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.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
I just hope that some of the more moderate judges (are there any?) take this as a slap in the face and rule against Obamacare to teach his smack-talking azz a lesson.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Well, yeah, I would hope they did their job, but you know as well as I do that their decisions are split along party lines. They have not been a subjective body for a long time now.
edit on 2-4-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
He is sounding more and more like a DICTATOR.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
SOURCE
Really? Who does this guy think he is? He does not hold sway over the Supreme Court. He does not hold sway over Congress. Last I checked there were THREE distinct branches of government, and he is only ONE of them. Sorry, did I learn this wrong in school?
He is sounding more and more like a DICTATOR.
Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo
reply to post by AwakeinNM
It's been a dictatorship ever since King George II (Bush) took office.
Originally posted by muse7
One of the first health care laws in the 1790's was a mandate just like the affordable care act.
So I'm hopeful that this law will be upheld and it will go into effect. either way, these conservative justices have already shown their disdain for the poor uninsured american.
The Supreme Court was designed to make sure that the rights of individuals remained paramount in any consideration that involved governmental intrusion.
Recent Supreme Court opinions regarding religion, voting rights and warrant-less surveillance cast a shadow over existing democratic legal protections.
Supreme Court cited “freedom of religion” and the First Amendment as justification for granting religious organizations absolute autonomy in their treatment of their employees and allowing those organizations to escape compliance with federal employment law.
In a case decided on January 20, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling requiring a lower court to show more “deference” to a congressional redistricting plan developed by the state of Texas, notwithstanding the fact that the plan is plainly in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The ruling in that case...casts a shadow over the continued viability of the Voting Rights Act and the principle of “one-person, one-vote.”
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the contentious case involving the government’s GPS surveillance of an individual in Washington, DC without a warrant.
The doctrine of Scalia and company, falsely proclaiming itself to be the “original” understanding of the Bill of Rights, would limit the protections of the Fourth Amendment to those factual circumstances that could have arisen in 1791. Accordingly, in his opinion in United States v. Jones, Scalia analogizes GPS surveillance to a constable hiding in the back of an 18th century stagecoach to record its movements. Scalia’s “originalism,” as codified in United States v. Jones, places in doubt a long line of precedent grounded in the formulation that the Fourth Amendment applies wherever there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Thus, the Supreme Court’s opinion, beneath the appearance of upholding the Fourth Amendment, paves the way for future attacks.www.wsws.org...
The court system, with the Supreme Court at the top, was designed to make sure that the rights of individuals remained paramount in any consideration that involved governmental intrusion, a likely outcome given that human beings were to be put in charge of the levers of government, and their natural inclination would be to exert power.
The Supreme Court, of course, was designed to be a check and balance against any overreach by either executive or Congress, or both. That is why for the first two centuries of this great experiment in representative democracy, the courts have been seen by the public as the last bastion against government abuse and the first hope for justice. We have looked to courts as the final arbiters of what is constitutional and the impartial dispensers of justice in a society that at times can be, well, unjust.
...maybe it has something to do with the further politicization of our courts which, in turn, is causing the public’s loss of confidence in the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice. And when that happens, there will be no reason to believe that this democracy is worth the effort.www.lasvegassun.com...
He taught constitutional law at the U of Chicago for something like 10 years