More About Supreme Court Corruption
I had been intending to write some more about the corrupt "Conservative" justices on the Supreme Court (who today issued another abominable mangling of the Constitution, by their usual 5-4 majority,) when I read the following up-is-down distortion of reality in a comment by Silverfiddle, who seems to have dedicated himself to defending the indefensible:
"The author should be asking that of our congress, because they've been going rogue for a long time now.
The progressive stretching of the commerce clause is what is rogue. Under liberal interpretation, there is nothing government may not do."
The progressive stretching of the commerce clause is what is rogue. Under liberal interpretation, there is nothing government may not do."
By way of reply to this tendentious nonsense, I would like to quote from an article in the Los Angeles Times, titled "Signs of Supreme Court activism worry Reagan administration lawyers."
"If the court were to invalidate the healthcare law, "It would be more problematic than Bush v. Gore," (Reagan Solicitor General, and current Harvard Law professor Charles) Fried said in an interview, referring to the case that decided the 2000 presidential race. "It would be plainly at odds with precedent, and plainly in conflict with what several of the justices have said before."
Fried had confidently predicted the law would be easily upheld. He said he was taken aback by the tone of the arguments. "The vehemence they displayed was totally inappropriate. They seemed to adopt the tea party slogans," he said.
Pepperdine law professor Douglas W. Kmiec, another top Justice Department lawyer under Reagan, said he hoped the justices would "come to their senses" and uphold the law as a reasonable regulation of interstate commerce.
In November, Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a Reagan appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington and long a leader of the conservative legal movement, wrote an opinion upholding the healthcare law on the grounds that Congress has the power "to forge national solutions to national problems."
Fried had confidently predicted the law would be easily upheld. He said he was taken aback by the tone of the arguments. "The vehemence they displayed was totally inappropriate. They seemed to adopt the tea party slogans," he said.
Pepperdine law professor Douglas W. Kmiec, another top Justice Department lawyer under Reagan, said he hoped the justices would "come to their senses" and uphold the law as a reasonable regulation of interstate commerce.
In November, Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a Reagan appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington and long a leader of the conservative legal movement, wrote an opinion upholding the healthcare law on the grounds that Congress has the power "to forge national solutions to national problems."
It must be made clear that this is not an example of Conservatism gone wild- of Justices pushing an ideology too far. What we are seeing here is pure corruption- five Justices who side with the rich and powerful on every occasion, regardless of the merit of their position, who twist the law and common decency, in order to pay their corporate masters for having placed them on the court. What's more, at this point, their naked willingness to stoop to any depth of dishonesty in their arguments has given them a virtual stranglehold on government of the people. If this is not stopped, and stopped soon, it is the end of our American democracy, and the end of all rights except for those of the very rich.
Comments
When 26 states (and two more in separate lawsuits) argue that the constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce - which the Court has interpreted to include the regulation of local economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce - does not give the federal government the power to force people to buy stuff, maybe there’s a legitimate point of debate.
Is it not valid to ask where federal power ends, as it must under the Constitution’s grant of enumerated and therefore limited powers? What legal principle can courts apply to sanction economic mandates with respect to healthcare but not in other areas?
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/02/in-opposing-obamacare-we-were-serious-the-whole-time/
So tell us Green Eagle, where does federal power end?
I am not accusing you of being a fascist. I have no doubt that your are sincere in your desire for rainbows and unicorns for everyone, but cheering throngs of people like you who possess an childish and naive trust of government enable fascists.
What if public protest were declared a "national problem?"
Every other industrialized country in the world has government health care, and none of them are fascists, or as likely to end up as fascists as we are here if people like you take over. I think we can handle curing sick people without turning into a pack of Hitlers, as long as you people get out of the way.
So government forcing people to buy insurance from private companies is not fascism, it is unconstitutional, as I have already explained.
What is the limit of government? What does the commerce clause not cover?
Is there anything government may not do?
Hitler's naziism? Socialism stripped of the Soviet internationalism and dressed up with a German twist.
There is no more malignant lie on earth than the notion that the Nazis were left wing. I am not even going to pretend to discuss this with you. In the history of my blog, I have only banned two commenters, and one of them was for telling this same lie, which I will not tolerate here. For the time being, I am going to delete any comments of yours that do not show some degree of honesty.
Of course not, because you can't. Care to tackle the Mussolini issue?
How about telling us what you think the limit of government is?
Go ahead and close your world down even more by banning dissent. It will be one less lefty blog on my reading list.
Then, we'll get into Mussolini. Sorry, Silverfiddle, I know a lot about him too, so don't count on spreading that lie either.
The Nazis considered themselves right wing, were referred to as right wing by contemporary opponents and sympathizers and by neutral observers and have been always been acknowledged as right wing by reputable historians who study the era.
The Nazis were as socialist as the Chicago Bears are actual grizzlies.