|
02 Mar 10 - 06:15 PM (#2854510) Subject: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Bobert Oh, boy!!! Looks as if the 5 righties on the Suprme Court have boxed themselves into a real pickle... There another 2nd ammendment case that they are going to hear on the Chicago handgun laws and the attorneys for Chicage are sayin', "Hey, ya'll... This is all about states rights and the federal government cannot trump our rights..." Okay that may be somewhat ovversimplified but that is the crux of their case... But loomin' is a possible court case down the road on mandatory participation in buying health insurance and the righties know it... What to do???? If they side with Chicago then they are gonna piss of the 2nd Ammendment nuts and if they say that the federal government trumps states rights then when the states want to "opt out" ot not require mandatory participation in their states then they are saying quite the opposite??? Maybe I am missing something here, I donno??? Looks like a pickle me... B~ |
|
02 Mar 10 - 06:28 PM (#2854518) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Greg F. "...the Federal government trumps states rights..." This principle was settled back in the middle of the 19th Century.... by the Civil War. |
|
02 Mar 10 - 06:59 PM (#2854548) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Richard Bridge Given that the Supreme court is supposed to make legal not political decisions, a record of voting tendencies might make a basis for a recusal application on a political case. |
|
02 Mar 10 - 07:52 PM (#2854577) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: CarolC How is this a pickle? If they are making political decisions from the perspective of their personal political philosophies (and I think a case could be made that they are), in both cases they would side with the states. I don't see where the conflict is. |
|
02 Mar 10 - 07:52 PM (#2854578) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: mousethief "...the Federal government trumps states rights..." This principle was settled back in the middle of the 19th Century.... by the Civil War. That's certainly not what the right thinks. "States' Rights" is one of their favourite war cries. Given that the Supreme court is supposed to make legal not political decisions, a record of voting tendencies might make a basis for a recusal application on a political case. Like the vote that made Dubya president in 2000? Certainly basis for recusal there. Didn't happen. O..O =o= |
|
02 Mar 10 - 08:03 PM (#2854585) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Bobert Yeah, this ain't no slam dunk for them here.... One one hand they want to push states rights out front to make the successionist righties happy and then along comes situations where the federal governement trumps states right... From what I have read recently this has them in kinda a bind... |
|
02 Mar 10 - 08:23 PM (#2854597) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: CarolC Bobert, in the handgun law case, is the law they would be deciding one that is less permissive than federal handgun laws? |
|
02 Mar 10 - 08:55 PM (#2854615) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Bobert Hard to say, Carol... The handgun law that they knocked out was DC's where there is a certain level of federal oversight... Chicago's is very similar to the one that DC had with the exception of the federal oversight... I mean, this is going to be tricky for the SC to say on one hand that states have the power to opt out or to not permit mandatory participation but on the other saying that the federal governement can, in essence, say to states that they cannot have their own gun laws??? I really never gave this much thought until I heard someone on NPR recently bring it up and started thinking about it and reading a couple articles on it... It's a delimma for them... If the 2nd Ammendment is that easy then, in essence, they are saying that the federal governement is "da man"... Having the federal governement be "da man" rubs the righties big time... I donno how this is going to turn out but it's gonna be an interesting case... B~ |
|
02 Mar 10 - 09:00 PM (#2854619) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: CarolC I don't see how this would be a problem for the right leaning supremes unless they would be deciding in favor of more a restrictive gun law if they side with the states rights people. If the law is less restrictive, they have every incentive to decide in favor of the states rights people and against the federal govt, and I don't see how they would suffer any consequences with their political comrades for doing so. |
|
02 Mar 10 - 09:48 PM (#2854642) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Rapparee The question is whether or not the cities of Chicago and Oak Park have the authority to ban private handgun ownership. As in "Heller" (the DC case) they will probably decide that cities (and states) have the right to restrict handgun ownership -- for instance, to prohibit carrying one outside your own home (as DC is now). |
|
02 Mar 10 - 09:57 PM (#2854653) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: CarolC I can see how that would be a pickle for them if it comes time to rule on whether or not states can opt out of a mandatory health care bill. Or it would if they were ethical people. As it stands, I think that's a open question. |
|
03 Mar 10 - 08:05 AM (#2854861) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Bobert It really boils down to whether or not the Supremes are consistent on their view of what constitutes "states rights"... BTW, I heard that resturants have the right to ban guns from their establishements... I can't wait to see the "Gun Free" signs in resturants... That should bring this entire issue into a different light in terms of the general population... I think that Starbucks is undergoing pressure as we speak to put up these signs... B~ |
|
03 Mar 10 - 09:06 AM (#2854914) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: CarolC Their record on "states rights" in 2000 (Bush v Gore) was that they were against it. |
|
03 Mar 10 - 01:13 PM (#2855121) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: JohnInKansas There's really no conflict in the examples cited. The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution, with the minor problem of being stated in archaic language that hasn't been interpreted "in modern words" so that wingnuts can understand what it means. That the states cannot violate the Constitution is pretty well established. The business of telling us what the Constitution means is one of the things the SCOTUS is supposed to do. The Constitution doesn't mention health insurance, so "states rights" can prevail, subject to the usual extortion of withholding "Federal funding" for failing to comply with unrelated pograms (not giving back money the fed shouldn't have taken from us in the first place) from those states that don't go along. The question nobody seems able to ask is whether the Fed has the right/authority to establish a funding program to assist state projects - projects the states "must do" - and then to impose unrelated conditions as a requirement for participation in "sucking the big teat" - which is how they've "mandated" a vast number of nation wide requirements that arguably should have been left to the option of the states. John |
|
03 Mar 10 - 06:05 PM (#2855362) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Bobert The Constitution doesn't specifially say that folks can carry guns into a court room either, John... That's the problem when folks say the "Constition doesn't say ____________... Nor does the Constitution specifically say that the federal goevrment cannot force people to buy helath insurance.... If we take the NRA side then federal rights rights trump state rights in that states cannot do anytghing that may infringe on one's right to "bear arms"... That means guns anywhere people want to "bear" them, right??? The problem here is that there is a federalist isssue here and the Court has a delimma on it's hands... If a state cannot "legally" ban someone from taking a gun into a ____________ (you pick) then how can it "legally" decide to opt out of a national health care program??? B~ |
|
03 Mar 10 - 08:00 PM (#2855463) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: CarolC I tend to doubt that the Court is going to see it as a dilemma. They would have to be able to recognize inconsistency and to care about it one way or another in order for that to happen. Remember what they did with their Bush v Gore decision? They said that that decision should not be used as a precedent for any other cases, and should stand alone. They invalidated their own decision when they did that. Did they care? No, they did not. |
|
03 Mar 10 - 08:46 PM (#2855493) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Bobert Bush v. Gore was different, Carol, in terms of the politcis that were going on then... I think the Supremes are looking around at what even they think are some very ignorant and scarey Tea Baggers and thinkin', "Geeze, we gotta hold to our conservative beliefs but I don't wnat to be a in resturant when these nuts come marching in with their guns straped on..." No, I think the conservative wing has a lot of sorting out to do here... And I think they know it... Afterall, they refused to step in on gay marriage in D.C.... Two years ago they woulda jumped all over it but this time they just refused to hear the case... I think that the backlash on the cmapiagn financing, couple with the loony Tea Partiers, has them scratching their heads.... B~ |
|
04 Mar 10 - 12:25 AM (#2855562) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Sawzaw What the hell are you talking about Bobert? I see no conflict and neither does anybody else here that I can find. You sound like one of those "loony Tea Partiers" as you describe them. You really hate those Tea Baggers don't you? |
|
04 Mar 10 - 06:24 PM (#2856264) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Bobert Apparently you don't read much, do you Sawz??? One thing fir sure is that you don't listen to NPR where I've heard two different people talkin' about the Chicago gun case in the last two or three weeks... Just becauase no one here agrees doesn't mean that there isn't a conflict... Just let the case play out... I'm sure the opinions will be very interesting... BTW, there are things that come to pass that I know about before other folks here in Mudville are aware of them... I'm not sure how that happens but it seems to happen now and then and then folks kinda catch up... Maybe it's because I am a news-hound and read alot of stuff and listen to alot of stuff... I donno... And maybe, at least with this case, it involves stuff that isn't part of the dung-de-joir that the parties give their followers to lob at the other guys.... This case is kinda "not that"... It one of those "federalism v. states rights" kinda things that tend to trip up even the most fierce partisans... B~ |
|
04 Mar 10 - 07:28 PM (#2856319) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) ho hum |
|
05 Mar 10 - 04:36 PM (#2857044) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Riginslinger Is a right-wing pickle a krout? |
|
05 Mar 10 - 08:37 PM (#2857222) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Sawzaw So I should read NPR? Still don't see any dillema an nobody else does. You need to read more Bobert and turn off commie radio. How 'Communism' Brought Racial Equality To The South NPR February 16, 2010 Tell Me More continues its Black History Month series of conversations with a discussion about the role of the Communist Party. It was prominent in the fight for racial equality in the south, specifically Alabama, where segregation was most oppressive. Many courageous activists were communists. Host Michel Martin speaks with historian Robin Kelley about his book "Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists During the Great Depression" about how the communist party tried to secure racial, economic, and political reforms. |
|
05 Mar 10 - 09:22 PM (#2857243) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Bobert Sorry to have missed that one, Sawz, 'cause it looks as if it came outta WMRA, which, BTW, has had me on their Saturday night show (The Blues Porfessa...)playin live blues and answering questions... But my computer ain't into loadin' up that much stuff so let me guess what it was about... Tell me how close I am... I'm guessing this was about the 30s... If there was ever an exciting time to be an intellectual it would have been the 20s and 30s... AmI close??? If not, then you have me stumped seein' as I can't load whatever it is that you have linked... If it is the 30s then, yeah, I certainly understand the history here... This was before the all out Cold War and demonization of communism... This is when there was alot more intellectual freedom in the US... Yeah, lots of humanistic movements were underway... Not only for racial equality but for worker equality... Those were times that I should have been part of... I am so envious of the folks who lived then and were in their prime and had so much hope optimism... The entirte Art Deco style just shouted out "Possibility for Mankind"... It wasn't just the communists but the socialists and the unionists.... Yeah, I might of guessed wrong on waht NPR had to say and if so, hey, maybe they were workin' a different angle, I donno... I do know that the intellectuuals of the 20s and 30s were really the folks who laid the groundwork for our modern society and they deserve all the credit in the world for their efforts... They impacted everything... It's too bad that our country has come to be suspect of intellectuals as if they are the enemy... After all, it is these people who have the vision... These are the potential problem solvers because of that curiosity... They are also the humanists whoes kids and grandkids marched for civil rights... Yeah, my mom is one... She is my "commie mommie"... This was her generation and when civil rights came along she was there getting arrested over and over... Too bad that our country---no, some in our country who represent the industrialists and have the money to shape public opinion-- no longer has any need for intellectuals... No make that, doesn't think they have any need for intellectuals... Yeah, historically the intellectuals were the communists, the socialists, the unionsits... These folks fought the battles for civil right, for human rights... Yeah, okay, Sawz... Maybe I guess wrong this NPR piece but I haven't guessed wrong the significance of the communists in their role of pushing forward a more humanistic agenda, civil rights inclucded... B~ |
|
05 Mar 10 - 09:32 PM (#2857246) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: CarolC So should we bring back jim crow as a part of our fight against communism? Is that the point being made there? |
|
05 Mar 10 - 09:34 PM (#2857248) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Bobert Reckon so, Carol... Jim Crow was purdy handy in doing Boss Hog's work... |
|
05 Mar 10 - 09:34 PM (#2857249) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: CarolC Heh... while we're playing the guilt by association thing, I guess we'd better stamp out Christianity, too, since members of the KKK tend to be Christians. That is, unless you support the KKK, Sawzaw, in which case, you might see things differently. |
|
10 Mar 10 - 04:05 PM (#2861312) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Sawzaw "communists in their role of pushing forward a more humanistic agenda" Like in North Korea? By the way, Who enacted those Jim Crow Laws? Jim Crow laws were a product of the solidly Democratic South. |
|
10 Mar 10 - 04:43 PM (#2861343) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: CarolC So what's your point? First you were using guilt by association, and now you're holding the Democrats of today responsible for things done by the Democrats of a long time ago. We're really not stupid enough to fall for that kind of crap, although the fact that you think we are suggests something unflattering about you. |
|
10 Mar 10 - 06:27 PM (#2861419) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Bobert Yeah, what Carol said... They got these things called, ahhhhhhh, history books where you can learn lots of stuff about the evolution of today's political parties... If ya' find the right one that isn't into mythology it will even talk about the Dixiecrats, which BTW evolved into todays Republican Party... Some will talk about the Civil Rights Movement and somw will actaully quote Lyndon Johnson in saying that in the Dems getting behind the Civil Rights Act that they would suffer in the South for decades... He got that right unless, of course, it turns into centuries... This stuff is all fairly well documented in lots of real history books... Og course there are plenty of mythology/history books with Netgroes comin' to help out the colonists in 1619... They got the date right but they gloss over the fact that these folks were kidnapped from their families and brought against their will to do work for people who thiught that people could be, ahhhhhh, owned... Yeah, plenty of mythology out there... I actually took a class in the 60's entitled "History of the South" which was taught by Dr. Rogers, the head of VCU's history department... It was filled with mythology... Like they say, garbage in, garbage out... It takes more than learning up the company fight song to understand the entire story as it really was and is... If yer not willing to question the comapny fight song then yer never ever going to have the facts that are required to make informed decisions or form informed opinions... B~ |
|
10 Mar 10 - 10:24 PM (#2861531) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: The Fooles Troupe Bobert "Having the federal governement be "da man" rubs the righties big time..." But they can dream of being in total control, like many dictators before them... :-) :-P |
|
10 Mar 10 - 10:47 PM (#2861541) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: CarolC The "righties" love the federal government being "da man", as long as they're the ones who control the government. |
|
10 Mar 10 - 10:57 PM (#2861548) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Sawzaw Well the Jim Crow laws were enacted by the Democrats and the KKK was created by the Democrats. Robert Byed was a KKKr and as far as I know he is a Democrat. Bull Connor was a democrat. George Wallace was a Democrat. You can act all high and mighty if you want but it don't change the facts and it don't change history. When did the Dixiecrats come into existence? "somw will actaully quote Lyndon Johnson": "I'll have them n******s voting Democratic for 200 years." |
|
11 Mar 10 - 01:28 AM (#2861582) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: CarolC So what does any of that have to do with the Democratic party of today, Sawzaw? |
|
12 Mar 10 - 12:44 AM (#2862334) Subject: RE: BS: Rightie Supremes in a Pickle??? From: Sawzaw Johnson, like other presidents, would often reveal his true motivations in asides that the press never picked up. During one trip Johnson was discussing his proposed civil rights bill with two governors. Explaining why it was so important to him, he said it was simple: I’ll have them n*****s voting Democratic for two hundred years. That was the reason he was pushing the bill, said MacMillan, who was present during the conversation. Not because he wanted equality for everyone. It was strictly a political ploy for the Democratic party. He was phony from the word go. |