UA-9726592-1
Showing posts with label the Supremes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the Supremes. Show all posts

Friday, May 4, 2012

Far Left Side: Reform the Supreme Court


FLS link: to learn more

Rightardia suggest that any position that is a lifetime appointment is dangerous. The Supremes could be reformed in a variety of ways.


  1. 10-year term limits with a national vote to retain for another 10 years
  2. Add more judges to the court. We have had 7 judges since the US Constitution was written. 
  3. Have specialization within the court: sub-courts for laws, bill of rights and elections, civil matters and criminal cases. 

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Creative Commons License


Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Second Anniversary of the Citizens United Ruling


"It’s not the first time in American history that the Supreme Court ruled in such an appalling fashion. 

They were the ones who originally decreed in Dred Scott v. Sandford that human beings who happen to have darker pigmentation could not be free citizens of the United States. 

 They were the ones who originally deemed in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. that companies could not be penalized for employing children in their factories… and, of course, they also ruled in Bush v. Gore that George W. Bush would be “irreparably harmed” if the state of Florida finished counting all it’s votes and Al Gore was actually allowed to assume the office of Presidency he legally won – the “irreparable harm” to the people of the United States be damned.

For years, Bush v Gore was considered by many scholars to be the Supreme Court’s worst decision of modern times… until they topped themselves with Citizen’s United . . ."

Antonin Scalia defended the Citizens United decison recently:

I don't care who is doing the speech — the more the merrier," Scalia said. "People are not stupid. If they don't like it, they'll shut it off.

dissenting justice, Stephan Breyer said when a decision isn't unanimous, "somebody is making a mistake."

Breyer added: 

There are real problems when people want to spend lots of money on a candidate ... they'll drown out the people who don't have a lot of money.


Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Justice Clarence Thomas: A Disgrace to the Supreme Court


In a bar complaint filed with the Missouri Supreme Court, Protect Our Elections  (POE) attorney Kevin Zeese says Thomas committed multiple violations of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct. Zeese has asked the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel to take immediate action against Thomas to include disbarment.


If Thomas lost his license to practice law, it could provide grounds for impeachment. The Democrats would have to control the House and Senate to impeach and convict Thomas. 


source: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/511275/clarence_thomas_faces_call_for_his_disbarment_in_missouri_supreme_court/

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA  
Netcraft rank: 6266 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com Creative Commons License


Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Friday, February 25, 2011

US Supreme Court controversy - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Last Modified: 23 Feb 2011 12:29 GMT

Perhaps you're familiar with Clarence Thomas, the Long-Dong-Silver-loving US Supreme Court Justice. With a new term beginning on The Court, he has just passed the five-year mark for not only saying nothing of value while hearing cases, but nothing at all.

Yes, you read that correctly—while no US Supreme Court Justice in over two centuries has gone even a single term without speaking from the bench during arguments, Thomas has managed to do it for five in a row . . .


See the rest of the al Jazeera article at US Supreme Court controversy - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

graphic courtesy of bartcop.com

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA Netcraft rank: 6599 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.comCreative Commons License
Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Clarence Thomas tries to back pedal after forgetting to disclose his wife's income


Common Cause said Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years. See http://rightardia.blogspot.com/2011/01/democratic-underground-superem-clarence.html

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records.

Judge Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms.

Thomas should be disciplined for his violation of federal law. Better yet, impeach the useless Supreme.  This would be the simplest way to get the Citizens United ruling overturned.

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Netcraft rank: 6458 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Citizen Jane Explains the Impact of Citizens United



Citizen Jane wants the Constitution amended which is a difficult task. It would be easier to impeach Clarence Thomas and get the Citizens United ruling overturned.

Thomas forgot to disclose his wife's six figure income with the Heritage Foundation.  This could provide grounds for impeachment.

Obama should have the Justice Department investigate Thomas immediately. The country will be better off if Thomas recuses himself form court cases he is not qualified to judge because of his partisan prejudices. 

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Netcraft rank: 6458 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Democratic Underground: Supreme Clarence Thomas failed to disclose wife's income

Clarence and Gini Thomas

Common Cause said Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years.

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal non investment income" would be disclosed.

Federal judges must disclose the source of spousal income, according to Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law.

Thomas' omission, which could be interpreted as a violation of that law, could lead to some form of penalty, Gillers said. Gillers added:

It wasn't a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife's source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission, It could not have been an oversight.


Essentially Thomas failed to disclose his wife earned more than $100,000 a year as a Republican activist.

Democrats should call for the resignation of this useless Supreme who is so ideological you can predict his vote in the Supreme Court almost every time.

Based on recent relations by an old girl friend that Thomas was really a 'dirty old man" when he was younger and this revelation, the Senate should impeach Thomas. 

The Gini Thomas  biography notes that she is a fan of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America."

She is also the Founder of Liberty Central, Inc., a nonprofit. this development is likely to test notions of political impartiality for the court.

"She is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully," her bio says.

Source: Los Angeles Times

Monday, June 14, 2010

Ancient Supreme Court pornography discovered



This is what happens in a conservative Supreme Court.  Well, at least they discovered the draft of the Dred Scott decision.

Rightardia is certain if anyone got into Kristen Bell's legal briefs, it would have been a 'silver tongued' liberal.

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu 

Netcraft rank: 13506 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Washington Post: Large majority opposes Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing

By Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 17, 2010; 7:00 AM
All hail the Supremes

Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns. Most Americans favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow uncontrolled corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

The results suggest a strong reservoir of bipartisan support on the issue for President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are crafting legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the high court's decision. Likely proposals include banning participation in U.S. elections by government contractors, bank bailout recipients or companies with more than 20 percent foreign ownership.

Friday, January 29, 2010

New US Constitition appeals to fascists

Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini would have loved the US Supreme court ruling  allowing corporations to make unlimited contributions of political campaigns.

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 4929 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Supreme Court ruling on corporate political contributions



For years Americans have heard conservatives claim they are strict constructionists, but the the recent Supreme Court ruling on corporate political contributions was about as activist a ruling Rightardia has ever heard.

Rightardia searched the Constitution for the words: free enterprise, corporation,  and private property at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html. The only hits we got were on private property:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. was Ratified 12/15/1791. It states: No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That is all the US Constitution says about corporations, free enterprise or private property.

Rightard Whitey was recently driving to the bank when he spotted a Tea Bagger SUV sporting the following: I don't need to read the the health care bill. the US government needs to read the US Constitution. Really?

Conservatives may believe this, but what in the Constitution says private corporations must have exclusive jurisdiction over the US health care system? What in the US Constitution proscribes the federal government from regulating health care?

Unless conservatives can provide a legal basis for the belief the Constitition prohibits the government from regulating health care, they should simply STFU.

The Congress needs to take action on the Suprme Court ruling to prevent the US from sliding into fascism.  Corporatism and fascism are synonymous.
Representative Alan Grayson has been one the most forceful voices in responding to this crisis. He has introduced a number of bills as part of a "Save Our Democracy" initiative to blunt some of the worst implications of the Supreme Court's decision.
  1. The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
  2. The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
  3. The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive government money from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
  4. The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than for promoting their products and services.
  5. The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.
  6. The End the Hijacking of Shareholder Funds Act (H.R. 4487): This bill requires the approval of a majority of a public company's shareholders for any expenditure by that company to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company's products or services. 
Rightardia is a big fan of Alan Grayson.  The Supreme Court ruling needs to be immediately blunted with a new law. By the time the new law is challenged in court, perhaps one of the conservative justices will have retired or passed away.


source: CREDO

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 4665 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Newsy Review of Sotomayor confirmation: When the 'Wise Latina' Rules..

The Rightardia view was that the selection of Sotomayor was smart and it will help cement Democratic ties to the fast growing Hispanic community. Sotomayor will be the most experienced judge to sit on the Supreme Court in a while. 

 It's time to kick some judicial ass!

Republicans seem to have the point of view that they most oppose everything the Democrats try to do. The Republican senatorial opposition to 'Cash for Clunkers' was pointless and failed. The GOP would have been better off by 'faintly praising' Sotomayor. She was going to be confirmed and the GOP was really in no postion to stop the confirmation. 


Source: http://www.newsy.com/videos/when_the_wise_latina_rules

Get 30 days of free traffic analysis simply by going to Web-Stat: http://www.web-stat.com/?id=2955

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Improve blog traffic with TrafficG http://trafficg.com/splash/splash01.php?uid=eelder1

Netcraft rank: 19798 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/stats/topsites?s=BE281D838226A4DAC11D0E201A0E#19798