That's the entire show, should be in there somewhere.
That's the entire show, should be in there somewhere.
Edit: beaten by 90 seconds
Frankly, I doubt Roberts or any of the others really care that much about their own or the reputation of the court. Certainly not enough to 'bend' their opinion. If anything, Roberts not 'going with his supposed political slant' shows how little he or SCOTUS thinks about their 'reputation'. Furthermore, I think the whole 'polarised SCOTUS' thing is overdone. This really isn't the first SCOTUS were decisions hinge on a single judge's opinion.Originally Posted by lt
I think SCOTUS is perceived to have 'reputation' issues, mostly because of Citizens United. But, it is important to remember that SCOTUS didn't rule that the states should throw out all election laws about money in politics. The states did that themselves, using the SCOTUS verdict as a convenient reason. Which it wasn't. In fact, one state didn't do that (or all of it at the least): Montana. Ofcourse the state of Montana is now challenged in court over that, but it remains to be seen if they'll lose that case. Other states could have gone the same way.
But ofcourse, on both sides, it is easy to lay the blame on a 'polarised' SCOTUS.
I think they ruled on this the day before the ACA decision. IIRC they didn't even hear oral arguments, and ruled against Montana in a 5-4 decision. Legal scholars have been weighing in over the past year about the partisanship of the court. The verdict is that it's the most pro-corporate, and more importantly anti-consumer and predictably partisan, SCOTUS since the 19th century. It's not just citizens united. It's a lot of more minor rulings that were looked at.
I thought it was possible, until I read about how his opinion effectively restricts the applications of the commerce clause. Limiting the commerce clause is a conservative position. I imagine he's aware of the reputation of the court, currently at its lowest level since SCOTUS polling began, but I wouldn't read too much into his siding with the four others who voted yes on ACA as being some sort of public relations stunt.
Last edited by Dirk Magnum; July 1 2012 at 12:21:26 PM.
Awesome, thank you!
EDIT: This video has been removed by the user. Fuck. I might have Real Time recorded on my DVR though...
Can download torrent for it on EZTV.
Atul Gawande's latest is pretty good.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...way-comes.html
They must want to make the effort, however. That’s a key factor. The major social advances of the past three centuries have required widening our sphere of moral inclusion. During the nineteenth century, for instance, most American leaders believed in a right to vote—but not in extending it to women and black people. Likewise, most American leaders, regardless of their politics, believe people’s health-care needs should be met; they’ve sought to insure that soldiers, the elderly, the disabled, and children, not to mention themselves, have access to good care. But many draw their circle of concern narrowly; they continue to resist the idea that people without adequate insurance are anything like these deserving others.
And so the fate of the uninsured remains embattled—vulnerable, in particular, to the maneuvering for political control. The partisan desire to deny the President success remains powerful. Many levers of obstruction remain; many hands will be reaching for them.
For all that, the Court’s ruling keeps alive the prospect that our society will expand its circle of moral concern to include the millions who now lack insurance. Beneath the intricacies of the Affordable Care Act lies a simple truth. We are all born frail and mortal—and, over the course of our lives, we all need health care. Americans are on our way to recognizing this. If we actually do—now, that would be wicked.
Here is some fascinating reporting from CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...alth-care-law/(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
I love politics. "I agree with you but waaah I'm going to go against you just to spite you, or because you are XYZ"
world of tanks derp gun world of tanks derp gun world of tanks derp gun
Tanks name = BS87
Every other game = Kegger McManus
Definitely Republican appointees then.Here is some fascinating reporting from CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...alth-care-law/(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
The Bush criticism is provabley true, the Obama one provabley false?While absolutely true, the republicans are so much better at looking like angry crying children than the liberals. They're already ridiculous and largely uneducated, so seeing them flip out is that much more fantastic. Accusing the supreme court of being partisan hacks just isn't the same as conspiracy theories about blackmail.I'm curious what you think the Libs' reactions would have been if the opposite result would have come down? I would predict much gnashing of teeth over Bush elected supreme court justices, a call to enforce anyway, many cries of racism, fascism, red necks, etc etc.
Essentially, what do you expect? It's a highly polarizing issue, of course people are going to be butthurt.
It's like how dems hated bush with a passion and republicans hate obama with a passion... except bush was called an uneducated corporate tool and obama is a socialist kenyan muslim. They're not on the same level.
This is the shit that actually gets under my skin. Lallante's right, those two comparisons are very very different. Marco Rubio pulled this crap on Fareed Zakaria's GPS this week when Fareed asked him some tough questions about his party's stance on immigration, torture, etc. Rubio kept saying things like "I'm willing to call out Democrats AND Republicans. Both sides need to take blame."The Bush criticism is provabley true, the Obama one provabley false?While absolutely true, the republicans are so much better at looking like angry crying children than the liberals. They're already ridiculous and largely uneducated, so seeing them flip out is that much more fantastic. Accusing the supreme court of being partisan hacks just isn't the same as conspiracy theories about blackmail.I'm curious what you think the Libs' reactions would have been if the opposite result would have come down? I would predict much gnashing of teeth over Bush elected supreme court justices, a call to enforce anyway, many cries of racism, fascism, red necks, etc etc.
Essentially, what do you expect? It's a highly polarizing issue, of course people are going to be butthurt.
It's like how dems hated bush with a passion and republicans hate obama with a passion... except bush was called an uneducated corporate tool and obama is a socialist kenyan muslim. They're not on the same level.
Except in the cases he was talking about, blame should have been pretty squarely on the Republican's shoulders. Whenever the Republicans were fuckin up, he (and many others) pretend to be bipartisan and say "oh I'm a reasonable person that blames BOTH parties" even though the other party had nothing to do with it, and they're just trying to drag the Dems down with them. Rubio didn't say ANYTHING was JUST the fault of the Republicans.
Last edited by ValorousBob; July 2 2012 at 10:13:59 PM. Reason: formatting
Notice how he said he's "willing to call out" both sides, but didn't say "I have called out both sides, here is xyz example of me doing so".
roh roh, fight da mirror powah
Federation Horticultural Corps
Actually I'm pretty sure he did say he "had" (as in past tense) called out both sides and I know for sure he tried to give examples.
edit: god damn Fareed needs to get with the times and post his shows on the internet, I really don't want to go downstairs to my DVR to check this.
He did the same thing on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart last week. Exactly the same turn of phrase. Of course Stewart just let him skate on it because hes not a serious interviewer.
Problem with Stewart is not that he doesn't ask the hard questions, but that he lets his guests get away with evasive answers to them. That in addition to him asking his questions in such a muddled way that it is usually easy for his guests to muddle the issue even further.
Ofcourse, the Daily Show isn't the show for tough interviews, it is supposed to be satirical and funny, and Stewart, missed opportunities and all, most of the times, drags up some zingers, even if he can't break the bubble.
But yes, Republicans are masters at sharing the blame when they have fucked it up, and equally masters at pointing to the Democrats to blame everything on them. It is almost interesting to see how they vacillate between those two positions. It must also be quite frustrating for an interviewer, because they're also masters at the plain old lie, and will use it at any point to come back to the first two options. So, even when the interviewer has got its facts straight and available, the Republicans just brush it off as 'untrue' (or unamerican). I do feel sorry for Rachel Maddow actually, with her nerd streak for numbers, graphs, figures, and facts.
But most interviews with most Republicans end up going something like this:
* How about this? What happened there?
- Yes, a clear example of how government is the problem. Both Republicans and Democrats share the blame on that.
* But certainly this can't be blamed on the Democrats?
- No there clearly the Democrats are to blame. Here's my contorted view from inside the bubble of why that is the case.
* But clearly that is just not the case!
- Yes it is, you don't think it is because you've been lied to by the Democrats. My Republican ideology trumps all your little facts.
Marco Rubio is a smooth talker, but this is exactly what he, and the other Republicans do all the time. Marco Rubio is just better at it than most.
http://conservativebyte.com/2012/07/...er-challenged/
They never stop /o\
Learning is hard.
Some comments are amazing. (from here: http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/obamas-so...er-challenged/ )
"FLIPPER" ROBERTS, THE GLOBALIST MOLE ON OUR U.S. SUPREME COURT, WON'T DO ANYYTHING TO STOP CONTINUING GLOBALIST CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS.
Wasn't the obscure "jurist" Roberts proposed as U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice by pathetic RINO globalist Johnny "Build the Dang FEMA Concentration Camp Fences" McAmnesty (McCain)'s pathetic RINO globalist campaign manager "Sergeant" Schultz to pathetic RINO globalist W(ar) Son-of-a-Bush? Now it all comes clear as the sellout Roberts invents a new "tax" not authorized by the Constitution to save CommieCare Healthcare DEform to line the pockets of the "crony capitalism" (NAZI) system to destroy our democracy and free market capitalism prosperity. Look for Flipper to join in the future with the four Constitution-hating Marxists that have infiltrated OUR Court to "find" further destruction of the Constitution "authorized" by the New World Order/UN Dictatorship/One World Government "law" like the upcoming North American Union and Security and Prosperity Partnership "agreements," and UN "treaties" like the Law of the Sea Treaty and Agenda 21! Think a fake social security number will bother him?
All of these globalist traitors should be given Nuremberg-style treason trials, then thrown into the FEMA concentration camps they built for us. TYRANNY COMES IN BLACK ROBES, TOO. TREASON, FLIPPER!!!
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277
I blame this on lazy, ignorant twats.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks