HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jberryhill » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 45 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Delaware
Member since: Fri Jan 20, 2006, 08:14 PM
Number of posts: 42,636

Journal Archives

WTF is this crap?

Who thought this was a good idea?

Why, on God's green planet is this going on?

A note about attendance at Scalia's Memorial

Joe Biden was the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee when Scalia was nominated to the court.

It is unusual for both the president and vice president to attend a public event together on short notice, for security reasons.

Joe Biden is going, because Joe Biden had an important role in Scalia's Supreme Court career.


A while back it was "Bernie attracts GOP voters"

Some weeks ago, the story was that Bernie was suspect as a Democratic candidate, because he attracts a certain element of libertarian GOP and independent voters.

Do I correctly now understand that we should not nominate a candidate that Republicans don't like?

I support Hillary for Supreme Court nominee!

I don't care what the Hillary Hate Club here says. I think she would make a superb Supreme Court justice.




Some good news for a change.

Fastest Game Show Ever

I Proudly Jump In The Line And Shake My Body In Time With Harry Belafonte!

MN Neighborhoods Organizing for Change - Black America Forum with Sen. Sanders

Apparently, this forum will be livestreamed Friday evening, and information will be posted here:


The forum will focus on the historic and current issues facing Black communities and other communities of color. This forum will be a historic opportunity for community members to converse with a presidential candidate and ask for real responses about the pressing issues facing Black communities, specifically in Minnesota, home to some of the worst racial disparities in the nation.

This forum will be livestreamed. Livestream viewing parties will be held throughout the metro area and in Duluth for those who cannot or choose not to attend in person. More information about livestreaming and livestream parties will be available soon.

What was the name of that guy

He had a comedy television program back in the 90's for a brief period.

He was kind of funny sometimes, and kind of uncomfortably disturbing and strange a lot of the time.

I can't remember his name.

On facts, law, and Citizens United

Why was the Constitution was amended to limit presidents to two terms?

It was amended as a reaction to Republican butthurt over FDR.

To spare you the Wikipedia history of the 22nd Amendment, the money line is "The Republican-controlled 80th Congress approved a twenty-second Amendment in March 1947."

It was done as soon as the Republicans had the opportunity to get it passed after FDR's death.

There is no question that, on the facts, the 22nd Amendment was "aimed at" the most consequential Democratic president, and the most consequential president of the 20th Century.

The facts which are behind the development of a legal principle are not the legal principle itself. Everyone knows their "Miranda rights" based on the case involving a man who, no doubt, was a brutal rapist and was convicted of it anyway.

When you are read your "Miranda rights" upon arrest, it is not an homage to a rapist, it is a consequence of the legal principle arising from one of the appeals in his case. He is our nation's most celebrated rapists.

Citizens United was indeed - on a factual level - about a right wing financed outfit that wanted to make a political film. It was not about giving money to candidates - it was about the right to make a political film. Absolutely, a film designed to dissuade people from voting for that candidate, and thus considered "electioneering".

And, absolutely, the target of that film was Hillary Clinton.

But Clinton has nothing to do with the legal principle in that case any more so than Ernesto Miranda is some kind of civil rights hero. In this primary election cycle, it is also a simple incontrovertible fact that Clinton is by far a greater beneficiary of the RULE OF LAW that was established in Citizen's United.

When people object to Citizen's United, it is not over the facts of the case, it is over the principle established by the decision. To respond with "but it was about Clinton" is beside the point.

Now who was the FIRST president impacted by the 22nd Amendment? It was Ronald Reagan - and there was no shortage of regret among Republicans over that. To claim "but it was targeted against a Democrat" is similarly beside the point - the first impact was against a Republican. That's the difference between factual context and rule of law.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 45 Next »