Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Just how far has the Supreme Court shifted to the right? Well here are some charts to confirm your suspicions   (motherjones.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, supreme courts, McCain-Feingold, Chief Justice John Roberts, UCLA School of Law, majority opinion, Sonia Sotomayor, Chief Justice Warren Burger, Ruth Bader Ginsburg  
•       •       •

6418 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2012 at 12:00 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-06-26 12:13:48 PM  
3 votes:
Did anyone actually read Scalia's dissenting response? Seriously, the dude was spewing Fox News talking points. The really ironic part is he preaches at Obama that he's sullying the office of the President.
2012-06-26 11:27:38 AM  
3 votes:

RexTalionis: MrBallou: Zalan: Maybe it's time to start impeaching a few of these justices. They lost the air of impartiality long ago.

Is there any chance of this actually happening?

Nope.


I bet people before Nixon and Clinton got impeached thought that it wasn't possible for a president to get impeached either.

Thomas is one that a case for impeachment could easily be made. His wife works for the Tea Party, he hid her income from that on his financial documents, and he failed to recuse himself when hearing cases that the tea party has their fingers in.
2012-06-26 02:28:44 PM  
2 votes:

DancingElkCondor: Somebody should tell the author that the current SCOTUS yesterday just opened the floodgates for Illegal Aliens.

Last time I checked....the only ones who really want Amnesty are the Hispanic Racist groups and their White Guilt Lib sycophants....Even moderate libs are against Amnesty...and the latest SCOTUS decision

Heck, with some libs....unless SCOTUS legalizes Child Rape...they will always be labeled as "Right wing"


last time I checked the GOP was the more pro-rape party.
2012-06-26 12:51:47 PM  
2 votes:
Laughable at best. The only 2 swing voters on the court were appointed by Republicans. The left is the only party that votes party over the Constitution.
2012-06-26 12:30:20 PM  
2 votes:
At this point, it is beyond dispute that the Roberts Court exists to legitimize American fascism.
2012-06-26 12:29:03 PM  
2 votes:

zarberg: Did anyone actually read Scalia's dissenting response? Seriously, the dude was spewing Fox News talking points. The really ironic part is he preaches at Obama that he's sullying the office of the President.


At oral argument, Scalia revealed that he believed the "Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase" provisions made it into the PPACA--they did not. He is literally forming his legal analysis on the basis of Fox talking points instead of statutory text and legal briefs. It is conclusively proved Scalia is an ignoramus and partisan hack.
2012-06-26 12:19:03 PM  
2 votes:

Mentat: State's Rights, unless the states stand up to a corporation.
Strict Constructionist, unless the Constitution doesn't support your ideology.
Free Speech, but not Equal Speech.
The value of your opinion is proportional to the value of your wealth.

This is John Roberts' America.


This. People like Scalia are conservatives who believe in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution...until it bucks up against their own interests. Then they'll just make up any BS to justify what decision they've chosen to come to. The commerce clause applies when we're talking about regulating pot (Gonzales v. Raich), but not when it comes to hanguns (Lopez) or healthcare. Because f*ck you, that's why.
2012-06-26 10:55:05 AM  
2 votes:
State's Rights, unless the states stand up to a corporation.
Strict Constructionist, unless the Constitution doesn't support your ideology.
Free Speech, but not Equal Speech.
The value of your opinion is proportional to the value of your wealth.

This is John Roberts' America.
2012-06-26 09:57:31 AM  
2 votes:
Supreme Court justices serve "during good behavior," which means "for life" or until they choose to resign or retire, as long as they don't commit an impeachable offense (bad behavior).

The nine Supreme Court justices hold their offices "during good behavior" according to Article III, Section 1, of the US Constitution. This means that they may hold office for life; however they may be involuntarily removed from office by impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, the same as the President.

Article III, Section 1

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Only one US Supreme Court Justice has been impeached, but was acquitted of all charges, and that was Samuel Chase (1741 - 1811) for allegedly letting his politics affect the quality of his decisions.


Maybe it's time to start impeaching a few of these justices. They lost the air of impartiality long ago.
2012-06-26 06:45:35 PM  
1 vote:
Your supreme court sucks. Eff your bought off 'justices'. I'm getting sick of watching your populace be so damn stupid that they vote against their own interests.

If I can be deadly serious for a minute: it is not possible to vote republican without being extremely stupid or immoral.
2012-06-26 06:15:24 PM  
1 vote:
Disgusting.

So much for an enlightened 21st century.
2012-06-26 01:38:05 PM  
1 vote:

Mentat: The value of your opinion Your right to exist is proportional to the value of your wealth.


Clarified that FY
2012-06-26 01:19:05 PM  
1 vote:

Weaver95: that article was like fantasy football...but for law geeks instead of sports fans.


Yeah. I'm thinking it has a lot of subjective content.

How do you think a 1920s era Court would have ruled on issues of today?

They didn't give blacks or women equal rights. No way they would care about Arizona and immigration, or gay rights, or abortion rights, or limiting the power of certain branches. Hell, they wouldn't know what to do with the rise of regulation and executive power as it is today.

Though they might limit the interstate commerce clause more than today. And the right to take property by eminent domain.
2012-06-26 12:28:03 PM  
1 vote:

bugontherug: LucklessWonder: MilesTeg: 1. Conservative: Upholding the Constitution as written
2. Liberal: Using subjective personal beliefs to interpret the Constitution to fit ideology

#1 is the way judges are supposed to act.

The only reason there is talk about "liberal or conservative" judges is because "liberals" by their actions have defiled the role of Supreme Court Justice.

6/10

That's generous. I say 4/10.


I should have gone 5/9 in true SCOTUS style
2012-06-26 12:13:06 PM  
1 vote:
New York times just had an article stating the Roberts.court has less reversals of precedent than the last few courts. Damn right wing newspaper.

It is quite amazing how liberals never actually argue against the legal analysis of the court, its just blind angry yelling.
2012-06-26 12:08:10 PM  
1 vote:
1. Conservative: Upholding the Constitution as written
2. Liberal: Using subjective personal beliefs to interpret the Constitution to fit ideology

#1 is the way judges are supposed to act.

The only reason there is talk about "liberal or conservative" judges is because "liberals" by their actions have defiled the role of Supreme Court Justice.
2012-06-26 11:42:51 AM  
1 vote:

RexTalionis: Zalan: I bet people before Nixon and Clinton got impeached thought that it wasn't possible for a president to get impeached either.

Nope. Andrew Jackson was impeached prior to either - he was acquitted by one vote. And Nixon was never impeached - he resigned.


Andrew Johnson. Andrew Jackson would have shot the Chief Justice if he had tried anything.
2012-06-26 10:39:50 AM  
1 vote:

RexTalionis: MrBallou: Zalan: Maybe it's time to start impeaching a few of these justices. They lost the air of impartiality long ago.

Is there any chance of this actually happening?

Nope.


I dunno, give the GOP a big enough majority and I bet they'd impeach every justice that didn't promise to bow to every whim of CATO and the Koch brothers.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report