Video & Multimedia

thomhartmann

(3,996 posts)

75. This wikipedia entry is heavily biased in favor of judicial review

Sat Mar 31, 2012, 12:06 PM

Mar 2012

A few years back, I debated a conservative at a think tank here in DC - there was a room full of cubicles, and virtually screen was editing a wikipedia page...

This entry does NOT include Hamilton's criticism of judicial review in Federalist 78 - the very one it quotes where he also supports it. And Hamilton was the Federalist in the bunch - the antifederalists (turned in 1798 by Thomas Jefferson into the Democratic Republican Party, and today known as the Democratic Party) opposed the idea by and large. Similarly, Jefferson's extensive writings against JR are not quoted, although one of his weaker ones is.

As I said earlier, wikipedia is not a reliable source - it's constantly being edited by right-wing think tanks here in DC, and professional right-wingers "working from home."

That said, this isn't entirely a right-left issue. Check out Newt on it:

Thom

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Thom Hartmann: Democratic Underground Readers are Wrong on SCOTUS [View all] thomhartmann Mar 2012 OP

LOL. K&R, was just about to post this ProfessorPlum Mar 2012 #1

Not impossible CAPHAVOC Mar 2012 #60

Thanks, Thom izquierdista Mar 2012 #2

Thom need's a Constellation named After Him happerbolic Mar 2012 #61

The SC thumbs their noses at this bjobotts Apr 2012 #82

The Court effectively asserted that it had the right to review the constitutionality of a law... PoliticAverse Mar 2012 #3

Thanks, Averse! elleng Mar 2012 #30

Thanks! wxgeek7 Mar 2012 #4

updated/edited, by the people and... magic59 Mar 2012 #19

True wxgeek7 Mar 2012 #22

Sorry... that's simply wrong. FBaggins Mar 2012 #5

The Supreme Court acts as if they were kings meow2u3 Mar 2012 #6

This is the same kind of court that attcked FDR. McCamy Taylor Mar 2012 #7

And it decided Brown TomClash Mar 2012 #13

So Congress is bought and sold (agreed). And so is the SCOTUS. Where does that leave us? n/t truth2power Mar 2012 #72

I'm guessing, as Thom's book title says, it leaves us Screwed. classof56 Mar 2012 #74

Unfortunately, yes. I'm feeling quite depressed lately about the prospects of truth2power Mar 2012 #78

+1 freshwest Mar 2012 #8

That is why I always listen when you talk zeemike Mar 2012 #9

Yup. Folks just don't know about "Marbury v. Madison" TahitiNut Mar 2012 #10

Or maybe you should blame those who WERE taught it but chose not to study it and master it. RBInMaine Mar 2012 #12

+1 Alcibiades Mar 2012 #23

I was never the sharpest knife in the history drawer ... TahitiNut Mar 2012 #44

It is true that they placed the legislative branch in Article One to emphasize their especially RBInMaine Mar 2012 #11

You might find otherwise, by READING the Constitution Fearless Mar 2012 #14

The fact that one person on the SCOTUS, who was not voted into office, mzmolly Mar 2012 #16

The Founders really didn't care about what the masses thought. Fearless Mar 2012 #17

I agree that some of the founders mzmolly Mar 2012 #18

Undoubtedly. n/t Fearless Mar 2012 #20

Supreme Court members are voted into office by your representatives. Similar... PoliticAverse Mar 2012 #21

Appointed by the president and confirmed Alcibiades Mar 2012 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author mzmolly Mar 2012 #34

Voted - is a strong word considering there is no election/competition. mzmolly Mar 2012 #35

What happens when the Congress passes unconstitutional law? Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #43

What generally happens, is the justices disagree on what constitutes a violation, mzmolly Mar 2012 #46

So the courts do serve as arbiters of the constitutionality of laws. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #48

They have. The question is mzmolly Mar 2012 #53

I think so. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #56

History demonstrates that they haven't always checked or balanced mzmolly Mar 2012 #58

it's a pendulum. Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #73

Thanks, Fearless. elleng Mar 2012 #32

I think it would come better from your mouth... Fearless Mar 2012 #41

Will do, Fearless, but not until I return home, Tuesday evening, I think. elleng Mar 2012 #64

Seems pretty quiet... I've been working a lot myself and haven't had much time online lately though. Fearless Mar 2012 #66

I haven't even read news; darn hotel internet VERY sketchy, elleng Mar 2012 #68

Its that interpretation d_legendary1 Mar 2012 #50

Actually it isn't. Fearless Mar 2012 #65

Try telling that to the Super PACS d_legendary1 Apr 2012 #84

Sounds to me like they set a new precident with Citizens United instead. Fearless Apr 2012 #85

Ha! That'll school ya! SemperEadem Mar 2012 #15

He's a christian apologist, I have no use for him. MNBrewer Mar 2012 #24

Marbury was a power grab Alcibiades Mar 2012 #26

Very illuminating. K & R snagglepuss Mar 2012 #27

There are very few exceptions that congress has made, such as the anti-injunction act. joshcryer Mar 2012 #28

I been wrong many times before, but... Speck Tater Mar 2012 #29

That's pretty cool. Skinner Mar 2012 #40

Congrats. mzmolly Mar 2012 #47

So is Thom saying shawn703 Mar 2012 #31

Thom I love you and I know so many disagree with you. Cleita Mar 2012 #33

Awesome. Guess i stand corrected. Lars77 Mar 2012 #36

BRAVO, THOM, RIGHT ON drynberg Mar 2012 #37

Memo to all women who like to control their own bodies TomClash Mar 2012 #38

You're suggesting only 9 wise men can "save women" thomhartmann Mar 2012 #45

I think it is very cool of you to take the time to redress this silliness. n/t Egalitarian Thug Mar 2012 #49

+1. Thanks, Thom. stevedeshazer Mar 2012 #59

So women's rights should be beholden to Congress and not the Constitution. joshcryer Mar 2012 #67

If the K Street gang The Wizard Mar 2012 #39

RT is the best news media in the U.S. just1voice Mar 2012 #42

The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to elect Presidents either. rug Mar 2012 #51

Judicial power extends to cases arising under the Constitution. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #52

You're right - but that doesn't give them the power to strike down laws thomhartmann Mar 2012 #55

But that argument ultimately gives the reason they can strike down laws... PoliticAverse Mar 2012 #70

"enforce"? thomhartmann Mar 2012 #77

Thom makes you want to be better informed... MrMickeysMom Mar 2012 #54

Article 6, Section and Implied Powers for Judicial Review. LBJ Liberal Mar 2012 #57

So what about nullification and succession? Dokkie Mar 2012 #62

I am not very impressed at all by this clip rapmanej Mar 2012 #63

This thread is a must read, i wish i could rec it a thousand times! chknltl Mar 2012 #69

For more background on the issue of 'Judical Review'... PoliticAverse Mar 2012 #71

This wikipedia entry is heavily biased in favor of judicial review thomhartmann Mar 2012 #75

Read the Dean of the Stanford Law School on judicial review thomhartmann Mar 2012 #76

Is This Because There's a Law Hartmann Likes On the Road Mar 2012 #79

thank you for taking time out if your busy day to respond blondie58 Mar 2012 #80

does or does not the SCOTUS have THIS veto power..... chknltl Mar 2012 #81

Sorry, but the argument presumes that anyone in power cares about the Constituion rwsanders Apr 2012 #83