Thom Hartmann spanked a couple of DU'ers today on his show -

[cliffordu]

http://www.thomhartmann.com/

The link to that part of the show isn't live yet - I heard it and it was quite informative..

[bluestateguy]

1. Who got spanked?

Not me, I hope

[cliffordu]

2. I don't think it wise for me to

paraphrase what I heard......

Or name names...

It was pretty mild, mostly consisting of "READ THE CONSTITUTION!!!"

Although he DID mention a couple of people by name.

I don't remember if you were among the spanked.

[freshwest]

4. If he called out anyone by name or post, I'll put him on Ignore.

[cliffordu]

5. couple of folks called out by name...

[freshwest]

6. Bye, Thom. You don't pay us for your material.

[NYC_SKP]

45. Thom fuckin hartman knows better than to call fuckin ME out, I'll tell ya!

Otherwise it's no soup for him!



.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[freshwest]

55. Damn straight!

[cliffordu]

59. Really...

You are the Souper!!!

[NYC_SKP]

97. I tell ya, I fukkin' WILL kick his pasty hairless fukkin ass, I will.

Wanna help?

[cliffordu]

109. Shaw nuff!!!

lead the way!!

[Skip Intro]

53. That'll fix everything. nt

[freshwest]

56. Yeah, he'd quake in his boots at that, huh?

[freshwest]

3. All those that predicted the end of the world from the SCOTUS.

Okay, then. Let's all calm down!

[elleng]

135. I did, to start with, among others,

and when I get home, I'll spend some time spanking him. (Actually I plan to educate him; may take a while.)

[one_voice]

7. Could you give some indication...

at what point on the video is it?

[alp227]

8. i listened to that segment, and it's on youtube.

[ellisonz]

13. I am now glad to have never listened to Thom Hartmann before this post. n/t

[alp227]

17. really? whom do you listen to on the radio then?

and Thom Hartmann is probably the STRONGEST voice of the left at this moment! It's not like he drew a cartoon of Muhammad or anything.

[ellisonz]

33. I'm just not into talking head radio...

...I was forced to listen to it in years past and it's just not my cup of tea. I never cared for Randi Rhodes either. I listen to music or NPR (the devil, I know). What he did is kinda childish - if he wants to talk about DU he should do it here rather than in a place those posters can't respond to him directly. Just not something I think it that cool to do.

[titaniumsalute]

133. Bah...

This is a public forum. He's a radio talk show host. He reads shit on the internet and talks about it. Who cares. That is what we all do. And frankly...he was correct.

[ellisonz]

134. Meh...

He's a jerkwad for doing so without giving those posters a chance to defend themselves and he's wrong.

[Robb]

14. "That clip WOUND UP on Democratic Underground...."

"Wound up?"

He posted it, didn't he?

[stevenleser]

46. Yes, I think he did.

I dont know why he phrased it that way. It works just as well to say "I posted it over at Democratic Underground to see the reaction I would get and..."

[RZM]

51. Probably because he didn't post it. I'll bet that staffers/interns handle that kind of thing n/t

[liberalhistorian]

31. Well, he's absolutely correct and he was

correct to contradict the DU posters. He's right, they really do need to actually READ the constitution. Just because a DU poster says something doesn't make it true.

[joshcryer]

43. He doesn't even mention Article III once in that video.

How can he express an opinion on Judicial Powers bestowed by the Constitution if he can't even read the part of the Constitution that renders Judicial Powers? If what he said was true a lot of legislation that was shot down over unconstitutionality would still be relevant. Segregation, for example, would still be law (see: Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy v. Ferguson).

[Zorra]

49. Yeah, there's a lot of "much ado about nothing" going on here.

It is, however, a convenient opportunity for some of the Third Way/Centrist/Corporatist crew to get in some cheap shots at Thom, who is ardently against corporate interference in government, and who has long been an eloquent voice for the Progressive/Liberal democratic left.

Thom has had Bernie Sanders live on his show on a weekly basis, and DK is a frequent guest.

So, ya know, many republicans and corporatist Third Way/Centrists don't much care for Thom.

Go figure, huh?


Thom is a good guy, he does some really nice things for people who need help, and one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing when he does them.

[freshwest]

57. Overall, I loved the clip, great history lessson and showed the problem: Congress.

Just didn't get why he used the names of members of DU, who are working these things out and sharing information as the voice of dumbass. I won't enjoy seeing posts using his clip to call us 'DUmmies' on rightwing sites.

Yeah, much ado about nothing. We can take it, I'm forgetting it, as if that meant anything. I don't have an international, multi-venue forum to call people out on. So what does it matter?

[Zorra]

66. Well, Mike Malloy has been naming DUers for many years.

But hasn't spanked them

Although all the argument was much ado about nothing, because Thom was correct in stating that the constitution does not specifically give the SCOTUS the power of judicial review,

I believe that Thom is deliberately making an issue out of this subject in order to wake people up to the fact that the SCOTUS is indeed our absolute ruler and we need to fix this ASAP.

The crux of the argument here is four-fold:

(1) Thom said that it was clearly not the founders intention that an unelected body, the SCOTUS, should have the power to overturn laws made by Congress.

(2) Thom said that there is no place in the Constitution where it states that laws made by Congress and signed by the President can be overturned by the Supreme Court.

(3) DU posters were erroneously saying that the Constitution, specifically the Third Amendment of the Constitution does give SCOTUS the power to overturn laws made by Congress.

(4) "The Constitution does not specifically give the federal judiciary the power of judicial review."

http://www.enotes.com/judicial-branch-reference/legislative-judicial-checks-balances

So, yeah, this argument of itself is bogus, it is much ado about nothing.

But:

It was the SCOTUS itself that decided it had the authority to overturn laws made by Congress in the Marbury vs. Madison case in 1803, effectively giving itself more power than Congress or the President combined.

The members of the SCOTUS are, essentially, our sovereign, appointed rulers for the duration of their lives, unless they choose to retire. Our kings and queens.

They even have the power to appoint Presidents, as we witnessed in Bush vs. Gore.

They even have the power to overturn laws made by Congress in order to assure 1% control of the electoral system, as we witnessed in the Citizen's United vs FEC.

The anti-Federalist Robert Yates said it very succinctly - I think he said this during the Constitutional Convention:

"The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void."

[joshcryer]

71. That's silly. Barmury vs. Madison was common sense.

I see no evidence that the creators of the Constitution intended for all laws passed to be set in stone and, indeed, able to contradict the constitution itself. Can you make a law that says you cannot be equal? Well the states did with their segregation laws. The SCOTUS shot those laws down.

The SOCTUS did not magically endow itself with those powers as those powers are clearly and unambiguously stated in Article III of the Constitution. No reading of the language in Article III implies, suggests, or indicates that they do not have those powers. Given that Supreme Court justices can be impeached, they are not "kings and queens." If they make a faulty decision outside of American opinion Congress could quite easily oust them. That's the ironic part here, Thom is advocating a kind of cronyism whereby citizens decide the rule of law against a minority.

So you can envision a scenario where SOCTUS judges rule against segregation and then the people elect Congress members who then impeach the judges and segregation is then legalized by the new racist appointments.

The key here is that such a scenario is unlikely because of how the system is set up. They put in enough checks and balances to make it more unlikely than if we had a monarchy, for example.

BTW, cute that you quote Robert Yates, one aligned with the Confederates.

It's not hard to see how this line of thought turns right wing to the core, again, and again, and again.

[HiPointDem]

72. No, but I can imagine the scenario where SCOTUS rules in favor of segregation, because it did, 7-1

Plessy did as much as anything to institutionalize segregation, which was a post-Reconstruction development. The law segregating public facilities in Louisiana had been passed in 1890. The SC took the case in 1896.

"The case helped cement the legal foundation for the doctrine of separate but equal, the idea that segregation based on classifications was legal as long as facilities were of equal quality."

I'd trust the populace generally on most issues over 9 guys appointed by one guy "appointed" by a bunch of rich guys.


Plessy v. Ferguson – Case Brief Summary

Summary of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896).
Facts

Can the states constitutionally enact legislation requiring persons of different races to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities?

Holding and Rule (Brown)

Yes. The states can constitutionally enact legislation requiring persons of different races to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities.

[joshcryer]

74. Sure. But progress goes one way, you can't expect, seriously, that decision to be reversed.

Unless of course you take a states-rights stance and say that the SCOTUS doesn't have power over states rights. Which is what Thom here is doing, effectively.

[HiPointDem]

76. In what sense do you see him taking a states-rights position?

[joshcryer]

77. He says SCOTUS should not have the power to overturn laws made by Congress.

Say Congress makes a law that supports states rights over constitutional rights. Anti-Federalism, pro-Confederacy. SCOTUS couldn't over turn it, according to Thom. That's a states rights, anti-Federalist position.

Article III is explicit, the SCOTUS can decide any and all law, period, including law that does not yet exist, in any case, State or Federal.

[HiPointDem]

78. The state governments make laws that pertain exclusively to states. Congress makes federal law.

Congress "could" theoretically institute such a law as you posit.

As you pooh-poohed my post on Plessy by talking about the "progress" since then, I'll say your scenario of Congress passing such a law is about as likely as SCOTUS reinstituting Plessy.

On edit: and actually, as witness the post below, I think it's much more likely that SCOTUS will bring back "state's rights" in order to devolve federal spending on social programs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002485334

Also, re your comment that Congress can just impeach the SC if their judgments are against the mainstream of American opinion:

That is two steps removed from the will of the people.

With legislators, you can at least vote them out. You don't have to mount an impeachment campaign, which, when you also have to convince your legislators to mount said campaign, then go through the process itself, makes the justices all but untouchable by any democratic process.

It makes justices almost untouchable, which is why only one judge has ever been impeached.

[joshcryer]

79. Yes, but you always have to consider the opposite scenario.

Thom doesn't think SCOTUS has the right to overturn ACA. That's fair enough. But neither does SCOTUS have the right to overturn segregation or any plethora of states laws, if you're consistently applying SCOTUS rights. That's the crux of the argument. It's a seriously unbelievably asinine interpretation of Article III. Yes, the SCOTUS fucks shit up, and in fact the SCOTUS will likely fuck this next one up, but anything outside of that is cronyism. Wanting selective justice.

If we're consistent we must accept that SCOTUS, under Article III, has the power to cover all case law, federal or otherwise.

You should know that in spirit I agree with Thom over ACA, but in general I accept that Constitutionally the powers exist.

[HiPointDem]

80. He said that the Constitution doesn't give the SC the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

He said the court gave itself that power. Which is true, as I learned in Con Law 400 many years ago.

And Article 3 doesn't "explicitly" give the SC the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

And as we have seen with Plessy (and cases in every arena), what is declared "constitutional" in one era is found "unconstitutional" in the next. Your defense of the SC as some kind of bastion of human rights is ahistorical. It has almost never acted as such in any general way. It has almost always acted as a defender of the propertied against the rest, and arbitrated in disputes of the propertied between themselves and between the State.

[joshcryer]

81. The court only applied it for the first time, to show that the courts didn't have that power...

...you have to invoke the opinion of anti-Constitution anti-Federalist speakers. It does, under Article III, unambiguously have that power.

All cases means all cases, HiPointDem.

The SC is not some "bastion of human rights." I might even agree with the anti-Federalists in principle, but it's clear that Thom is completely incorrect here, and we do have a mechanism for justice, even if it's slow going, it happens.

I say this being against the right wing SCOTUS and its impending decision striking down mandates (which quite a few many DUers who agree with Thom actually champion!).

[HiPointDem]

82. It does not explicitly give sc the right to declare laws unconstitutional. it gives it jurisdiction.

it's not the same thing.

i'm not going to rehash the arguments for and against marbury with you, or the federalist/anti-federalist debate.

just show me the EXPLICIT portion of article 3, please.

[joshcryer]

83. See post #32.

[HiPointDem]

84. There is no explicit grant of power to strike down laws made by congress. Or states.

ex·plic·it/ikˈsplisit/
Adjective:
Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

Explict would be: "The Supreme Court has the power to strike down state and federal laws it deems unconstitutional".

That is why there's an argument, and that's why even the founders argued about it.



Original Intent & Judicial Review

The Constitution does not expressly provide for judicial review. What should be made of this fact? Does it suggest that the framers did not intend to give the courts such a power? Not necessarily, although that is one explanation for its absence. It is also possible that the framers thought the power of judicial review was sufficiently clear from the structure of government that it need not be expressly stated. A third possibility is that the framers didn't think that the issue would ever come up, because Congress would never pass legislation outside of its enumerated powers.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/judicialrev.htm

Only 11 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, according to Madison's notes, expressed an opinion on the desirability of judicial review. Of those that did so, nine generally supported the idea and two opposed.

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47

http://www.utahfreestate.us/Home/Thomas%20Jefferson%20Judicial%20Review.htm


I am arguing no point except that the constitution doesn't EXPLICITLY give the sc the right to strike down laws on the grounds that they're unconstitutional.

On edit: I will add though, that Marbury was reaching using that particular dispute, and the reason was intensely POLITICAL. That in itself tells me that the SC will be no bastion against any overreaching by Congress or anyone else. In the case that the POLITICS call for a new imposition of institutionalized segregation, the SC will find a way to support it in all likelihood.

The people themselves are the only real defense against tyranny, and even they generally do a piss-poor job of it.

[joshcryer]

85. It gives them the explicit right to determine all cases.

It can use the constitution to determine those cases, but doesn't necessarily have to do so (precedent can be used, too).

The current case is brought to the court by states, it is a case that the court can decide, and it can use constitutionality as a determining factor for its decision along basic jurisprudence. Roe vs. Wade was decided under those circumstances.

Thom is arguing an anti-Federalist argument that basically SCOTUS are "kings or queens," as far as their powers are concerned. A quaint view, to be sure. The constitution is clear, if a case as far as constitutionality comes before the court, then it must decide it, as such a case falls under "all Cases" and therefore it is up to the court to decide that case. Jefferson himself must have realized this, and thought that a constitutional convention was the answer, as has been effectively applied with the various amendments to the constitution.

Basically the view was "let the people decide." That has yet to happen on things like, you know, abortion, segregation, and the like. We've shamefully, as a people, failed to apply it as Jefferson envisioned. For example, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment has sat in limbo for as long as one can imagine, so, they clearly gave too much credit to the American people in that regard.

[HiPointDem]

88. It gives them jurisdiction to adjudicate. It doesn't explicitly give them to power to strike down

laws as unconstitutional.

You seem to think it's the same thing. It's not.

So far as history and accountability goes, scotus are more kings and queens than congress, or even the president.

[joshcryer]

90. You're saying that they have jurisdiction but cannot strike down a law?

If they use constitutionality as an aspect of their judgment?

[HiPointDem]

91. I am saying that the constitution does not state that EXPLICITLY. Which you claimed it did.

That is ALL I am arguing, as I said before EXPLICITLY.

The power to adjudicate between competing interpretations of law and the power to overturn law are two separate things.

Unlike the United States and some other jurisdictions, the English doctrine of parliamentary supremacy means that the law does not know judicial review of primary legislation (laws passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom), except in a few cases where primary legislation is contrary to the law of the European Union. A person wronged by an Act of Parliament therefore cannot apply for judicial review except in these cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law

[joshcryer]

92. The constitution states explicitly that they can rule on all cases.

It is utterly explicit. ALL CASES. Full stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $100. It says ALL CASES.

ALL CASES.

[HiPointDem]

93. It says the "judicial power" shall extend to all cases. But what is the judicial power?

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."


The judicial power is left undefined. Which is why most legal scholars call judicial review an implied power, not an express (explicit) power.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&prmdo=1&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22implied+power%22+%22judicial+review%22+marbury&oq=%22implied+power%22+%22judicial+review%22+marbury&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_l=serp.3...133367l138455l3l138902l12l12l2l0l0l0l232l1803l0j8j2l10l0.egsbsh.1.&psj=1&prmdo=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=2199bea36ec340bb&biw=1024&bih=580


Merely repeating over and over that it is explicit doesn't make your case. It is not explicit. The right to adjudicate is not coterminous with the right to nullify.

[joshcryer]

94. So you actually do believe that if a case comes before them they have no right to judge against it.

ie, that they have the power to adjudicate all cases, but if some cases come before them, they have no power to nullify.

Fair enough. I'm not convinced.

ALL CASES is very powerful language.

[HiPointDem]

95. No. I believe that the constitution does not EXPLICITLY grant judicial review to the supreme court.

You are having trouble with that delimitation, as i have EXPLICITLY told you I was arguing only about that word EXPLICIT three times now.

I've been quite clear as to my point.

Anyone of good will would have admitted that they had wrongly used the word "explicit".

I draw the appropriate conclusion and move on.

[joshcryer]

96. ALL CASES is EXPLICIT. It's not implied, it's RIGHT THERE IN THE LANGUAGE.

THAT is EXPLICIT.

They can review ALL CASES. Full stop. I'm not convinced that they have no EXPLICIT ability to rule on ALL CASES that come before them.

Some they may not have jurisdiction over as PROVIDED BY LAW, but those are extremely limited, as the case of the anti injunction act, with regards to the IRS, which, sadly, the defense failed to argue effectively.

[ellisonz]

123. I hereby declare joshcryer the winner of Democratic Underground.

Enjoy your wholesome prize:

[Zorra]

105. Confederate?!? Robert Yates was at the Constitutional Convention, Josh.

That was long before the civil war.

con·fed·er·ate
? ?[adj., n. kuhn-fed-er-it, -fed-rit; v. kuhn-fed-uh-reyt] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, -at·ed, -at·ing.
adjective
1.
united in a league, alliance, or conspiracy.
2.
( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Confederate States of America: the Confederate army.

con·fed·er·ate/kənˈfedərit/
Adjective:
Joined by an agreement or treaty.
Noun:
A person one works with, esp. in something secret or illegal; an accomplice.
Verb:
Bring (states or groups of people) into an alliance: "Switzerland is a model for the new confederated Europe".
Synonyms:
adjective. allied - federate
noun. ally - accomplice - accessory

While I appreciate your passion, attempting to connect folks who believe that the power of the SCOTUS needs to be limited with RW thought/ideology, and using this as a propaganda device in order to try to bolster your position...that just ain't gonna fly here.


I suppose *the confederate* Thomas Jefferson was another budding RWer also? Due to the fact, of course, that he, too, believed that the the power of the SCOTUS should be limited?

You stated:

"It's not hard to see how this line of thought turns right wing to the core, again, and again, and again."

Really?

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.
Thomas Jefferson, 1823

☮ccupy

[joshcryer]

131. I said aligned, his philosophy among others went on to be the basis for the civil war.

In fact there was a constitutional amendment proposed that legalized slavery (Corwin Amendment). If we were to go by Jefferson's view that a convention is what is necessary to resolve these issues and that amendment passed, we'd have a slave class by the constitution itself, in direct contradiction to the Bill of Rights! The Anti-Federalists were indeed those who built the philosophical underpinnings of the Confederacy. The Confederacy is, at its heart, anti-Federalism.

Thomas Jefferson did not think that Federalism was bad, he simply thought a convention was the answer. Of course, that too is wrong because jurisprudence requires law to be self-consistent with as few contradictions as possible. If a convention leads to a contradiction, then it doesn't solve the underlying issue of justice for all.

[randome]

100. I don't even know what this dispute is about.

But just because Thom Hartman says something doesn't make it true, either.

Just sayin'.

[elleng]

136. He's not absolutely correct,

he appears not to understand how the Constitution is interpreted. MORE in a few days.

[Jamastiene]

75. Well, what he is saying is in the Constitution.

The Constitution is a fascinating read. It would be nice if a country actually tried to live by it sometime. Too bad our country hasn't been following it very well. Things might be better.

[EnviroBat]

103. Thanks for posting this.

I feel a bit more educated having viewed this today. I'm a fan of Hartman, I wish he could reach a wider audience.

[mmonk]

9. Thom is correct. Number one, we call our representatives lawmakers.

Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2012, 07:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Second, the rightwing in this country drives me crazy because they get elected to appoint a Supreme Court to what?...........overturn existing law of course which already has legal precedence. If they want to outlaw for example, abortion, they should write the law but if you notice, they really haven't so far. If they did, they wouldn't keep getting votes on the premise of Supreme Court Justices from the religious right. But we have been doing things wrong for awhile now.

[SidDithers]

10. Here's the thread in question...

http://election.democraticunderground.com/101718710

Pretty poor form from Thom, IMO. If you post something on DU, and take issue with what DUers say in their replies to your post, at least have the courtesy to respond to them on DU.

Edit: just added the video from Post #8 to the other thread, to kick it and let the posters from that thread see what he said in the video response.

Sid

[ellisonz]

11. He must be running low on material. n/t

[freshwest]

58. I hadn't commented on the thread because I didn't question that SCOTUS was the final arbiter.

I thought the mention of the Founders and ideals of resisting the aristocratic mindset we have been fighting for so long were important. It seems as if we are fighting the Civil War and even the Revolution over again in this country. It is due to Democrats not fighting as hard as they should to protect the hard-fought restrictions on these folks by FDR.

He ended with the conclusion we must remake Congress, or so I thought. That requires state by state activism, which the GOP has beat us on. It was just the tone of the spanking I didn't care for and I'm not sure why he said it that way. The first comment about Elleng seemed unnecessarily harsh and unproductive.

That's all I have to say, of course we can always do better and are willing to learn. Or else we wouldn't be here. Other than this, I have never disagreed with him on any subject and am mystified at the tone.

[Rex]

115. Thanks Sid, I would have never found out all that or looked

that deep into it. He SHOULD reply to the other DUrs...since he signed up for DU and it is good form to do so in the proper forum. Or at least have them on the phone for a good discussion/debate.

[Bluenorthwest]

116. Sid I agree with you strongly in this case. Poor form indeed, and cowardly as well.

He takes his reply and does it on air, without doing any discussion on the site. He also says this clip 'wound up on DU' when it is posted under his own name using his own account. This is dishonest if you ask me.

[Spazito]

125. I agree, it was poor form...

not to respond in the thread he posted and, instead, do a call-out of those who responded on his show knowing they don't have any direct recourse against the call-out.

Very disappointing to say the least.

[FSogol]

127. Does he ever respond or are his posts nothing more than an advertisment for his show?

[one_voice]

12. HOLD UP....

isn't this one of the people whose stuff has been posted here--by other members not him--and when people disagreed--very 'loudly'- were told you cannot say certain things because he's a member of DU. There are one or two other people that fall under this special protection.

And here he is calling out DU members?

WTF is that about? He's more than fair game now.

edited cuz apparently I don't know the difference between their, there, and they're. I suck.

[Poll_Blind]

16. LOL! What's this baloney about him being protected from criticism somehow? That's not true.

Oh and you're going on the warpath, eh?!

Make Skinner and the rest of the admins proud! Nothing makes the founders of this site happier than to see individual users proclaiming jihad on an announcer who "spanks" some DUers with what, if it were written down, would probably be most polite and Constituationally-informative post on all of DU for that day, if not week.



Or you could have a reasoned back and forth with him if you have a disagreement! Is that too controversial to suggest?!

PB

[one_voice]

21. I honestly don't know if what you're trying to say...

I didn't proclaim jihad on anyone (cute sarcasm--not). It wasn't that long ago where a group of DU'ers were up in arms--yes they had hissy fits--because someone dared question or as they called it 'called out' someone that posts on DU, even though they posted elsewhere--writing articles and such.

What makes you think I wouldn't have a reasoned back and forth with him. My only point was he doesn't/and shouldn't get that special protection that so many wanted to bestow upon him.

My comment was more about the DU'ers that wanted him and a few other in a bubble of protection. As for him, I think it was kinda childish to do what he did. Guess it's too controversial for him to have a reasoned back and forth RIGHT HERE on DU where the person(s) he's spanking happen to be.

As a side note, I don't see those same DU'ers coming to the defense of their fellow DU'ers the way they did for him, when he was 'spanked' (right here on DU). Kinda odd, if you ask me.

Have a nice evening.

[alp227]

18. so expressing disagreement with other DUers = calling them out?

there IS difference between personal attack and disagreement.

[one_voice]

23. Apparently...

those that think this guy is all that didn't take kindly to other DU'ers disagreeing. They used the term 'calling out', continued to say it was against the rules.

I only read the thread I didn't comment.

Thank you for you condescending tone, I know the difference between personal attack and disagreement.

I probably wouldn't have bothered to comment, except I remember those threads in GD and H&M, where certain people here thought that what someone wrote-- articles --on other sites; were to be held to the same standards as though they were OPs here. And they shouldn't be, if you put your work out there like that then you're treated as any other writer whose articles are posted here.

[freshwest]

60. Singling a DUer by name was verboten on DU2, under the 'discuss ideas and not people' rule.

That's all that's being said here, not that someone can't take issue with someone's views. Thom could have corrected what he saw was incorrect without giving the names of the DUers, couldn't he?

It wasn't as if DUers couldn't read the thread and understood what he wanted to say was wrong about their posts. They were trying to ask a question to learn. Generally I have not seen him, or his bot, or his staff, or whoever is posting videos from his show reply directly to any answer on his threads. I generally recommended his threads but didn't comment as I didn't have anything to add, seeing as he covered the subjects.

Do you understand what I'm saying? The names, I wish he had left those out. And for some reason, he seemed angry. Thanks for posting the video, BTW, as he had some deep information there. And it doesn't really matter what we say on it.

[alp227]

65. well, he was essentially writing DU replies via his radio show.

either way, his replies are visible to the public. And how often do you see notable progressives on this board whether Hartmann or Alan Grayson etc. posting replies? Yes, Grayson has used DU to make announcements and occasionally posted replies to users. But progressives in the government or media have too much to do to post to this board. That's why I wasn't too surprised and didn't overreact when I heard Thom mentioning the DUers on his show today. And I hope that people forgive him very quickly. We've got more worthy battles such as the far more influential right wing smear radio (Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Savage, etc.) or the 2012 election.

[freshwest]

68. Yes, we do. And still think about the thrust of what he said and use it.

[Lisa D]

106. And using their DU names was necessary?

He couldn't make the same points without calling out DUers by name? Then he tops it off by "debating" them in a forum where they were unable to reply?

Sorry, but his actions were selfish and manipulative. I expect that type of behavior from the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world.

No longer a fan.

[ScreamingMeemie]

25. The only time I have seen that happen is when people were being disgusting toward

Alan Grayson when he got into a car accident. This is a bit different.

[SidDithers]

27. I think there was a big discussion about David Swanson too...nt

Sid

[one_voice]

30. Thank you...

that's who it was. I can look up the threads now.

[joshcryer]

37. Oops, didn't see your post. Thanks.

[SidDithers]

41. No worries...

Sid

[one_voice]

28. No there are a few other people...

here that write articles for other sites and often they're re-posted here. William Pitt is one, I believe Alan Grayson was brought up in the argument as was Thom Hartmann, but there were like two others. It started over an article posted, and he was getting hammered and people called foul because he was a member of DU, although he didn't post here except to put his recent articles in his journal.

I wanna say his name is David (could be first or last). I will look and see what I can find. I wasn't familiar with the person, but remember there were a shitload of threads in H&M over it. It was ridiculous.

[ScreamingMeemie]

34. As I said, the only disgusting callout I ever saw was on Alan Grayson.

The other ones don't stick with me. But that, with Grayson, made me want to puke.

[one_voice]

38. I didn't see them...

but that's sucks, whether he's a member here or not.

It was a David Swanson article. Pro-Sense posted a thread titled 'Permit me to laugh at David Swanson'...it was a big thread. Which lead to others being posted both in GD and H&M. I remember cuz I didn't think it was going to end. I was a host in GD at the time.

[sabrina 1]

86. Did Thom Hartmann make fun of DUers the way DUers have childishly made fun of people like

Swanson? Did he call them names, idiots, stupid etc.? It wasn't the disagreement with Swanson that caused the problem, it was the demeaning and nasty attitude towards him, not to mention that he was right, that got people upset.

Having said that, it is very unlike Thom Hartmann to show anger and for some reason, he did appear to be angry, for him, in this clip. I am guessing it's because he is a big supporter of the President and he's human, he doesn't want to see the SC damage Democrats and has become a little emotional about it. More so because he probably expects more from Democrats on DU and would like us to be firm on the upcoming SC decision.

The only time I've ever seen him angry is when he was interviewing some Republicans, which was unusual for him also as he is very good and patient with them normally.

Anyhow, I think if someone wrote him a polite email he might be willing to address his reasons and maybe apologize if that is what people would like.

Mike Malloy read one of my OPs on the air a couple of years ago. I didn't hear it, but someone told me. So, I guess the lesson should be that people ought to realize when they write something here that people outside of DU are reading. And writing headlines like 'Let me laugh at (fill in the blank) hasn't helped DU's reputation much. Or calling people like Glenn Greenwald an asshole in a headline, eg, makes DU look more like FR than a progressive, Democratic board.

[joshcryer]

36. The David Swanson affair. Epic flamefest. Set precedent for "calling out" other DUers.

It's OK now.

[one_voice]

39. yes. Thank you...

it was epic.

[Rex]

114. Yes it did.

Epic flamefest indeed. A very low point imo.

[stevenleser]

47. That was the old DU. There are now no mods to delete posts. Now things are handled by jury vote.

There is nothing in the TOS about that and so, whatever a jury thinks should stay would stay and whatever they dont think should stay gets hidden.

[Skip Intro]

54. I liked the old DU. nt

[NYC_SKP]

130. Me too...

I enjoyed moderating with a team, all of whom were trained, literally, by admins on how to moderate.

[alp227]

15. in the meantime, i would point out 'as to Law and Fact' in the judiciary const. section:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." (Article III section 2)

maybe THIS justifies Marbury v. Madison.

[-..__...]

19. Damn!!

And here I thought I was in the mix for spanking him (not that he or anyone else could pronounce my user name anyways)...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002478681#post6

[Ellipsis]

20. Wow... Hartman namin' names... Thom, really?

Someone does need to be spanked.



heh.


Mods Can't lock that thread (airwaves)... SO will hartmann get tombstoned for calling someone out on national radio?


Stay tuned.

[freshwest]

64. No, I think some of us might get spanked, though...

[Ellipsis]

101. I'm looking forward to todays show... I haven't listened in a while.

I'm sure he'll have a bit of a grin on in reference to stirring DU soup.




Hey Thom... if your'e reading... give a shout out to us "curmudgeons from Wisconsin"

[Cleita]

22. Actually, I only recognized one name as a regular DUer.

I think he got troll blitzed.

[freshwest]

62. He named all of the first five posters on that thread. But so what.

[pa28]

24. A little disappointed Thom would use DU in that way.

Hartmann is usually fantastic IMO and when Bernie Sanders is a guest you really know that reason and intelligence has entered the building.

I just don't get why he would move a topic to his show, name names and mock responses to his OP while leaving no chance to answer back. Why not respond directly on the topic itself rather than gathering material as fodder for the show?

[Poll_Blind]

26. Number one, he was respectful in his response and number two he probably...

...figured it was worth enlightening his audience with the same answer if there is such a misconception on DU.

PB

[pa28]

40. I love that he always takes the time to enlighten his audience.

He's great at explaining issues and educating his audience.

I would not describe his responses as respectful on this particular night though. I like Thom because he's always balanced and cool but this really didn't seem like him at all.

Bad night maybe.

[ScreamingMeemie]

42. He was disingenuous. The clip "ended up" on DU because

he put it here.

[alp227]

44. He does use his acct. to post videos,

but think about it. How much time do you really think he has in his life to sit down on the computer and make actual replies to posts on DU? He's human like the rest of us, so he ain't such a Superman that he can even take 15 seconds to do so. Also, Thom has frequently expressed his opinion against the supreme court overruling laws passed by congress, whether thru his book "Unequal Protection" (I think it is) or his radio show.

[DefenseLawyer]

29. So he's opposed to Brown and Miranda and Gideon and Brady and Roe

and all the other instances in which the courts have protected the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority? If so he shares the views of such geniuses as Scalia and Bork. Is his broader point that he thinks judicial review is wrong or is it more of a cutesy argument about the technical underpinnings of Marbury?

[joshcryer]

35. Indeed, Doe v. Bolton explicitly overturns law that was deemed unconstitutional.

If Thom had his way the South would be a despot of anti-rights for minorities and that would be OK because "the people decided that's how it should be."

[DefenseLawyer]

48. His strong background as a disk jockey and vitamin salesman

would certainly make him my go-to source for Constitutional analysis.

[Dead_Parrot]

69. Ouchie

[TeamsterDem]

73. LOL brilliant. nt

[Ellipsis]

102. zing! Wow... you must be good on cross.

[Zorra]

117. Gee, I guess that means that only lawyers are capable of understanding the Constitution.

We're totally fucked, folks.

[DefenseLawyer]

132. I'm pretty sure James Madison was capable of understanding the Constitution

Given that, you know, HE WROTE IT!

He also wrote, in Federalist No. 16, that the success “of a constitution in any degree competent to its own defence, and of a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority . . . would require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but the concurrence of the courts of justice, and of the body of the people.” To be fair Madison never once gave us weather and traffic at the top of the hour, so take what he says with a grain of salt.

Alexander Hamilton knew a tad bit about the Constitution as well (though very little about the healing powers of ginseng). In Federalist No. 78 he wrote that limitations on legislative authority and affirmative guarantees of liberty “can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of the particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.”

[joshcryer]

32. Seems Thom is the one that need to read the Constitution.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

[obey]

50. Anybody got a list of his sponsors

so we can start a boycott or something?

[freshwest]

63. Wouldn't go that far as to suggest that. Don't know who pays him, anyway. He has his own business...

That he and his wife do good things with, and helps a lot of people out in his state. I'm very impressed with what he's doing. Just probably was having a bad night, as someone upthread said. The tone tonight was a bit disppointing to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann

[sabrina 1]

87. Well, count me out. He's one of the best progressive voices on the air. Go ahead and boycott

his sponsors but the only help you'll probably get would be from far right lunatics who are all too happy to silence the few progressive voices left on the air.

[bluestate10]

126. An incredibly insane state of affairs.

Where will his advertisers go to get air time for their products, Fuss Limpnuts or Faux Knews? Realism is in such short supply.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Better to deal with his point. He's right in detail, if wrong in principle.

Marbury v Madison is simply stating the obvious. There's no point in writing a bill of rights if there's no one around to defend them against rogue lawmakers.

"The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." - Justice John Marshall

[cliffordu]

61. Yep.

Just right.

(the old cliffordu would say "just fucking right&quot

[Zorra]

67. Gosh. And all this time, I thought we were supposed to have a government of the people, by

the people, and for the people.

I always thought that was what a democracy was/is.

Sigh, Disillusioned again.

Rats.

Well, anyway, I'm gonna go with Lincoln over Marshall.

Give you 6 on the point spread.

[freshwest]

70. Of, by and for the people has always been the vision or dream

MLK said America is not so much a place or a country as it is an ideal not fully realized. That it will always be in a state of becoming, but it can't move forward by thinking it was perfect at any time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. Seriously? Am I arguing this point with progressives?

Absent an enforcement mechanism, there's no constitution.

This court is doing piss poorly at their job... but it is their job.

[Zorra]

110. Very seriously. Believing in democracy, a government of, by, and for people,

and believing that the power of the SCOTUS, an unelected entity, needs to be limited, is somehow not progressive?

Has black become white, up become down, etc., somehow?

Breaking News, this morning:

More: 4 liberal US Supreme Court justices skeptical that entire health care law should fall, say decision should be up to Congress - Reuters
Submitted Mar. 28, 2012, 8:56 a.m. by editor
http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFraW5nbmV3cy13d3ctaHJkcg0LEgRTZWVkGO2rtQcM/2012/03/28/more-4-liberal-us-supreme-court-justices-skeptical-that-entire-health

How 'bout this: Thomas Jefferson is generally considered to be the founder of the Democratic Party. The quote below is self-explanatory. Would you not consider TJ progressive, especially given the era?

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."
Thomas Jefferson--1823

He was, IMO, absolutely correct. TJ was a really,really smart guy.

Yes, of course the Constitution needs enforcement. Unfortunately, possibly the biggest mistake the founders made was not seeing that under the vague guidelines with which they empowered SCOTUS in the Constitution, the 1% was given free rein to corrupt the court in their interests, and against the interests of the people. The SCOTUS, almost immediately after its institution, assumed absolute power over US Law and Congress. This is how/why we got Corporate Personhood, pResident George W. Bush, and the Citzen's United vs the FEC decision, etc. ad nauseum. Yes, a SCOTUS justice can be impeached. That's never going to happen, because the federal legislature has also been compromised by the 1%.

Paper realities are pleasant to think about, but real people in actual physical reality are the agents that interpret legal issues.

SCOTUS is obviously corrupt, legislates from the bench, and primarily serves the 1%. (4 liberal justices not included in this generality).

I'm curious...do you also believe SCOTUS has the power to overturn Constitutional Amendments?

Do also believe, from reading Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution that SCOTUS has the authority to declare parts of the Constitution moot? Or that the founders intended to give Scotus this much power?

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The way many here seem to be reading the Article III, section II, indicates that they believe that the SCOTUS has the ultimate blanket power to decide what is legal and what is not legal. What is to stop them from declaring parts of the Constitution moot? From declaring Constitutional Amendments moot? After all, if they have supreme legal authority, and can overturn statutes passed by Congress, what stops them from declaring that Constitutional Amendments are illegal?

Given the actions of the SCOTUS in the past 13 years (Bush vs Gore particularly), and upon examining the personnel that currently make up the body of the SCOTUS, it is not difficult to see a 1% (RW) attempt to either continue to reinterpret the Constitution in the interests of the 1%, and/or partially dismantle the Constitution.

Specifically, if sometime in the future, Congress were to pass a Constitutional Amendment declaring Corporate Personhood, and Citizens United, etc, moot.

I'm just sayin'...ya know...

Thanks

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. In that world, no one has rights that the majority are obliged to respect.

The court is the only entity that can do that.

[Zorra]

112. I'm not clear about what you are saying here.

Are you saying that, with government of, by, and for the people no one has rights that the majority are obliged to respect? And/or, that an unchecked absolute authority is the only way to insure rights that the majority are obliged to respect?


I left the country for 5 years after SCOTUS appointed George W. Bush POTUS.

The main reasons for this were/are:

I felt I could not live in a country where some of the most critical rights of the majority were so blatantly and unconstitutionally abrogated by a supreme authority, leaving the majority absolutely no recourse for redress.

I knew all about Bush prior to his appointment to the Presidency, and knew what Bush was going to do as pResident. (And he did it, plus even more).

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. It's not ambiguous.

If congress and the president were to pass a law directing everyone to convert to Protestant Christianity or report to a gulag, that's what we'll do.

The mob would be generally supportive of this.

... unless a court steps in to tell them that they can't do that.

[HiPointDem]

89. The bill of rights is more often used to defend capital from labor than the reverse.

and the constitution is more than the bill of rights.

On edit: In case people think my claim sounds ludicrous, let me give you an example:

Citizens United: Money = "speech"

[MineralMan]

98. Good publicity for DU.

Hartmann was wrong, though, about the Supreme Court. The Constitution definitely gives it that power. And, they've used it countless times. Hartmann is incorrect on this one.

But, hey, calling out some DUers who disagreed with him on Russian Television - Priceless! It just doesn't get any better than that.

[bvar22]

104. Spanking?

Didn't sound like a "spanking" to me,
but rather an informative debate on opposing viewpoints.

I wish we could have MORE of THAT on DU
instead of one liner slams, insults, and snark fests.

I am a long time listener, and have occasionally disagreed with Thom Hartmann,
as I do on this particular issue.
It is OK to disagree respectfully, and support one's opinion with relevant facts and references.
I THRIVE on that.

Thom Hartmann's regular Friday program, Brunch with Bernie, is some of the very best radio available.
I occasionally disagree with Bernie Sanders too,
and that is perfectly OK.

[Bluenorthwest]

119. I'd agreee, except that the discussion was not on DU. He argued with people by name

who could not discuss nor reply to him. He did not respectfully disagree, he disagreed on his show, not here. He also said the clip 'wound up' on DU when it was posted under his own account. Wound up? Placed for promotional reasons, which is fine. It is not fine to pretend the clip 'wound up here' and then he read what was said, serendipity!
His show is great. On his show, he makes much of the fact that he does not hang up on people and then go off on them. If a caller mentions a person who is not there, he says 'I don't discuss people who are not here to speak their part' and such. He always points out that he lets his guest get 'the last word'. Those principles of fairness that make his show stand out were not in practice in this exchange.
Disappointed in him.

[themaguffin]

107. what the hell are you talking about? how about some background on what this thread is regarding???

[Dr. Strange]

108. So what does Hartmann think about this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101484844

[madinmaryland]

113. So what if he called a couple of DU'ers on the air. It's a public message board.

What do you expect. Go over and read CC where they call out DU'ers all the time. I could really care less about this.

[rug]

118. He should read Marbury v. Madison more closely.

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

"If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

"Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure."

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/5/137.html

[backscatter712]

120. OK, I've got a question for Thom...

Yes, I know, judicial review is not in the Constitution. It came about by historical accident as a result of Marbury v. Madison.

(TRIVIA: The Supreme Court did not exercise its powers of judicial review again until the Dred Scott decision decades later, which was probably the absolute worst Supreme Court decision in United States history.)

Nevertheless, I think that judicial review is necessary given the behavior patterns of the President and Congress over history. They pass atrocious legislation, violate peoples' rights, and do disgusting things all the time. They need a check and balance to ensure they don't pass unconstitutional legislation.

I don't think the people throwing out bad legislators and Presidents for giving us bad legislation is good enough. One of the things Congress has done over the years, as has the President, is enacting various measures to deny people the right to vote. If you pass something that pisses a large amount of the people off, you can counter the backlash by making it so your opponents can't vote you out.

That's the path to tyranny.

So regardless of historical accident, I think that judicial review is necessary, and has done some very positive things, like Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Romer v. Evans (which overturned a state constitutional amendment passed by the people, because it violated the rights of the GLBT community - even the people themselves need checks and balances.)

So I suggest that the SCOTUS keep judicial review, but they need a check. What would you suggest, Thom?

I'd suggest retention elections, as is done at the state level for many states. The President nominates a SCOTUS justice, the Senate confirms, and every eight years or so, the people vote to retain or remove him. Make too many bad/partisan decisions, and you're thrown out!

The one catch is that Citizens United would also have to be overturned, to limit the ability of special interests, 527s, super-PACs and corporate/billionaire elites to manipulate voters and screw with elections.

That's one possible change to make. What would you suggest?

[ellisonz]

128. Dis grrl got d'evils!

[Zorra]

124. kick

[Vattel]

129. Thanks Thom for the gradeschool level book report about the Constitution and judicial review.