Dismal Supreme Court Term: Ordinary People Need Rights?

Thursday, June 28, 2007 at 11:25 AM

As the two preceding posts probably already told you, this has been one dismal damn Supreme Court term.

For anyone who thought that Chief Justice Roberts might actually be an objective jurist, or that Sam Alito might be more sensible than his record made him appear, give it up.

Here's just a small sampling of some of the more egregious decisions, with links to the text of the opinions:

The balance has clearly tipped in favor of corporatons, wealth, power, and against individuals and those whom the powerful tend to regard as nuisances, gadflys, obstacles to progress if profress is defined as furthering the interests of the powerful.

And if you talk to non-ideologues in the legal field, you'll hear the repeated complaint that many of these decisions are simply reached with intellectual dishonesty. To hell with what the precedents actually, say, to hell with what common sense says, and to hell with what the existing laws actually were intended to do. What's important is that the "right side" win.

Time to sing the praises of the Supreme Court in its old, unimproved configuration:

"My country 'tis of C....

that is, C O R P.

of Wealth I sing.

From every boardroom now,

they'll steal the whole cash cow,

and pocket all the loot,

stuff each pocket of the suit,

and let the others cry,

until they slowly die....

I hear the ka-ching.

What an absolute disaster this clown-in-chief and all his little clownlings are going to be in the long term. That stolen 2000 election...the day the Supreme Court appointed Bush may well turn out to be the day America died.

And I really don't think that's hyperbole.


Your "free speech" issue is a scarecrow, so why do you think any other of your claims about "insufficiency" are believable?

You could probably come-off like a champ if you were to pick one or two issues that you actually might have some knowledge of, or could research a bit prior to expostulating your rss'ed claims, but instead you swallow the whole-hog and regurgitate it as if it was your thoughts, originally.

I don't need to say another thing. . .

Visitor misses the whole point, but that RNC reefer packs a wallop, yes.

To Visitor:

Um... there was one line in the article about free speech. You're an idiot.


All of the issues mentioned are nothing more than bete noires, described to frighten the "children" whose dreams you desire to disturb.

All of the scare talk is spun to misrepresent the decisions as wrong, unconstitutional, when they are actually in consonance with it! The example of "freedom of speech" was ONE of them!!!

Now, the "visitor" is the subject -- not your "evil" and supremely frightening, Court!

Ok, could you extrapolate on:

1) Where did you get the idea that anyone is trying to scare children, or give them nightmares?

2) How a single line became the entire thrust of your comment, when it was very, very minor to this article?

3) Why you put "evil" in quotes, as if you were quoting the article, when the word isn't in the article?

Understand this: Your emotional state is not the subject of these articles, nor is it taken into consideration when these opinion pieces are written. No one here can be responsible for the fact that your existence seems largely to be one non-sequitur after another.


Our Visitor is long on conclusions & assertions, and woefully short on specifics. As usual. Which serves to automatically deflect any further discussion away from the facts.

If my characterizations of the court opinions are wrong, Visitor can take the time to explain the manner in which I've misinterpeted them; that's why I provided the links to the opinions.

The original Vistor statement that "Your 'free speech' issue is a scarecrow, so why do you think any other of your claims about 'insufficiency' are believable" means what?

A "scarecrow?" I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. "Straw man" argument, maybe? If so, explain why you think that.

Claims about "insufficiency"???? Insufficiency of what?

As for "you swallow the whole-hog and regurgitate it as if it was your thoughts, originally"....say what? Regurgitated what? Claimed what was my own thoughts?

I've been reading and analyzing court decisions for almost 30 years. My characterizations of the court's actions come from the Syllabi of the official court opinions. When I've added a subjective opinion, that should be obvious from the wording--"unrealistic" limits on pay discrimination suits, for example.

If Visitor has any actual substantive comment to make, go ahead and make it, support it with reason, and do it in terms that others can understand. But don't waste everybody's time with this nonsense.