Thom Hartmann: Who told the Supreme Court they could overturn laws?

[thomhartmann]

Run time: 08:43 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNGnVDvFiRk   Posted on YouTube: October 04, 2011 By YouTube Member: TheBigPictureRT Views on YouTube: 133   Posted on DU: October 04, 2011 By DU Member: thomhartmann Views on DU: 1734

 
Clark Neily, Institute for Justice vs. Thom Hartmann. The essential question during this Supreme Court session will be - just what kind of court does Justice John Roberts preside over? Is it be a court that respects legal precedent - or a court that engages in judicial activism? During his confirmation hearing - Roberts talked about the important of precedents. Yet - in the Citizens United decision last year - the Roberts court overturned a century of election law in America to affirm that money is a form of free speech and declare that corporations both domestic and foreign can spend unlimited amounts of their corporate treasure chests to influence American elections. So with a slew of politically charged cases on the agenda this year - just how dangerous could the Roberts' Court judicial activism be to this nation? And - is it about time to reform how the high court does business? Plus - Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the right to strike down laws passed by Congress and signed by the President - Judicial Review? Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress and the President must do what SCOTUS says?

The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann on RT TV & FSTV "live" 9pm and 11pm check www.thomhartmann.com/tv for local listings

[libinnyandia]

1. The Roberts Court

Every time I see Roberts or Alito I remember how destructive Ralph Nader"s presidential campaign was. I wonder who would have been Gore's choices. I am pretty sure the Citizens United decision would have been different and I worry about the Court's decision on health care. We must be united against the Republicans or within the next few years we could have a 6-3 right wing court, even worse than the one we have now.

[democracy1st]

2. why blame Nader the dems are taking corp money also,right now we're not doing enough

to elect more liberal politicians

[libinnyandia]

3. electing liberal candidates

We won't elect more liberal candidates if divide our votes. It is at least slightly better to elect imperfect candidates and the work to influence them than to enable the election of completely right wing candidates. If we stay at home in 2012 like so many did in 2010, then God help us.

[defendandprotect]

10. In 2010 voters sent a message of dissatisfaction with Obama ... his approval rating is now -40%...

Democrats are not going to vote for any to the right of Obama -- they are looking

for liberals to vote for --

If the party doesn't want voters to stay home in 2012 then it's time to get serious

about moving the party and Obama to the left --

Given Obama's numbers -- and THIRD WAY's plans to continue to "ignore the base" --

I'd say the situation calls for challengers to Obama --


Sen. Bernie Sanders could run on a Dem ticket -- but why not Grayson --

why not any other democrat who isn't pre-bribed and pre-owned by corporations?

[defendandprotect]

5. Everytime I think of 2000 I understand the Supremes put W in the White House .....

had nothing to do with Nader or any other third party which took tens of thousands

of votes -- or even Buchanan -- or even 300,000 "Democrats" in Florida who voted for W --

vs the 537 alleged "WIN" by W --

which actually is now an affirmed WIN by Gore according to the recount!


Who would have been Gore's choices -- ? Remember Gore gave us Liebermann?

How would that have worked for you had something happened to Gore?

Gore also gave the "nod" to Clinton to end 60 years of Welfare Guarantees --

Clinton and Gore were co-founders of the DLC -- funded by the Koch Bros!

Along with the criminal Pfizer and Chevron corporations -- !


I worry about Obama's decisions on health care -- he ignored the public will in order to

make back room deals with Big Pharma and the private H/C industry in order to "preserve

the private H/C industry" as Koch Bros. DLC Rahm Emmanuel "crowed" about it!!

74% of the public -- 83% of Catholics -- wanted government-run health care --

How much more of a will of the people could you ask for?


Voting for the "lesser evil" will only do what's it's already done over deacades and that's

move the party and Congress even further to the right --

[libinnyandia]

7. No difference between parties?

In looking back over the past 40 years I would say that every time the Republicans have been in power, the working class has been hurt by Republican policies. If we are divided because a Democrat isn't quite perfect then the much more imperfect Republicans could end up with majorities that will destroy all progressives have worked for the past 80 years. The electorate is ignorant on so many issues and will vote for people who don't have their interests at heart. A knowledgeble electorate in Paul Ryan's district in Wisconsin wouldn't vote for him. When great majorities of Americans claim to believe in progressive policies on taxation and social security and Medicare and then vote for Republicans whose main purpose in life is to destroy them.

[defendandprotect]

9. How much difference between parties? Obama put Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid on the table ...?

What did that tell you other than that the differences are fading fast -- !!

"Imperfect" --- surprised that's out of moth balls again --


The electorate is ignorant on so many issues and will vote for people who don't have their interests at heart.

Really -- That's amazing since they voted for Obama -- did they know what they were doing,

or not? From what I've seen, indeed, Obama didn't have their "best interests at heart" -- !!


And, I'd doubt that anyone is voting for Republicans -- and it will remain a question as long

as we have computer voting -- which in fact came in during the late 1960's! I'd question

every election back to Nixon/Humphrey.


80% of the public want an end to the wars -- Obama/Dems are ignoring them

74% -- 83% of Catholics -- want government-run health care -- Obama/Dems ignored them --

Jonathan Cowan -- THIRD WAY -- which now controls the Dem Party says that their stance is

that "the base should be ignored."

THIRD WAY equates populist discussion and debate as the equal to Karl Rove propaganda of

extremism -- according to Cowan.


"Congress is controlled by the oil and coal industries" -- Al Gore/Rolling Stone


And I might also mention we have a Goebbels' style corporate-press --



What we need are two strong anti-war candidates to challenge Obama --

Two candidates who are serious supporters of MEDICARE FOR ALL ---

Those two issues would start to put America back on her feet --

Stop the bankrupting of the Treasury --

and help suffering citizens -- !!

[libinnyandia]

11. All hope is lost

We might as well give up. The Republicans have the money and we're divided. When they're done our system will be destroy Romney in the White House,McConnel Senate Majority Leader, Boehner Speaker of The House and 6 right wingers on the Court. And the electorate will remain clueless.

[defendandprotect]

12. It is ... ?

As desperate as the situation is with Global Warming, people will continue to try --

especially in regard to getting the nuclear reactors closed down all over the US.

That may make the difference between "a whimper or a bang" -- !!


The money issue isn't a one sided coin --

This isn't only about corporations BUYING our government --

It's also about dishonest candidates, elected officials SELLING THEMSELVES and our

GOVERNMENT to corporations --

The role played by politicians is as important as the role played by elite/corporatists --


As for Obama he's at minus 40% approval --

That cries out for a challenger -- someone who actually supports ending these wars and

stopping the bankrupting of our Treasury --

Someone who actually supports and understands the desperate need for MEDICARE FOR ALL --


And the electorate will remain clueless.


On the contrary -- the electorate gave Obama a mandate --

The electorate is occupying Wall Street --

The electorate wants an end to the wars -- and universal health care --

We need Obama and Dems to stop ignoring the will of the people --

[defendandprotect]

4. Thanks for the TEXT -- it's helpful ... and think THIS is important ... I've heard Hartmannn....

Talk about this before and think he's right -- and more Americans should be thinking

about it and challenging it --

Plus - Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the right to strike down laws passed by Congress and signed by the President - Judicial Review? Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress and the President must do what SCOTUS says?

And, I'm still wondering how in the hell they didn't get called on 2000 --

[gardentoad]

6. I'd like to see more liberal/ progressive people run.

I admit I didn't vote in 2010 because here in Indiana, it was a choice between a Republican and a Democrat that acts like a Republican. Our last Democrat senator was Evan Bayh. I like Lugar better because at least he was true to his word. What's the point of electing a representative that is called a Democrat but doesn't stand for Democrat values? It just proves the notion that they are all alike.

[kelly1mm]

8. See Marbury v. Madison for the SC giving itselt the right to overturn laws. nt

[defendandprotect]

13. Thanks -- looks like another case of the court stealing powers --

it's not entitled to ---


(1803) First decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review. In 1801 newly elected Pres. Thomas Jefferson ordered Secretary of State James Madison to withhold from William Marbury the commission of his appointment by former Pres. John Adams as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury then requested that the Supreme Court compel Madison to deliver his commission. In denying his request, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the section of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789 that authorized the Court to issue such a writ was unconstitutional and thus invalid. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Court, declared that the Constitution must always take precedence in any conflict between it and a law passed by Congress.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/marbury-v-madison#ixzz1Zrx03ho7

[Kurovski]

14. K&R. (nt)