john roberts

Richard Posner, a Reagan nominated judge who sits on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, told NPR, "I've become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy". He has basically echoed a sentiment we have heard from many other former Republicans. Let's face it, the party is losing their mind.

Of course the GOP will refuse to hear that and write it off as the "liberal media" planting some crazy ideas in the heads of people. You know, that "liberal media" that all gets together with the sole goal of discrediting America's right. They even hold secret meetings, complete with decoder rings and a super-secret handshake.

Yes, this is the thinking of Republicans today and it is "goofy".

Or maybe you heard this one? Back in the early 60s, a African family developed this plan. They would breed a child and then convince the state of Hawaii to forge a birth certificate, just so he can become President some 40+ years later. I bet John Grisham is pissed he didn't come up with that plot!

Then there's the main issue Posner was hitting; John Roberts healthcare decision:

“Because if you put [yourself] in his position … what’s he supposed to think? That he finds his allies to be a bunch of crackpots? Does that help the conservative movement? I mean, what would you do if you were Roberts? All the sudden you find out that the people you thought were your friends have turned against you, they despise you, they mistreat you, they leak to the press. What do you do? Do you become more conservative? Or do you say, ‘What am I doing with this crowd of lunatics?‘ Right? Maybe you have to re-examine your position.”

We always here Republicans talk about "state sovereignty" and an "overreaching federal government", but they really don't believe in what they say. Take this latest example from the conservative Supreme Court:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down Montana's century-old limits on corporate political spending, putting an end to the state's resistance to Citizens United and effectively expanding that controversial ruling to the state and local elections.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided in January 2010, struck down federal limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions as violations of the First Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, reached the bold conclusion that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption," and therefore "[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."

The vote was split along ideological lines. Basically the conservatives said "the sovereignty you have imposed for over a 100 years, Montana, well it's wrong".

This is also a perfect example of how the conservatives are willing to give our nation to the greedy corporations. It is one of the biggest insults ever leveraged against democracy and it's coming from those "democracy loving" chest thumpers on the right. Sickening......

This is one comparison I am really getting tired of:

The Obama Administration needs to recall that George W. Bush’s first nominee, Harriet Miers, was withdrawn after twenty-three days under not dissimilar circumstances: insufficient evidence in the nominee’s record to encourage his political base to become enthused about the nominee.

First off, John Roberts was actually Bush’s first nominee, but I just want to get the nitpicking out of the way.

Miers was not known at all when she was nominated. I remember that morning so well. There was a bipartisan reaction of “who is that” once Bush named her. Compare that to Kagan, who has been on the short list for over a year now. Even Republicans know her and have shown support for her. Miers had support from no one, not on the left or right.

And to even begin to compare the resumes of these two ladies is laughable. Kagan has a very distinguished career in academia, while Miers resume looks like that of someone who could never be happy at a job for longer than a couple of years.

But again, this all boils down to anti-Obama rhetoric. Obama could have appointed Robert Kennedy, jr. to the Supreme Court and the people at FDL would be upset and bashing Obama for it.

Adding…Would we much rather have John McCain as President and picking this justice? Look at his vetting process. It can all be summed up in two words – Sarah Palin. Enough said.

So Obama retook the oath of office last night after John Roberts screwed up the original one on Tuesday. Will that make the wingnuts happy? Of course not.

So now FOX and the rest of the right has something to bitch about. I’m sure they will try to claim this also nullifies his presidency, even though article 2, section 1 of our Constitution says nothing about using a bible (funny – it seems our founding fathers didn’t want that religious emblem in the fabric of our nation). Hell he could put his hand on a big, fat sack of weed and it would be fine constitutionally.

Check out this headline from the AP:

So what is that? Could it be troop cuts or defunding the war? NO! This article is about the Republicans filibustering Jim Webb's amendment to give the troops as much time home as they are at war. Anti-war? Fuck you AP - this was a pro-troop bill. It was a pro-military bill, by providing our troops with the rest they need to counter any problem that might face our nation.

AND IT'S CALLED A FILIBUSTER!!!!

You pandering pussies that are destroying the fourth estate. When the Democrats talked of blocking John Roberts confirmation to the Supreme Court all we heard from you was "filibuster". The Republicans have been on a roll obstructing Senate, yet you never mention the word filibuster. Don't believe me? Well here is another example just today:

Senate Rejects Expanding Detainee Rights

Makes it sounds like both these measures failed by a straight up/down vote - don't it? I mean saying "senate rejects" implies that a majority of Senators voted against it. Do your fact checking ASSociated Press. Both these measures were blocked with a filibuster. A majority of Senators wanted to vote on the issues, but the Republicans don't think our troops our Habeas Corpus deserve an up/down vote. And apparently neither does the AP.

The newly constructed conservative Supreme Court has made a ruling overturning the campaign finance laws of Vermont:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Vermont's limits on contributions and spending in political campaigns are too low and improperly hinder the ability of candidates to raise money and speak to voters.

In a fractured set of opinions, justices said they were not sweeping aside 30 years of election finance precedent but rather finding only that Vermont's law — the strictest in the nation — sets limits that unconstitutionally hamstring candidates.

The majority took issue with Vermont legislators for "constraining speech" by telling candidates and voters how much campaigning was enough.

President Bush's two appointees to the court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — sided with the majority in overturning Vermont's law.

This of course makes it easier for the upper-echelons of society to become our leaders. This country as a whole needs serious campaign finance reform and the Supreme Court just snubbed their noses at it. Activist judges? Hell yeah there are. This is an example of it. Of course conservative judges will rule like this considering the only way the party they believe in can get elected is through a powerful money machine.

It is amazing to think that every democracy comparable to ours has some sort of publicly financed election laws. Why can't we get that? Isn't the base of democracy to allow its people from all walks of life a chance to lead? We are quickly become a theocracy as opposed to a democracy.

I been wondering that since Bush feels he has the power to break the law and
since his current Supreme Court nominee, Sam Alito, shares the same
"constitutional" values as Bush will that make him even more of a threat to the
high court. Well it turns out Alito will get to answer on that:

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. was warned
yesterday by two key senators that he will be expected to comment on the
revelation that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to
monitor the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without
seeking a court order.

In separate letters to Judge Alito, Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., its ranking
Democrat, told the nominee to expect questions about the surveillance
program, which Mr. Leahy said "is but one of several areas where the court's
role as a check on overreaching by the executive may soon prove crucial."

In his letter, Mr. Specter stopped short of asking Judge Alito if Mr.
Bush violated the Constitution by authorizing surveillance of persons
thought to have ties to al-Qaida without obtaining a warrant from the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Article continues
here.

That is a very important question and either way he goes will lead to
problems. I bet he is talking to John Roberts right now trying to learn some
question dodging tactics that were common play during the Roberts confirmation
hearing.

FOX's role of "Fair and Balanced" could be in jeopardy now that the
Republican National Committee has rolled out its
own webcast news show. "In The Know" premiered today with numerous segments
touching on a wide array of current events. The opening segment shows the
swearing in of John Roberts and even does a little to help promote Harriet Miers.

If you want spin fast and free then click here.
Its sure to give you as much of a spin rush as a Tilt-A-Whirl.