Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Thom Hartmann spanked a couple of DU'ers today on his show - [View all]pa28
(6,145 posts)24. A little disappointed Thom would use DU in that way.
Hartmann is usually fantastic IMO and when Bernie Sanders is a guest you really know that reason and intelligence has entered the building.
I just don't get why he would move a topic to his show, name names and mock responses to his OP while leaving no chance to answer back. Why not respond directly on the topic itself rather than gathering material as fodder for the show?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
136 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Probably because he didn't post it. I'll bet that staffers/interns handle that kind of thing n/t
RZM
Mar 2012
#51
Overall, I loved the clip, great history lessson and showed the problem: Congress.
freshwest
Mar 2012
#57
No, but I can imagine the scenario where SCOTUS rules in favor of segregation, because it did, 7-1
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#72
Sure. But progress goes one way, you can't expect, seriously, that decision to be reversed.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#74
The state governments make laws that pertain exclusively to states. Congress makes federal law.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#78
He said that the Constitution doesn't give the SC the power to declare laws unconstitutional.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#80
The court only applied it for the first time, to show that the courts didn't have that power...
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#81
It does not explicitly give sc the right to declare laws unconstitutional. it gives it jurisdiction.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#82
There is no explicit grant of power to strike down laws made by congress. Or states.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#84
It gives them jurisdiction to adjudicate. It doesn't explicitly give them to power to strike down
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#88
I am saying that the constitution does not state that EXPLICITLY. Which you claimed it did.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#91
It says the "judicial power" shall extend to all cases. But what is the judicial power?
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#93
So you actually do believe that if a case comes before them they have no right to judge against it.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#94
No. I believe that the constitution does not EXPLICITLY grant judicial review to the supreme court.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#95
I said aligned, his philosophy among others went on to be the basis for the civil war.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#131
I hadn't commented on the thread because I didn't question that SCOTUS was the final arbiter.
freshwest
Mar 2012
#58
Sid I agree with you strongly in this case. Poor form indeed, and cowardly as well.
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2012
#116
Does he ever respond or are his posts nothing more than an advertisment for his show?
FSogol
Mar 2012
#127
LOL! What's this baloney about him being protected from criticism somehow? That's not true.
Poll_Blind
Mar 2012
#16
Singling a DUer by name was verboten on DU2, under the 'discuss ideas and not people' rule.
freshwest
Mar 2012
#60
The only time I have seen that happen is when people were being disgusting toward
ScreamingMeemie
Mar 2012
#25
Did Thom Hartmann make fun of DUers the way DUers have childishly made fun of people like
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#86
The David Swanson affair. Epic flamefest. Set precedent for "calling out" other DUers.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#36
That was the old DU. There are now no mods to delete posts. Now things are handled by jury vote.
stevenleser
Mar 2012
#47
in the meantime, i would point out 'as to Law and Fact' in the judiciary const. section:
alp227
Mar 2012
#15
Indeed, Doe v. Bolton explicitly overturns law that was deemed unconstitutional.
joshcryer
Mar 2012
#35
Gee, I guess that means that only lawyers are capable of understanding the Constitution.
Zorra
Mar 2012
#117
I'm pretty sure James Madison was capable of understanding the Constitution
DefenseLawyer
Mar 2012
#132
Wouldn't go that far as to suggest that. Don't know who pays him, anyway. He has his own business...
freshwest
Mar 2012
#63
Well, count me out. He's one of the best progressive voices on the air. Go ahead and boycott
sabrina 1
Mar 2012
#87
Better to deal with his point. He's right in detail, if wrong in principle.
lumberjack_jeff
Mar 2012
#52
Gosh. And all this time, I thought we were supposed to have a government of the people, by
Zorra
Mar 2012
#67
In that world, no one has rights that the majority are obliged to respect.
lumberjack_jeff
Mar 2012
#111
The bill of rights is more often used to defend capital from labor than the reverse.
HiPointDem
Mar 2012
#89
I'd agreee, except that the discussion was not on DU. He argued with people by name
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2012
#119
what the hell are you talking about? how about some background on what this thread is regarding???
themaguffin
Mar 2012
#107
So what if he called a couple of DU'ers on the air. It's a public message board.
madinmaryland
Mar 2012
#113