Feb 172015
 

It’s a rare treat to see an interview of a sitting Supreme Court Justice, especially when that Justice is the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a frequent dissenter from the Dishonorable Injustices of SCROTUS, Republican Constitutional VD.

0217GINSBURG

In a rare interview with MSNBC’s Irin Carmon, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discussed her tenure on the court and women’s rights in America today.

Carmon — a rising star at the network who is co-authoring a book about the liberal jurist with the founder of Tumblr blog Notorious R.B.G — started off by asking the question on the minds of a lot of liberals as time ticks down on the Obama presidency: Are you planning to retire?

“I’m concerned about doing the job full steam,” Ginsburg said. “Once I sense that I am slipping, I will step down. This is a very intense job.”

Asked about her replacement, the Supreme Court justice demurred.

"My successor will be the choice of whatever president is sitting at that time," she said.

Carmon and Ginsburg talked at length about the progress that’s been made on women’s rights since the 1970s, when Ginsburg co-founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union…

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

Rachel Maddow dedicated two segments of her show to excerpts from the interview.  Here’s the first.

And the second.

For a transcript of the entire interview, click here.

I found only one bone to pick with her.  Asked for one word to describe Chief Injustice Roberts, she said “able”.  I would have said “ideologue”… or worse.

Share
Jul 162014
 

Here are the results of our SCOTUS Rating Poll.  Politics Plus Polls are not scientific, because those who respond are not balanced according to demographic categories.   Therefore, we do not accurately reflect the makeup of the US population.  Nevertheless, our polls are often both accurate and indicative of the nation’s view.

0716Poll

And here are your comments.

Showing comments 19 of 9.

Posted by Phil  July 9, 2014 at 10:16 pm.  

 

I voted "Horrid" because you neglected to add "Outrageously Stupid."

clip_image001

 

Posted by Lynn Squance  July 5, 2014 at 7:53 pm.  

 

I voted "HORRID". While there may be minor acceptable judgements, preponderance of conservative activism is absolutely disgusting. It seems to me that SCOTUS, or should I say the SCROTUS wing of Injustices, is nothing more than a wing of the Republican/Teabagger party. I like the 3 women justices and Breyer, but I wish Justice Ginsburg were younger so that she would be around longer.

 

Posted by Edie  July 5, 2014 at 5:23 pm.  

 

They have sunk so far in my estimation, that horrible isn’t even an accurat)e description.(devious

 

Posted by SoINeedAName  July 4, 2014 at 3:26 pm.  

 

Not only "HORRID" – but HORRID for a long, Long, LONG time coming.

Pandora’s Box will be busy for decades.

 

Posted by Rixar13  July 4, 2014 at 2:33 pm.  

 

Horrid…

clip_image002

 

Posted by gene jacobson  July 1, 2014 at 8:45 am.  

 

As noted, there were one or two minor things done the way I think they should have been, John Roberts siding with the four decent justices in both instances, but narrow and meaningless decisions they were. For the rest, the vast majority, this is the rottenest and in truth, corrupt Court we have ever had – corrupt comes with Thomas and Scalia out there making tons of money advertising how they will vote on various issues. Which encourages suits on those issues. Which makes them corrupt, evil and impeachable in my opinion. If the House truly wants to impeach someone it should be those two fools.

 

Posted by Joanne D  July 1, 2014 at 4:45 am.  

 

I want to qualify my vote of "horrid" by saying that it only applies to the SCROTUS Five. Unfortunately, they rule for now. Yes, there were one or two decent decisions, so minor I can’t even remember what they were. We will be decades cleaning up after these animals – and we can’t even start yet.

 

Posted by Lona Goudswaard  July 1, 2014 at 12:56 am.  

 

I’m completely prejudices of course, because the only rulings I see from this SCOTUS are the ones I get presented with on this blog, Care2, Daily Kos and such.

There were one or two surprise rulings this last term, but they were on very minor issues and didn’t stretch very far, but every other ruling I’ve heard off has been absolutely disastrous for this country.

 

Posted by Patty  July 1, 2014 at 12:02 am.  

 

I was going to say "Horrid" but there have been a couple good decisions.

clip_image003

I voted with the majority.  While there have been a couple decisions that weren’t that bad, even the “good ones” have included concealed attempts at sabotage.  A perfect exampled is deciding for the ACA, but allowing state governments to deny federally funded Medicaid to poor citizens.

A new poll is up.  Vote now, and vote in November.

Share
Jul 052014
 

I’m writing for tomorrow, day 75, and it occurred to me that, since most folks in the country get a holiday, I ought to as well, since it’s a slow news day, I’m tired, and preparing my holiday feast took three hours of cooking and prep, so this article is all I have.  The rest of the weekend depends on the availability of content.  Please be safe.

Late (early) update:

I just woke up.  I slept through the fireworks.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 3:59 (average 6:11).  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Short Takes:

From Upworthy: Kinda like a really scary jigsaw puzzle … oh, and the Congress Critters in the districts that make up those shaded areas? Yeah, they don’t want folks to see this map. Hint, hint.

0705USRO-low-wage

That high area in eastern Oregon is the sparsely populated Republican part of the state. Politically and culturally, it’s more like Idaho.

From The New Yorker: A new poll released Wednesday revealed that people rank President Barack Obama as the worst President since the Second World War, and also blame him for starting the Second World War.

While the respondents slammed the President for his handling of the economy, Iraq, and a host of other issues, his perceived role as the primary cause of the Second World War was the biggest drag on his numbers.

Even more troubling, when compared to the three leaders of the Axis powers during that war, President Obama polled at the bottom of the list, finishing far behind Emperor Hirohito of Japan.

LOL Andy. It may be accurate! If so, do I have to tell what TV channel those polled used to get their news?  (the real poll was demographically skewed).

From NY Times: In a decision that drew an unusually fierce dissent from the three female justices, the Supreme Court sided Thursday with religiously affiliated nonprofit groups in a clash between religious freedom and women’s rights.

The decision temporarily exempts a Christian college from part of the regulations that provide contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

The court’s order was brief, provisional and unsigned, but it drew a furious reaction from the three female members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. The order, Justice Sotomayor wrote, was at odds with the 5-to-4 decision on Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which involved for-profit corporations.

“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.”

The court’s action, she added, even “undermines confidence in this institution.”

Monday’s decision and the order on Thursday were dual blows to the Obama administration’s efforts to provide contraception coverage, said Walter Dellinger, who was acting United States solicitor general in the Clinton administration.

This order, unsigned demonstrating their cowardice, directly contradicts part of the Hobby Lobby decision that the ruling applied only to closely held, for profit corporations. Wheaton College is neither. I promised you a slippery slope was ahead. The slide has started. For a better understanding, click through and read the entire article.

Cartoon:

0705Cartoon

Share
Jul 042014
 

I have read Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent to the ruling in Hobby Lobby by the Fascist Five Injustices of SCROTUS (Republican Constitutional VD).  I recommend that you read it too (link follows).  As an easier reference found an article with an excellent summary of ten key points.

0704ginsburgRuth Bader Ginsburg wrote a scathing 35-page dissent in the disastrous 5-4 Supreme Court decision Monday granting corporations First Amendment religious rights to deny women birth control coverage. The court had ventured far out in to unprecedented territory by granting private companies the right to be exempt from laws their owners don’t agree with. Crazy! In their zeal to deny women access to reproductive healthcare, expand the rights of corporations and hurt Obamacare, "The court," she wrote, "has ventured into a minefield." 

Sadly, her clear-eyed reasoning did not sway the Court’s five arch conservatives, but it is worth reading her dissent here (starts on page 60.)

For those in a bigger hurry, here are highlights:

1. "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision."

2. "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

3. "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community." … [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

I have shared three to the articles ten highlights.  Click through for the other seven.  I not only agree with Ginsberg in sll ten highlights, but also with her entire dissent.

Share
Jun 282014
 

Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down a rather surprising decision, disallowing the eight foot buffer zone around the entrances to Massachusetts women’s health centers that perform abortions.  I understand that it may well be Constitutionally correct, but from a practical point of view the decision could have tragic ramifications.  I do not understand why a much larger exclusion zone that protects the four Justices of SCOTUS and the five Injustices of SCROTUS (Republican Constitutional VD) is not also unconstitutional.  The plaintiff claimed that they just wanted to have “quiet conversations” with their neighbors and fellow citizens.

0628Abortion-Hate

The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law that barred protests, counseling and other speech near abortion clinics.

“A painted line on the sidewalk is easy to enforce, but the prime objective of the First Amendment is not efficiency,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a majority opinion that was joined by the court’s four-member liberal wing.

The law, enacted in 2007, created 35-foot buffer zones around entrances to abortion clinics. State officials said the law was a response to a history of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.

The Massachusetts law was challenged on First Amendment grounds by opponents of abortion who said they sought to have quiet conversations with women entering clinics to tell them about alternatives. “Petitioners are not protesters,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

The court was unanimous about the bottom line but divided on the reasoning, with Chief Justice Roberts writing a narrow opinion. The law blocked too much speech, he said, “sweeping in innocent individuals.”… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

I can understand their point that it is not Constitutional to exclude people with no intent to violate the women’s rights and innocent passers by, who may be transiting the zone for reasons that have nothing to do with the clinic.  Of course the problem, is that Republican Supply-side pseudo-Christians are fanatical believers in a right to life that begins at conception and ends at birth.  They do not believe that abortion providers and others who assist women to exercise their rights have the right to life.   We know this, because they have murdered several.  If you believe that the extent of their “speech” will be those “quiet conversations”, see me about the wonderful bridge I am selling.  The one plus is that the decision leaves the door open to similar legislation that does not “block too much speech”.

The best coverage I have seen on this subject is from Rachel Maddow.  Sadly I cannot take credit for the added portrayal of Scalia at the beginning.

That covers it well.  I do not have a quick solution for this dilemma, but I do have an idea.  Someone needs to file a suit claiming that the exclusion zone around the Supreme Court violates the Consxtitution, because it “blocks too much speech” and is “sweeping in innocent individuals”.  Then we can see if the Justices and the Injustices think they should get to have “quiet conversations” with crazed wing-nuts with guns.

Share
Jun 252013
 

I’m writing early.  Tomorrow is day 11.  Grrrr…  The Supreme Court has apparently kicked the can until next year on Affirmative Action.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 3:54 (average 8:00).  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Fantasy Football:

We still NEED  two more players in our lefty league.  For more info. click here.

Short Takes:

From LA Times: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from the Obama administration and decide whether the president may make temporary “recess appointments” to federal offices when the Senate takes a short break during the year.

The case is to be heard in the fall, and it is likely to yield an important decision on the constitutional powers of the president to execute the duties of his office in the face of Senate opposition. It could also have an effect on President Obama’s final years in the White House.

I’d rather nuke the filibastards with the nuclear option on the filibuster than leave it to the five fascist Injustices of SCROTUS.

From The New Yorker: A U.S. intelligence agency was so busy spying on three hundred million Americans that it failed to notice one dude who was working for it, a spokesman for the agency acknowledged today.

“I guess we were so busy monitoring the everyday communications of every man, woman, and child in the nation that we didn’t notice that a contractor working for us was downloading tons of classified documents,” the agency spokesman said. “It’s definitely embarrassing, for sure.”

Of course, no such statement was made, but it should be.

From NY Times: …Billed as Louisiana’s first atheist service and titled “Joie de Vivre: To Delight in Being Alive,” it was presided over by Jerry DeWitt, a small, charismatic man dressed all in black with slick, shiny hair.

“Oh, it’s going to be so hard to not say, ‘Can I get an amen?’ ” he said with a smile, warning people that this was going to be more like church than they might expect. “I want you to feel comfortable singing. And I want you to feel comfortable clapping your hands…

At last! Services for the atheist faith! 😉

Cartoon:

25Cartoon

A win for the good guys!

Share
Jun 192013
 

Few things are more cut and dried than American citizens’ right against self incrimination.  …nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…  At least that used to be correct.  In most 5-4 decisions, the Supreme Court is split between the fascist five Injustices of SCROTUS and the four Justices of SCOTUS.  Not only did SCROTUS deny the Constitution in this case, but also, four critical cases remain on this year’s calendar.

SCROTUS

…The court ruled that a suspect’s failure to answer a police officer’s questions before an arrest may be used against the suspect at trial.

The Supreme Court has long said the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination applies after arrest and at trial. But it had never decided, in the words of a 1980 decision, “whether or under what circumstances pre-arrest silence” in the face of questioning by law enforcement personnel is entitled to protection…

…Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said allowing “a prosecutor to comment on a defendant’s constitutionally protected silence would put that defendant in an impossible predicament.” Mr. Salinas’s choice, Justice Breyer wrote, was “between incrimination through speech and incrimination through silence.”… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

The four Justices of SCOTUS were absolutely correct. The right against self incrimination is meaningless, if its invocation before arrest can be used in court to imply guilt. But the Fascist Five Injustices goose-stepped against the Constitution to help make this nation a Republican police state. As for what’s next, Chris Hayes covered the remaining four decisions in two segments. In the first, Chris and his panel discussed what’s at stake in the decisions.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I strongly fear that Chris may be correct in his hypothesis that SCROTUS may use gay rights to mask the demise of voting rights and affirmative action. The wrong decision in any of these cases will be tragic, because all are key to America’s freedom. However, the worst decision they could would be to allow their Republican cronies to steal elections by denying minority Americans the right to vote. In Chris’s second segment, he and his panel discussed that.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Chris is correct that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is at stake, because Republicans have already made it clear that their intent is to use the law to disentrance blacks and Latinos, in addition to seniors, students, labor and poor people. If destroying the Voting Rights Act is the decision, in combination with Citizens United, the Supreme Court will have demonstrated that it is illegitimate.

No Republican may be allowed to infest the White House before the Injustices od SCROTUS have been replaced with Justices.

Share