Home › Forums › Open Discussion › SCOTUS shaping America
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 30, 2014 at 6:38 pm #611830
wakefloodParticipantI’m not sure which one of these two elements has had a bigger part to play in the state of our Union, but I suspect they’re too intertwined to extricate one from the other. Those being the rise of the greed state and the plethora of 5-4 SCOTUS decisions that have shaped our modern life.
It’s not like we didn’t see this coming. It’s been a slow-motion train wreck of corporo-fascism and a gutting of “We the People”.
The right’s been stacking the courts for over a generation and we now live in an era that feels more like 1890 than the 21st Century -as it pertains to jurisprudence.
The left took their eye off the ball, believing that the stakes planted in the 1960’s and 70’s decisions were immutable. We were wrong. Gay marriage notwithstanding (and we’ve all heard that this is supported by both conservative and progressive, which makes it unique), we’re backsliding into an era where the majority of the country thinks that SCOTUS is neither impartial in its decisions, NOR in line with our morals or ethics.
Way to go, right-wingers, you’ve created your utopia. Now, explain to me how America is better off? Seriously, someone has to tell me how this makes us a “more perfect union”?
June 30, 2014 at 6:57 pm #810289
JanSParticipantI’m with you all the way…after today’s ruling for Hobby Lobby and corporate, I must say, at 67, I am truly losing faith…in our system. It seems that now “corporate” can use any excuse to get out of anything. It’s time for a people backlash, but that’s nearly impossible. Boycotts on these huge companies simply will not work(there are a lot of misguided people who will support them)…and the 9 people of Scotus can’t be removed. Screwed, we are…
June 30, 2014 at 7:51 pm #810290
skeeterParticipant“It’s been a slow-motion train wreck of corporo-fascism and a gutting of ‘We the People’.”
This is what keeps me coming back to the WSB forums.
June 30, 2014 at 8:06 pm #810291
wakefloodParticipantI know I’m a broken record on this but I think this question is at the heart of our polarized political and societal dynamic.
And the reason I keep asking it is because NOBODY on the right that I know, and certainly NOBODY who regularly posts on this blog from a “conservative” perspective EVER attempts to answer it.
Why IS this realized vision of the right a more perfect union; a better America for “We the People”??
Rich??? Smitty??? Somebody take a whack?? Help some of us understand why this last 35yrs. of political sway has been beneficial to us as a country?
If you can’t even manage to piece together a cogent argument for the biggest transfer of wealth in recorded history, the regression of individual rights and the ascendance of the corporate state, then you’re essentially admitting that this has all been for the service of a very precious few at the expense of the many.
Your continued silence, all you purveyors of this vision disguised as “rugged individualism”, suggests simply that you HAVE NO ARGUMENT, cogent or otherwise.
And if that is true, then what’s left to us Americans is to assume it was always simple selfishness and fear of others at its core. A political vision based on the ethical, emotional construct equivalent to a 5yr. old. “I deserve it. It’s mine. You can’t have it”.
But maybe you’ve got some higher purpose to this? Maybe I’m missing something? Maybe there’s really good things we all are overlooking here? Tally sheet at the ready. For the umpteenth time…whatcha’ got?
June 30, 2014 at 8:09 pm #810292
wakefloodParticipantHa! Skeets, I’ll assume that was a spot-on skewering of my onionesque cynicism/hyperbole? ;-)
June 30, 2014 at 8:14 pm #810293
JanSParticipantfor those of you who might have a few extra bucks…(sadly, not I)
June 30, 2014 at 8:40 pm #810294
skeeterParticipantI love your contributions to the forum Wakeflood. You are a very talented and insightful person.
June 30, 2014 at 8:48 pm #810295
skeeterParticipantWake, I think the reason Rich or Smitty or any other conservative might not engage is because the WSB forums are not a respectful place to discuss differences of opinion. It turns personal very, very fast. That’s been my observation over the past several years.
I’ve been trying to stick more to topics of local interest. Those discussions tend to be more interesting and less polarizing to me.
But I immensely enjoy reading what you have to say. So I often just come back here as a reader, not as a poster.
June 30, 2014 at 9:40 pm #810296
wakefloodParticipantWell, if I entertain somebody, I’ll consider that a very fine thing. And I DO get your point about why I don’t get a response to my query BUT I’m still flummoxed!
And with regards to local issues being less polarizing? Well, the mini flame-war that sparked up the other day about speed traps and violators sure looked heated to me. ;-)
signed,
hoping I’m never called a Gladys Kravitz!
June 30, 2014 at 10:24 pm #810297
dobroParticipantConservative response to your question…
From 1992-2008-Everything is messed up in America! It’s all Bill Clinton’s fault!!
From 2008 til now-Everything is messed up in America! It’s all Barack Obama’s fault!!
June 30, 2014 at 11:26 pm #810298
wakefloodParticipantAnd as usual, Dobro sums it up and says it best. It’s funny cuz it’s tru.
June 30, 2014 at 11:40 pm #810299
waynsterParticipantReagen… it started then that’s when conservatives got their foot in the door… now in the past high courts have left politics out not anymore its been an assault on Obama from the start only hope a opening on the supreme court then try and get a more liberal one in……
it kinda ended for this poor guy after they ruled lmao…..
July 1, 2014 at 1:09 am #810300
JanSParticipantnow…when a company owned by, say, a religion )you fill in the name), that is against blood transfusions goes to court and wants their health plan (so they can get a tax break) to not cover them, how will Scotus decide? Slippery slope, indeed…
July 1, 2014 at 1:11 am #810301
JanSParticipantWhat gets me, seriously, is that the Hobby Lobby owners feel that birth control is a form of abortion. It’s not, plain and simple. Scotus needs to go to a reeducation camp :(
July 1, 2014 at 1:46 am #810302
SmittyParticipantUnless I am reading this chart wrong, R’s have had the Presidency, House and the Senate all at the same time in 4 of the last 57 years. None of which had a 2/3rds majority.
D’s have had all three during 16 years.
July 1, 2014 at 5:04 am #810303
JanSParticipantand?……that has what to do with Scotus?
July 1, 2014 at 5:09 am #810304
HMC RichParticipantSmitty. Can’t let good misinformation sway the opponents talking points.
Guys and Gals, I don’t post mainly because of what Skeeter said.
Anyway, I am loving life taking care of my wife, son, dogs and cats despite the IRS, DOJ, NSA, POTUS, SCOTUS, Do nothing Congress, Broken Bertha, No Hurry Murray and the rest of the gang.
My only gripe for now is gas is too high.
July 1, 2014 at 6:10 am #810305
HMC RichParticipantWake, No matter what I say I will be attacked.
As far as the Supreme Court, A lot of it has to do with timing. Who is President and what party is that President has been quite the game changer. Whether you believe it or not, the founders wanted to make it difficult to change or make new laws. (Harry Reid and Patty Murray are having massive withdrawal now that earmarks have essentially gone away).
If memory serves, the Presidents used to have a bit easier time appointing judges until Bork. I could be mistaken but I can’t remember any huge fights before that.
As many of you are horrified by Clarence Thomas, we are horrified by Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
We people on the right like constructionist interpretations of the Constitution whereas we feel the left likes precedent and policy making or changes regarding their view of the constitution. Ultimately we believe Congress should make the laws and the SCOTUS should interpret what the laws mean. That is not to say the Supreme Court decisions are final. They are not. Congress can with proper votes change a decision by the SCOTUS.
Hobby Lobby was a Constructionist Decision. The ACA was not. Roberts went outside of the Constitutional law Precedents to make what was not a tax, a tax. Roe v Wade was another decision as such. (No, I do not want to debate that right now).
Wakeflood. Under the leadership of both parties the Federal Government is built to grow. Has it ever contracted? NO. Even under Ronald Reagan it grew. You can complain all you want about the last 35 years but the fact is due to the people who have been elected, we have our current situation.
We have 17 Trillion in Debt. This started under the Reagan Presidency and has kept growing. We have a Patrician Class of Politician that is NOT accountable to the average person. We have a ruling aristocracy that we vote in every few years. They only come to us when they need a vote. They follow their donors at all other times.
Business has boomed for a variety of reasons.
A lot of baby boomers became selfish corporatists and taught their kids that. Many did not but the greed displayed by many citizens is heartbreaking. This greed by some has skewed the view of many Americans.
Congress made more and more laws giving business tax breaks. The regulations on the banking industry were relaxed. I believe Gramm had something to do with this which allowed super banks/insurance/brokerage firms la la la to have too much sway in the marketplace. Plus the people on the other side started passing laws to get more people in houses and businesses that really didn’t have enough earning potential, and government agencies like Fannie and Freddie were mismanaged also.
Plus Congress, whether Democrat or Republican kept spending, spending, spending even with 8% yearly increases for each fiscal year kept rising. (And certain people who tried to decrease a programs increase by 2% were called many colorful names and frankly gave up). It amazes me how a 6% increase instead of an 8% increase could be called a cut.
You blame Gramm, I blame Franks. You blame right, I blame left. but now I blame both.
Federal Government spending is larger than ever, the government and the services it provides is bigger than ever.
So my question to you is with the huge expansion of the Federal Government that Democrats usually want, why do you only blame the Republicans?
I myself want to 86 the McCain’s and Graham’s who play the DC game. I want to cut parts of government. Combine agencies that are redundant. Give the states and local governments more power to deal with state and local issues hopefully!!!!! I am not holding my breath.
Fact is, if the Federal Government does fail one of these days, most of us will be affected immediately and Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray will be safe in some DC bunker while we will be trying to survive day to day. I pray to my GOD that never happens.
A little common sense is what most of ask for. I ask that the leaders of our country follow the rules they make. We don’t expect perfection but we do expect accountability and we are not getting it all.
July 1, 2014 at 6:54 am #810306
JanSParticipantChuck Schumer and Patty Murray will be safe in some DC bunker –
so will every other congressperson…Boehner, McCain, McConnell (if he’s still around, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, (but not Eric Cantor – he’ll be selling insurance or something). Don’t just call out Dems…they’re all guilty…
July 1, 2014 at 6:55 am #810307
JanSParticipanta question for you, Rich…how do you feel about the decision today re: Hobby Lobby…?
July 1, 2014 at 7:04 am #810308
JanSParticipant“The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage”
“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.”
“Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.”
“It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”
July 1, 2014 at 7:04 am #810309
JanSParticipantIt’s late..I was repeating myself :-
July 1, 2014 at 1:49 pm #810310
SmittyParticipant“The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage”
But Jan, that is not true (unless there is a lot missing in the “……”.
1) They still have access to 14 other types of contraception covered by their employers. Just not this one, and a few like it.
2) The media phrases this like they will have no access to this type of contraception at all. The fact is they can still get it – just not subsidized by their employer.
3) Since when is this type of contraceptive considered “healthcare” anyway?
4) How did women get access to birth control pre-Obamacare?
July 1, 2014 at 2:41 pm #810311
miwsParticipantI wonder if taxpayers are paying for Viagra for any of these people?
(Well, seven of them in particular, anyway)
Mike
July 1, 2014 at 3:14 pm #810312
wakefloodParticipantNo doubt, Mike. But that’s ok, it’s for the guys, we matter more.
Rich, Smitty, thanks for throwing some thoughts out. Here’s a couple of thoughts back.
First, Rich, I wasn’t implying that no Dems participated in executing this dynamic. There’s plenty of them that got onboard to help make it happen. To wit: “The era of big Gov’t is over.”
What I’m referring to is a vision of a country built on supply side economics and every man/woman for themselves. Reagan sold it well and there were LOTS of buyers. It was a snow job to be sure, what it REALLY meant was, let’s take care of the wealthy and let the rest fend for themselves. The system will take care of those who are worthy and those that aren’t, will have to deal.
That vision has held sway for over 30yrs. It’s manifested in departmental policy, regressive taxation, deregulation, corporate subsidies, crumbling infrastructure, a solidification of multiple industrial complexes, a dumbing down of our political dialogue (educated elites are a problem), etc., etc.
We had 70-90% marginal tax rates on the wealthy during the 50’s and 60’s and built a strong middle class, educated via the GI bill. We’ve run far away from that notion to something out of “Lord of the Flies”.
Why is that better, regardless of who’s to blame?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.