Post Reply
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
Switch to Forum Live View The Supreme Court: Playing the States Rights Game Or Translating Law?
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 3:47AM #41
Hatman
Posts: 9,634
It has been my observation that any who attain to a position of power over others sincerely hate anyone who determinedly and obstinately points out the limitations to the powers they have arrogantly and unlawfully assumed, much less points out that the terms of their continued employment are conditioned on their faithful adherence to the limits they freely agreed to on oath prior to said employment, therefore they will do all in their power to squirm, re-define, claim "precedent," bluster and bloviate as long as possible about why what the Constitution SAYS is not what it MEANS, 'cuz it's been "interpreted," ya know?

If liars are caught in court, they're prosecuted for perjury, and it's arguable that even uncaught perjurers might negatively impact the lives of maybe a thousand people, being generous and considerate of ripple effects; however, since those who lie under their oaths of office have the potential to negatively impact millions-if-not-billions of lives, therefore the penalty for oathbreaking should be commensurately higher, up to and including execution.

For example, the penalty for debasing the coin of the United States used to be death; should be not only reinstated, but retroactively applied...imo, of course.

With goodwill to all the People(except Oathbreakers)-

Hatman
PS: Thanks, TENAC
"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 8:49AM #42
Bodean
Posts: 9,581

Apr 10, 2012 -- 7:22PM, catboxer wrote:


Good points -- want to make the Supremes more sympathetic to your point of view? Serve 13 years as president.


The political urge to control the court forever and cast it in the ideology of one's own persuasion has also led to youthful vigor being a prime qualification for the high bench today. We see this in the appointments of Clarence Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Mss. Sotomayor and Kagan.





OK .. I see how you operate.


I say FDR "packed the court" .. meaning he appointed a bunch of individuals who were politically aligned with his agenda, such that he could get favorable rulings on his programs .... and you say .. it's all just a bunch of opinionated rubbish.


Zacaryn comes in, and says the same thing ... and it's a "good point".


My apologies .. I guess I should have referenced Wiki for something that I thought everyone already knew.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 9:57AM #43
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

No, that's not what I said. I said he didn't pack the court.


He did not expand the size of the court to appoint additional judges sympathetic to the New Deal. He planned to, but was talked out of it.


What he ended up doing was appointing new justices as vacancies occurred.


There's a big difference.


You know, you could read the history rather than making up your own.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 10:48AM #44
Hatman
Posts: 9,634
If the points have degenerated into quibbling over semantics, perhaps it may be more accurate to say that Roosevelt "stacked" the court over his 13-odd year tenure by considering only candidates sympathetic to his causes, which apparently were to subvert and end-run the Constitution by any and all means necessary.

IIRC, his original plan was to arrogantly declare that SCOTUS ought to have 15 justices, and he had willing toadies and sycophants standing by to jump at his command.

After he was talked out of that plan(though why he acceded is beyond me; his was a quite dictatorial reign, and American idiots kept on voting him into office despite his theft of America's gold and multiple violations of his oath of office, betraying Americans to the banksters), THEN he just appointed his men, and arm-twisted yet another Quisling Congress into complaisance.

But perhaps this citation may shed light:

"The manuals containing these definitions(military academy manuals rightly defining and contrasting democracy and a republic) were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth(40% is more accurate; when the more moronic among the People turned in their 20dollar gold pieces in exchange for FRN's, gold sold for(natch) 20dollars an ounce; in about 18months, FDR, on the "advice" of banksters, declared that gold was now pegged @ 35/oz, effectively nearly halving the "value" of the FRN's), while convincing the people that it was for their own good. Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said, "Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference"."

Harry Hopkins is a character worth googling, as most Americans know squat about him or his influence.

But how a conversation about SCOTUS decisions for or against State's Rights and/or increasing the power of the general government(and setting yet more Unconstitutional "precedent") has been diverted into the FDR tangent is rather an exercise in futility---or just an excuse to get out complaints, one or the other, i suppose---is quite off-topic, therefore useless to furthering any point for or against the increase of Federal arrogance(imo, of course!).

With goodwill to all the People(except Oathbreakers)-

Hatman
"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 10:55AM #45
Bodean
Posts: 9,581

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:48AM, Hatman wrote:

If the points have degenerated into quibbling over semantics, perhaps it may be more accurate to say that Roosevelt "stacked" the court over his 13-odd year tenure by considering only candidates sympathetic to his causes, which apparently were to subvert and end-run the Constitution by any and all means necessary.




Yep ...


I was content to let it lie.  If Cat cant read my previous post that states exactly this, .. oh well.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 4:25PM #46
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

To counter the impact of the Court's decisions on the New Deal reforms, President Roosevelt proposed legislation that would have altered the makeup of the Supreme Court.  The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, which provided for broad reform of the federal judicial system, allowed President Roosevelt to appoint an additional member to the Supreme Court for every sitting justice over the age of 70, which would have resulted in a total of six new justices at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the fact that the Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court, the legislation immediately came under sharp criticism from legislators, bar associations, and the public.


...


On July 22, 1937, the full Senate voted to send the bill back to the Senate Judiciary Committee where many of the provisions, including providing for additional justices to the Supreme Court, were eventually stripped. Finally, on August 26, 1937, the Senate passed an amended version of the Judiciary Reorganization Bill which did not include a provision to increase the number of Supreme Court justices.


(Source: www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history)


Roosevelt went on to appoint 8 justices in his 13-year administration.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 4:53PM #47
Bodean
Posts: 9,581

Apr 11, 2012 -- 4:25PM, catboxer wrote:


To counter the impact of the Court's decisions on the New Deal reforms, President Roosevelt proposed legislation that would have altered the makeup of the Supreme Court.  The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, which provided for broad reform of the federal judicial system, allowed President Roosevelt to appoint an additional member to the Supreme Court for every sitting justice over the age of 70, which would have resulted in a total of six new justices at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the fact that the Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court, the legislation immediately came under sharp criticism from legislators, bar associations, and the public.


...


On July 22, 1937, the full Senate voted to send the bill back to the Senate Judiciary Committee where many of the provisions, including providing for additional justices to the Supreme Court, were eventually stripped. Finally, on August 26, 1937, the Senate passed an amended version of the Judiciary Reorganization Bill which did not include a provision to increase the number of Supreme Court justices.


(Source: www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history)


Roosevelt went on to appoint 8 justices in his 13-year administration.





All of which were ideological shills for his agenda.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 5:05PM #48
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

That's business as usual, isn't it?


Can you name any president who ever appointed a justice whose views conflicted with the president's?


Presumably, the people we elect believe in something. We vote for the people whose views we favor; they appoint judges whose views are harmonious with their own.


Don't get mad at Roosevelt for doing what GW Bush did. Dubya could have appointed eight justices too, if he'd been elected a couple more times.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 7:56PM #49
Hatman
Posts: 9,634
i despise FDR for a plethora of additional/other reasons(many of them also attributable to the Shrub), but he's not the subject(or presumably, object) of this thread...save perhaps tangentially, for many of FDR's programs and policies are no doubt the "precedent" upon which "Constitutional scholar" D'Obama is apparently relying in order to excuse his (effectively) dictatorial command that all Americans(i.e. "UNITED STATES CITIZENS," but another topic) purchase a service from privately-held companies.  After all, "public policy" has apparently supplanted positive law on any number of occasions, e.g. the UCC and "fiscal" policies which pretend that debt is money.

But make no mistake; if SCOTUS rules that the USG can compel everyone in America to make a purchase from a private company or be fined/jailed for refusing to do so, then such a "precedent" will be used to excuse ever-more tyrannical future shopping dictates from Mount D.C.
"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 10:37PM #50
Bodean
Posts: 9,581

Apr 11, 2012 -- 5:05PM, catboxer wrote:


That's business as usual, isn't it?


Can you name any president who ever appointed a justice whose views conflicted with the president's?


Presumably, the people we elect believe in something. We vote for the people whose views we favor; they appoint judges whose views are harmonious with their own.


Don't get mad at Roosevelt for doing what GW Bush did. Dubya could have appointed eight justices too, if he'd been elected a couple more times.





GHWBush .. .appointed Suter .. who has turned out to be one of the most liberal judges on the bench.


Got any appointees from Democrats who fall in that category???  NOPE .. you sure don't!  Democrats are keen to apply their litmus test to insure that they get a pro-liberal on the court.


It's part of the Fabian Play Book. .. one of the three pillars of control to transform society.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook