Comments on: First Monday Preview: The Assault On Civil Rights Law From The Right

By: JoeBuck

JoeBuck — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:19:06 +0000

Noam Chomsky has long talked about this practice of promoting phony elections in the third world; it’s hardly new with Bush II. He calls it “manufacturing consent”. The purpose of the election is to legitimize the policies of the client government, and the job of the client government is to do what Washington (and Washington’s business allies) want. Meanwhile Washington and the international corporations would have their thumbs on the scales, making sure that the right people win.

When people freely and fairly elect the wrong people (Allende in Chile, Chavez in Venezuela, Hamas in Palestine) the victors are then demonized and crushed. That’s because the purpose of democracy is not for the people to choose, but for the people to choose correctly. Or else.

By: Maddy

Maddy — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 03:26:57 +0000

What’s your pleasure, said the geriatric pusher lol

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:29:16 +0000

“Fortas was the first Chief Justice nominee ever to appear before the Senate, and he faced hostile questioning about his relationship with Lyndon Johnson. Johnson had consulted with Fortas about political matters frequently while Fortas was on the Court.”

Not sure if Rutledge “appeared before the Senate” but his nomination was denied by the Senate (he was a Recess Appointment whose term had expired).

In 1925 Harlan Stone appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding his nomination to CJ, and Felix Frankfurter did so in 1939. In 1955 Justice Harlan appeared before the SJC, and it’s been traditional since that point for all pending appointees to the CJ position. It may be one reason why it’s been more or less common by Presidents to appoint a new nominee to the CJ position rather than a sitting Associate Justice. All the questions thus get placed only once, and two separate interrogations need not be held.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the Wiki entry above…was Fortas actually brought before the entire Senate?

By: Hugh

Hugh — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:14:22 +0000

EPU’ed but what the hey,

Here are some references to SCOTUS decisions from my scandals list. Ledbetter is 201.

200. SCOTUS: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (integration)
201. SCOTUS: Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (gender discrimination)
202. SCOTUS: Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (issue oriented political advertising)
203. SCOTUS: Morse et al v. Frederick (free speech of minors)
204. SCOTUS: Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. (price fixing OK’ed)
208. SCOTUS: Rapanos v. United States (wetland protection)

Others:

26. Gonzales v. Carhart (Partial Birth)
31. 2000 election
85. Guantanamo decisions
140. Faith based initiatives

By: noonan

noonan — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:13:39 +0000

Whatever you do, DO NOT call (615) 346-6006 unless you are really Fred Thompson!

By: SanderO

SanderO — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:07:53 +0000

O&R is nothing to write home about!

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:07:45 +0000

My perception is that’s why the term “Pro-Choice” was developed…and that anyone that’s asked about it who supports choice makes the distinction.

To say that no one on the left has dealt with that is simply wrong. It’s a constant battle with misperceptions promoted by the “Right To ~~Lifers~~ Control Womens’ Choicers” who are, in fact, anti-abortion…and in many cases anti-contraception.

By: sangemon

sangemon — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:07:15 +0000

I’m in Rockland.

Oy!

By: SanderO

SanderO — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:06:02 +0000

Well, we should have a different system for impeachment and have a lottery to draft citizens from the nation to be the jury. Let the two parties be the prosecuting and the defending counsel.

Lots of room to fix up the constitution.

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:05:55 +0000

Oh for the good old days.