Reply #64

In the discussion thread: Thom Hartmann: Democratic Underground Readers are Wrong on SCOTUS [View all]

Response to Fearless (Reply #41)

Fri Mar 30, 2012, 10:30 PM

elleng (40,930 posts)

64. Will do, Fearless, but not until I return home, Tuesday evening, I think.

Pain in the neck computer issues! Hope things are OK here. Whats new???

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

85 replies	Author	Time	Post
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

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.