked at all that, and simply said, that the government can't tell a corporation what political speech they may utter, and when they're allowed to.

Corporations still can't give a bazillion dollars to candidate.


Now we have the Hobby lobby decision which says that not only are corporations people, but religious people who don't have to follow laws they don't like.
perhaps surprisingly to you, the Court said specifically that they weren't ruling that religious people didn't have to follow the laws they don't like. See any of the threads posted on the subject.


At they same time they ruled that unions have to support workers who don't pay their dues.
o they didn't. They opposed the idea that if i was at home taking care of my mother, and she was receiving any governmental health care money, then I was a government employee covered by the union.


To top it all off, in many of their decisions they reversed legal precedents which is the capital sin of the legal profession.
No it's not the capital sin of the legal profession. Sometimes, as has already been pointed out, bad decisions need to be overturned. It happens.

CB328, I'm looking for an alternative here. Where did the stuff in the OP come from. From reading websites without checking the claims? But please tell me it's something else, I'm sure there must be an honorable explanation for the errors posted in the OP. What is it?

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. I'm not prepared to offer an opinion right now on what the worst Court was, but as of a few years ago there was general agreement in the legal profession that Roe v. Wade was the worst individual decision. The complaint wasn't about the result, but the legal reasoning used to get there was hopelessly flawed. Now, THAT was an activist, Cloud Cuckooland decision. - C -




posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: NotSoAnonymous

How so?

They side with the corporation the vast majority of the time. The oligarchy has conquered the US government.

Now what?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Anyone else notice the OP keeps making posts to enflame people and then leaves and never posts again?


I started really noticing it myself yesterday. I just figured it was Bush's fault.


I noticed it a while ago .. and I just checked. Every post for the past 2 months has been abandoned by him after making remarks intended to enrage Christians/Republicans and start an argument.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Let me guess.

The Supreme Court that espouses leftist/progressive policies will be the bestest Supreme Court EVER!



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Anyone else notice the OP keeps making posts to enflame people and then leaves and never posts again?


I started really noticing it myself yesterday. I just figured it was Bush's fault.


I noticed it a while ago .. and I just checked. Every post for the past 2 months has been abandoned by him after making remarks intended to enrage Christians/Republicans and start an argument.


I'm not really one for a lot of rules, but I don't think that should be acceptable after so many times. It's like drive by trolling. If a person can't hang around for at least a post here and there in their own thread... maybe they shouldn't be allowed to start threads willy nilly. Usually those who do that don't stay as long as the OP has. Maybe he's making more on the hour? Who knows?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I reported it. He is clearly just trolling and trying to upset people / start trouble.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Charles, you deserve more SnF than this drive-by OP for your well researched, well thought out response. I wish I could give you more than one star.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
I'm curious how this is "Bush's" Court? By my count, he appointed two of the current sitting justices and Obama has appointed two of current sitting justices. Wouldn't that mean that this court is at least as much Obama's fault as Bush's?


Thanks Ketsuko, I agree with you here, both Bush and Obama's court. I have also noticed Obama has been favorable towards large corporations.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   
The entire nation of government agencies and courts and politicians are corrupt and intent on getting you to keep eating the same slop that they deliver right to your trough for dinner and shovin' (non stop eating of deceptions and foolishness).

People have become so fat from feeding at the trough of political divide, that they will never go back to sanity and integrity of individual thought, because they are too lazy to actually think, and prefer to let their thinking be done for them, by their party of choice. (Your warm and fuzzy place).

You should really consider going on a diet pal, because I see you as someone who could be rescued, but it is a choice, and living in the comfort that their lies and promises are actually coming true, and with the belief that these "feeders" care about you, it is indeed difficult to break away from them when they make you "feel" so warm inside.

They truly do not care for you. Although You and other believers in either political party, are necessary for them to be able to continue their agenda, because you are promoting what they have made you believe about them, but they hate you because if you being necessary for them to do this.

These people lust after power and everything else, at the expense of everyone else, and they hate you because they can't accomplish it without you, which means they are not as strong or smart as their narcissist minds have told them when they look in the mirror, and you are a reminder to them, that they are not anything near greatness that they want to believe about themselves, and that is why they hate you. But your taste-buds have become numb to the daily slop they feed you and you can't unplug or see the deceptions.

Has anyone ever told you that once you are unplugged from this web of lies and daily living, that it is almost instantly very easy to see all the people who are still plugged in and unplugged?
It is like night and day.
But you are still plugged in and it is most likely terminal. Pride of self was what inspired those controlling you, to do to you, and pride of self is what could keep you from admitting to yourself that you messed up by believing in your party of choice, who did this to you.. Denial

Now isn't that the epitome of irony?
edit on 7-7-2014 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I am really curious how a crap political hack post like this has so many stars and flags. Am I the only one who finds this suspicious? Something strange is going on here.




posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I am really curious how a crap political hack post like this has so many stars and flags. Am I the only one who finds this suspicious? Something strange is going on here.



I'm inclined to believe that all those were probably given by those who worship at Obama's feet (like OP) but can not come up with enough evidence, or logical thoughts on why he is the best and why nothing he does is his fault. They star and flag in silent support because they can not post and prove.

I could be wrong though.... And even now OP could be logging in and out of 50 accounts.


edit on 7/7/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I am really curious how a crap political hack post like this has so many stars and flags. Am I the only one who finds this suspicious? Something strange is going on here.



Because anyone who dislikes Republicans will star and flag regardless.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: NotSoAnonymous

How so?

They side with the corporation the vast majority of the time. The oligarchy has conquered the US government.

Now what?


we take it back



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   
The only solution is for people to organize in every single town and area, and connect those councils of citizens, and group tank locally and in larger ways, about every issue, and its non partisan, unity. Because you have to run your own people and elect them, and also immediately have put in the power of the people to call and agree on misconduct and FIRE all of them, any and all politicians and any and all judges, ALL of them. That is what is required. And not hard or long. Just that organized citizens councils networking for a month or two and voting amongst themselves.

We need to have the teeth to remove the asshats and also, we need to start learning how to solve problems, overturn local ordinances in our towns and neighborhoods, and grow confident that we can create win/wins. ie such as overturning laws regarding have businesses on your property, and more than one family dwelling on larger lots, and all the ways they blocked people rising up, or people getting ahead.

These need to be overturned so people can have their own cottage industries back again, AND chickens in their back yards, AND every town can donate homes for half way houses and tracts of land to put up yurts and greenhouses for the homeless, and run farmers markets and workshops on them teaching trades and building alternative energies. And ensuring with an address those who need medical treatments GET THEM.

Its up to people to insure that medicare is at the world standard and is free or the cost of car insurance, its up to people to do this.

They won't.

They're evil monsters. They don't do those things.

Its up to people. We have to stop working like a slave for them and start creating councils. That elect their own and have big teeth, ie powers to fire and change bad laws.
edit on 7-7-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

I'm not sure what part of violating people's property rights you seem to approve of. Hobby Lobby has their own money, and their own time. You have no place telling them how to spend their own money and their own time. If you don't like it, don't shop there. The way you seek power over others to tell them what to do isn't right. Or perhaps your want the government to tell you how you have to spend most of your money? As I said on the Hobby Lobby thread, people like your self have NEVER lifted a SINGLE finger to band together and say "Lets shop only at places that pay for birth control for employees". You never have and never will because you don't care that much as to spend a minute of time solving the problem your self. But you are willing to tell someone to go to Hobby Lobby and force them to shut down if they refuse to comply with your bossy mandate. Wow, you won't lift a finger to solve the issue, but you are willing to tell others to take extreme measures that destroy livelihoods to solve the issue. Hypocrite!

And yes, corporations SHOULD be able to spend their money on advertising. Whats wrong with corporations is that they exist. The idea of paying the government $100 a year to have limited legal liability is ridiculous. Corporations are collections of people. Collections of people should have the same rights as each of the individuals, so long as it adds up to the same sum of rights. Given that the sum of rights currently is more for corporations, they should have their liability limitation taken away and the shareholders should become personally liable if necessary.

The only ruling that was wrong that you mention is that they should not be taking people's property until they agree to it being taken through a mutually written contract. Of course one of the other rulings you oppose, the Hobby Lobby ruling, is about TAKING property without permission. In specific, if Hobby Lobby were not to comply, then their property is raided and their business is shuttered by force. From a practical perspective there is little difference between having your property taken away from you and having your current use of your property taken away from you.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
He is clearly just trolling and trying to upset people / start trouble.
...or as others might call it, 'stimulate debate'. I think that's a lot healthier than getting upset that the OP is trying to 'start trouble' by asking a legitimate question.

Attempts to stifle a dialogue...now that I find worrisome!



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
I believe the sitting Bush-appointed supreme court is the worst in the history of America. First they decided that it is perfectly OK for a government to take poor peoples' property to redevelop it for business so they can make lots of tax money off it. Then they issued the horrific and insane Citizens United ruling which claimed that organizations are citizens, so they have a right to spend money on campaign advertising, but unlike citizens who have at most a few thousand dollars to donate, these organizations can spend millions giving them in essence extra votes. Now we have the Hobby lobby decision which says that not only are corporations people, but religious people who don't have to follow laws they don't like. At they same time they ruled that unions have to support workers who don't pay their dues. To top it all off, in many of their decisions they reversed legal precedents which is the capital sin of the legal profession.

I seriously believe that there has never been a worse supreme court, at least not in modern history.
The HL decision was 9 to nothin'. The SC understands that if the power of this and any future president isn't reigned in and forced to comply with the Constitution, they too will be next to become the target of the POTUS. The checks and balances will be gone and the republic along with it.

Oh OP are unions people too? They can donate and change the course of an election as well. As for the decision to not force people to pay into a union they have no affiliation with, that goes directly to taxation and representation. No issues there. If you don't belong to the union, you don't have to pay a vig to the union.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   


Corporations still can't give a bazillion dollars to candidate.


They can give a bazillion dollars to political groups that spend it on campaign advertising. I don't believe that corporations should be allowed to donate any money to the political system, they already have so much influence over it.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
although they've dropped the ball a couple times, i think this is the best supreme court in a long time.
they have affirmed that i have a right to own firearms.

can't be all bad.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
I believe the sitting Bush-appointed supreme court is the worst in the history of America. First they decided that it is perfectly OK for a government to take poor peoples' property to redevelop it for business so they can make lots of tax money off it. Then they issued the horrific and insane Citizens United ruling which claimed that organizations are citizens, so they have a right to spend money on campaign advertising, but unlike citizens who have at most a few thousand dollars to donate, these organizations can spend millions giving them in essence extra votes. Now we have the Hobby lobby decision which says that not only are corporations people, but religious people who don't have to follow laws they don't like. At they same time they ruled that unions have to support workers who don't pay their dues. To top it all off, in many of their decisions they reversed legal precedents which is the capital sin of the legal profession.

I seriously believe that there has never been a worse supreme court, at least not in modern history.


They've made some proper and some improper calls. The worst? I disagree: we have the Dred Scott decision and Jim Crow "separate but equal," decision that were worse. This court has made some bad ones like the Obamacare atrocity decision, but we also had several decisions that were correct on the second amendment and the Hobby Lobby freedom of religion decision, so it's a wash, IMHO.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join