HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Roberts/Scalia Suprem...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:53 PM

The Roberts/Scalia Supreme Court would vote 5-4 to re-institute slavery if they could....

the things they are saying today are fascist scary.

32 replies, 1714 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Roberts/Scalia Supreme Court would vote 5-4 to re-institute slavery if they could.... (Original post)
TeamPooka Feb 2013 OP
still_one Feb 2013 #1
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #4
spanone Feb 2013 #14
treestar Feb 2013 #21
still_one Feb 2013 #15
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #18
Scootaloo Feb 2013 #2
graham4anything Feb 2013 #3
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #5
graham4anything Feb 2013 #9
CTyankee Feb 2013 #17
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #19
graham4anything Feb 2013 #20
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #24
graham4anything Feb 2013 #26
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #29
graham4anything Feb 2013 #30
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #31
graham4anything Feb 2013 #32
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #6
cali Feb 2013 #7
Octafish Feb 2013 #8
TeamPooka Feb 2013 #10
Octafish Feb 2013 #12
kiranon Feb 2013 #11
graham4anything Feb 2013 #13
Octafish Feb 2013 #16
Coyotl Feb 2013 #22
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #23
ananda Feb 2013 #25
JustAnotherGen Feb 2013 #27
CalFresh Feb 2013 #28

Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:54 PM

1. I believe Kennedy will vote to continue the voting act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:08 PM

4. I would not be so sure

given the hostile questions:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: This reverse engineering that you seem so proud of, it seems to me that that obscures the -- the real purpose of -- of the statute. And if Congress is going to single out separate States by name, it should do it by name. If not, it should use criteria that are relevant to the existing -- and Congress just didn't have the time or the energy to do this; it just reenacted it.

GENERAL VERRILLI: I think the -- the formula was -- was rational and effective in 1965. The Court upheld it then, it upheld it three more times after that.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, the Marshall Plan was very good, too, the Morale Act, the Northwest Ordinance, but times change.


And later...

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But if -- if Alabama wants to have monuments to the heros of the Civil Rights Movement, if it wants to acknowledge the wrongs of its past, is it better off doing that if it's an own independent sovereign or if it's under the trusteeship of the United States Government?


Kennedy is NOT a reliable vote on race issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:14 PM

14. 'times change' i'll remember that one when the 'gun control' comes before the scotus

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:10 PM

21. good one!

Indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:22 PM

15. Perhaps, but the questions do not always indicate which way they lean. Except for scala and Thomas

Sometimes they just want to play devils advocate to understand justification from one side or another

So I am still betting on Kennedy doing the right thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:45 PM

18. I REALLY, REALLY hope you are right

the constant stream of bad news is really beginning to wear on me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:04 PM

3. founders reminds me of Thomas Jefferson

 

which is scary in that Jefferson said all are created equal yet only meant all who looked like him

didn't mean women or blacks or slaves or any other minority

I think though the court will vote to uphold 6 to 3.

If Kennedy rules to uphold, then Roberts will go along with him to avoid a 5 to 4.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:09 PM

5. Kennedy's vote is not looking good

see post #4.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:21 PM

9. the second statement is ambiguous

 

after the health care debate, it looked very bad
but then Roberts surprised.
Roberts seems to care deeply for his legacy might surprise here.

I am not sure what the second statement Kennedy said is going for.
Because it can be taken two ways.

Alot of times their responses do not mean they vote that way, but want to talk it out.

Also, court decisions can be redone with the next court and the day is coming quick that
the current 5 of the 9 won't be on the court.

I really don't think at this junction, when the court is soon going to be 5 to 4 the other way,
that they will overturn something so major

It's like reading tea leaves.
And I also think that if the law is overturned, like everything else, it will backfire major against the republicans in 2014 and especially 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:23 PM

17. I want to believe the legacy thing will "get" Kennedy...

please god...it is all that stands in the way for this racist court to do its ultimate damage...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:59 PM

19. Do you know something I don't

Also, court decisions can be redone with the next court and the day is coming quick that the current 5 of the 9 won't be on the court.


Justices have been serving well into their 80's. John Paul Stevens served until he was 90.

Since the Justices get the best health care our tax dollars can buy, and since conservatives don't retire, I would say we have 15 more years of Scalia and Kennedy, another 20 years of Thomas, 25 years of Alito, and 35 years of Roberts.

The amount of damage they will do between now and the next election is staggering, never mind the next three decades. Gutting the VRA will allow them to rig election laws so as to solidify the vote for whites only (and corporations) Once that is done, liberals don't have a prayer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #19)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:08 PM

20. The Pope just retired, and he is akin to Scalia on the Political chart

 

so conservatives do retire.

Unless you can read tea leaves, there is nothing to indicate by statements or questions how the case will be (if it is) decided.

Many times the outcome is different than the hard questioning.
So unless there is inside info, it would be foolish to guess negatively at this point.

Same thing applied during the court looking into the health care acts.

And Roberts confounded the "experts" there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:45 AM

24. I am sure that if we could find

something on Scalia like what someone found on the Pope, he would retire as well. Do you have any pictures of Scalia with small boys or wearing Klan robes?

Also, Supreme Court justices answer to NO ONE. While ostensibly true of the Pope, he did have lots of people scheming to undermine him all the time. Who knows what is in the report which he commissioned in the interest of transparency, but now refuses to divulge to anyone but his successor.

Also, the Pope actually does work. He runs an organization spanning the globe with a billion members. Justices sit on their asses for six months out of the year dreaming up new ways to dismantle democracy and hand the country over to the members of the Dow Jones Industrial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 09:01 AM

26. Thurgood Marshall is NOT Clarence Thomas. Do NOT lump them together.

 

We NEED Supreme Court justices.

Might not like some of them, but we need them.

They are the last line of defense and of course, if one doesn't like the 5 bad ones,
well, why in hell did those people vote for Ralph Nader in 2000 or listen to his freakin' lies he spewed a million times.

Because, well, it goes without saying GORE AND BUSH WOULD NOT HAVE NAMED THE SAME SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

therefore it is behovent on everyone to 100% back the continuation of the Presidency of Barack Obama and not ship it back to the Bush family ala Jeb in 2016.

Because, well, the two parties are NOT the same.

Tell it to Thurgood Marshall that he is the same as Clarence Thomas.
etc.
NO he is,they are NOT one and the same.

and NO, Elena Kagen, Sonia Sotomayer, Steven Bryer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg are NOT
the same as the five bad ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:52 AM

29. Uh, did you reply to the correct post?

Because I didn't mention Thurgood Marshall at all.

Might not like some of them, but we need them.

We need Justices who are not wholly-owned subsidiaries of corporate America or Kloset Klansmen (Looking at you Fat Tony!).

They are the last line of defense and of course, if one doesn't like the 5 bad ones, well, why in hell did those people vote for Ralph Nader in 2000 or listen to his freakin' lies he spewed a million times.

Uh, I voted for Gore. Also, despite Nader, Gore actually WON the election. Despite that reality, five Supreme Court Justices decided to thwart democracy and appoint George Bush.

therefore it is behovent on everyone to 100% back the continuation of the Presidency of Barack Obama and not ship it back to the Bush family ala Jeb in 2016.

1) I'll back Obama when he acts in the best interest of justice and democracy. Regardless, he IS the president until 2016. That said, the justices who are most likely to retire are the moderates (we have had no true liberal justices since Thurgood Marshall left the court.), not the conservative radicals.

2) Obama has a snowball's chance in Hell of appointing any justices with this senate. Since Harry Reid (that great Vichy Democrat collaborator) refused to reform the filibuster rules, we have ZERO chance of getting any kind of justice on the court who will not be to the right of the justice he/she replaces.

3) With the coming destruction of the VRA, the GOP will be able to alter the voting laws in the Confederate states, many western states, and even a few Northern states to guarantee the election will go to their guy, so I don't really think we will get much of a say who the next president is.

NO, Elena Kagen, Sonia Sotomayer, Steven Bryer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg are NOT the same as the five bad ones.

True, but they damn sure are not liberals in the true sense of the word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:10 PM

30. You lumped ALL the justices as one

 

therefore if one correlates that out, Clarence Thomas in your correlation was Thurgood Marshall (as Thomas directly replaced Thurgood)

your words
Justices sit on their asses for six months out of the year dreaming up new ways to dismantle democracy and hand the country over to the members of the Dow Jones Industrial

If you meant only certain justices, then you should have mentioned those.
But you said Justices without specification of anyone different.

and TRUE liberals are President Obama and Elena Kagen and everyone else related to the Obama administration.

I believe you are thinking of radicals or extremists on either side.

But President Obama and Elena Kagen are as big liberals as FDR and JVL and LBJ.

and if one didn't like the Bush's or Reagan's choices, then one shouldn't have NOT voted for Al Gore, John Kerry or Jimmy Carter.

It is that simple.

SCOTUS alone proves Ralph Nader was full of sheet.

Winners only win when they are seated.

Too bad people didn't think of that in 1980 when they sold Jimmy Carter who could easily have won, down the river.

Actions = Consequences.
Thomas, Scalia, Bork, Alito, Thomas, O'Connor, Miers are all direct consequences of the actions.

Without Scalia and Thomas in the first place, 2000 would have been decided after the first
of the two rulings. To go back to Florida and decide it in state Supeme Court of Florida.

(most forget there were 2 rulings the 12/12/2000 made.)

NH was though in Nov. long before it was known who did or didn't win Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:29 PM

31. It was clear in context

I was replying to your comment further up thread:

Also, court decisions can be redone with the next court and the day is coming quick that the current 5 of the 9 won't be on the court.

As there are only 5 specific justices we are concerned about, those were the justices I addressed in my remarks. Since you had singled out those justices, and not by name, I would have thought my context was clear. But, for the record, I was referring to Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy when I remarked:

"Justices sit on their asses for six months out of the year dreaming up new ways to dismantle democracy and hand the country over to the members of the Dow Jones Industrial ."

and TRUE liberals are President Obama and Elena Kagen and everyone else related to the Obama administration.

I am sorry, but there we are going to have to disagree. No TRUE liberal would condone murder by drone, assassination of American citizens without due process of law. No TRUE liberal would refuse to prosecute war crimes. No TRUE liberal would ever excuse illegal spying by corporations at the behest of illegal government orders. No TRUE liberal would treat the Occupy movement the way Obama's Justice Department did, colluding with local police to spy on, infiltrate, abuse, and vilify peaceful protestors. No TRUE liberal would ever put Medicare/Social Security cuts on the table. No TRUE liberal would deport more undocumented immigrants than George Bush. No TRUE liberal would escalate the war in Afghanistan with a ridiculous, pointless, and murderous "surge". I could go on with about a half-dozen more examples, but that is sufficient for a start.

Obama is not a socialist, or a communist, or even a liberal. He is a center-Right, pro-business politician who has repeatedly caved to extremist right-wing demands.

Actions = Consequences.

Thomas, Scalia, Bork, Alito, Thomas, O'Connor, Miers are all direct consequences of the actions.


Huh? Bork and Miers never served on the court. And if the Democrats (I am looking at you Joe Lieberman) had treated Alito and Roberts the way they handled Bork, we wouldn't have either of those two on the court. I might add that Thomas should have been filibustered as well back in '92, but again, the Dems have no spine.

But President Obama and Elena Kagen are as big liberals as FDR and JVL and LBJ.

Simply and demonstrably not true. Obama has turned his back on FDR's fiscal policies, instead he embraces the austerity lie, and says he is willing to cut government spending when every liberal economist on the planet says that is the WORST thing we could possible do. Obama has also turned his back on LBJ's "Great Society", embracing cuts in welfare as "necessary". And who is JVL?

NH was though in Nov. long before it was known who did or didn't win Florida.

I have no idea how New Hampshire figures into the 2000 election, as Florida was the deciding factor electorally speaking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:33 PM

32. We will disagree

 

Gore winning NH equaled 270

that is the only # that is relevant

NH 4 electoral votes gave Gore 270.
you do the math and how many voters did not vote and those that voted 3rd party for Nader and other wasted votes.

Again, before talking about 2000 election if you are unfamiliar with NH, google or wiki
and it clearly shows.

Gore would have won over 290 with Florida, but had over 270 with NH and 270 was all that was needed.

And your defniition of liberal is not mine or the majority of Americans.
Obama is to the left of JFK and RFK.

JVL=John V. Lindsay. Greatest liberal and populist ever.
Nobody did it better.
Of course, he was villified (much like Jim Florio decades later in NJ)
and of course in 2013 nobody can do anymore like either Lindsay or Florio, two of the best.

In context- JVL got MORE votes in primaries in 1972 than did George McGovern in the races the two both ran in. McGovern was the nominee but got crushed in the general.

Had LBJ been nominated in 1968, Nixon Reagan Ford Bush Bush and Jeb would be mere afterth
oughts in American history.

And Bork led to someone else as did Miers.
A party can NOT stop SCOTUS each time. It normally is one per customer then the next one gets in.
Though if Obama gets an opening prior to 2014 elections, it is going to be nearly impossible to get anyone through.

I love Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayer. I would love either as Chief Justice.
I eagerly await Barack Obama to be nominated to court by President Clinton in 2018.
(President Taft was the only president to later be a justice.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:12 PM

6. I'm afraid you're right. Really right-wing out there - and these are the guys a certain small

segment of our happy discussion forum admires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:15 PM

7. I doubt it, but don't let that stop the hyperbole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:17 PM

8. Gee. Wasn't it just the other day when so many DUers lauded John Roberts for upholding the ACA?

He did that to support progress and all that stuff, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:24 PM

10. he did that to support insurance companies as he always backs the corporation from behind the bench.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:11 PM

12. Crime pays. He helped out during Florida Election Theft 2000, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 05:32 PM

11. Justice Scalia's racist comments may result in CJ Roberts siding with the liberals.

Even he may be frightened by the nature of J.Scalia's comments and what it means for public support for the court and its decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:11 PM

13. If it goes back to the congress to decide

 

Who decides?
House?
Senate?
Both?

and what happens in the in between period (I think nothing, it remains on the books til redecided.)

I would suggest that if reexamined
All states that fly the dixie flag in great numbers should have restrictions
Same with states that think Davis and Lee are honorable and not the traitors that they were

So in essence, maybe MORE states need to be added if re-looked at, not less.
Seems these days more states are racist than in the past.

imho

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:29 PM

16. C'mon! That's absurd.

Everyone knows it's cheaper for the Ownership Class to pay minimum wage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:13 PM

22. At times like this I want to revisit Bush stealing the Presidency, and every judicial appt since

not to mention all the laws he signed giving away the treasury and America's future to his rich buddies!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:34 PM

23. No they wouldn't. Slavery is too expensive and takes too much effort

Having the serfs eagerly line up to slave away for a few pennies, hoping to hang on another day. Maybe find an overpriced day rental you might also own and eat a meager meal from vendors you may get a piece of too.

Slavery is old school stuff and messy. Buy the slave, house them, feed them, you have to keep up with them. Why bother? Why go to the expense? The whip of the next desperate serf ready to grab that spot and the pennies for shelter and food is many times more effective than any physical one and if it isn't then next one up.

Plus, we have prisoners for that niche. That is where you have to watch them on slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:57 AM

25. My question.

Where are the visible protests, demonstrations, marches, Black people?

Why aren't there a million people in Washington staging a sit-in until the court does the right thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 09:19 AM

27. My response to them? I'm Not Giving Up My Seat Sir

http://www.mynextfortyyears.com/im-not-giving-up-my-seat-sir/

Hereís the thing, Iíll give up my seat when you and the party from hell that put you into YOUR seats give up the day to day hatred and bigotry for Ďmy kindí of people. When you do the right thing, and not the thing that makes you Popular in Conservative Circles I am willingly move to the back of the bus. When you donít use the gavel as a tool to whip (punish) me for having the audacity to shatter the illusions your party (yes this SCOTUS is Partisan) has put out there about ímy kindí to garner votes, put people in office, and then gerrymander to ensure those people stay in office at least until 2020 Iíll fetch and step and say, ďYessuh!Ē Finally, when you give up your hard ons for judicial activism, I might even fan you as you sit eating your dinner in some Southern big house somewhere. I promise wonít spit or pee in your sweet tea.

So you all go right ahead and turn the clock back to 1955. Do it. I dare you. I dare you to send me back there. Iíve said ever since the emergence of the IndieTeaPublican Branch of the Republican Party that there is a similar anger boiling below the surface of the left. Itís ugly and itís silent, but itís there. Maybe, just maybe telling us to move to the back of the bus where we belong will be that bell that awakens the giant sleeping beast.

And beware, that giant beast includes a lot more than an upper middle class black woman living in New Jersey. We come in many shapes and colors, religions, belief systems, backgrounds, and levels of wealth. Do it. FORCE me to give up my seat. I want to see what happens when the beast gets good and angry. Like this man did: Full Text of President Lyndon B. Johnsonís "We Shall Overcome" speech . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:00 AM

28. I love it

 

when people make posts after a few cocktails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread