Comments on: Supreme Court’s Latest Constitutional Disaster of Biblical Proportions

By: Dirk W. Sabin

Dirk W. Sabin — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:56:28 +0000

Ohh but come now, the Liberals are enlightened and have good intentions and everyone will hold hands and behave.

We are well into a period when folks like to enact legislation atop legislation and then seek more legislation as remedy . Meanwhile, everyone seems to forget how easy it is for authoritarian regimes to establish themselves and turn the byzantine mess to their malign aims.

Not to mention the growing sentiment for people to think they truly need government to protect them.

By: alpowolf

alpowolf — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:21:00 +0000

Exactly, Jim. There are some jobs where no slack can be cut. It’s not okay for one’s surgeon to have an off day.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 02:31:43 +0000

Understood.

But the Court is opening so many Pandora’s Boxes - they deserve no slack.

By: Eric Hanneken

Eric Hanneken — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:54:36 +0000

Not what I said.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:47:24 +0000

So that makes their tacit endorsement of torture and other abominations OK?

By: Eric Hanneken

Eric Hanneken — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:40:38 +0000

Give the Supreme Court some credit. They did rule on the side of free speech in Citizens United.

By: The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit

The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:04:29 +0000

That would be a “newly reelected” judge, thankyouverymuch…..:D

By: Jim Davidson

Jim Davidson — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:12:05 +0000

Of course, not everyone benefits from a non-violent solution. The CIA, military, military contractor companies, and their cronies, as well as the politicians who divvy up (this year) $3.8 trillion in stolen and borrowed money do not benefit from peace. They have arranged things so they benefit from war. And they cannot have permanent war without global enemies.

The global communist conspiracy failed to be a compelling enemy after 1991. This was dissatisfying to the military-financial-industrial conglomerates. So they invented the global Islamist conspiracy.

Making the problem of disaffected groups of people go away through non-violent solutions would destroy the carefully crafted racket of selling endless war to a worried people. It is for this reason that the supremes ruled against freedom, and it is for this reason that scum like Joe Lieberman want to turn off the Internet.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:51:16 +0000

Jim, yes, I too get that warm feeling all over when thinking about all the friends we’ve created abroad…err…oops, that’s just my bladder losing control. Depends(TM), anyone?

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:12:12 +0000

Lawrence, good thing that there aren’t any terrorists among the Afghan allies we bankroll..

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:11:46 +0000

Alpowolf - yes, any contact with so-called terrorists would suffice, as far as I can tell.

And the US govt has done such utter @#$@# in how they have exploited the terrorist designation.

I am not aware of anything that would prevent them from exploiting the same power if they began labeling domestic groups en masse as terrorist entities.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:10:24 +0000

For casual visitors to this blog, Hobbit is an elected judge in Oregon.

I wish I had the chance to vote for him to serve on the Supreme Court.

But I think it is unlikely that the governor of Maryland would appoint me in case one of Maryland’s 2 US senators was run over by a beer truck.

By: The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit

The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:56:56 +0000

Increasingly, the purpose of the Supreme Court seems to be simply to rubberstamp government crimes.

Surely this isn’t a surprise? Imagine how good YOUR next trip to traffic court (say) would look if you could appoint the judge that would be hearing your case. There’s something to be said for the way that Oregon elects the third branch of government as well as the other two.

By: Lawrence

Lawrence — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:17:18 +0000

Alpowolf. Good point about the intent of such a ruling, but let’s not forget all of the military-industrial-complex spending that would fall on hard times if peace were to break out through some horrible organization that seeks to find a peaceful alternative to the War Department’s preferred method of conflict-resolution — killing everyone who does not genuflect and kiss the ring of military AU-THOR-I-TAH!.

By: alpowolf

alpowolf — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:25:56 +0000

Ditto on the swearing. I’m still incredulous (a feeling I thought I’d lost!) that helping a group find a nonviolent way to resolve its greivances could be considered “terrorism”, when everybody benefits from a nonviolent solution.

But then I realised, the politicians don’t benefit. There ya go. They don’t get to expand their powers to protect us from the “threat”. They don’t get to appear “tough” by having people killed. (Dontcha just love how they growl for the TV cameras, as though they themselves had fixed bayonets and charged up a hill? When they only thing they charge up is the national debt?)

The way this ruling reads, one could probably be prosecuted for “material support” for advising a terrorist to turn himself in to the authorities. Kafka, call your office.