Thom Hartmann tearing John Roberts a new one on his show.

[tsuki]

[Kolesar]

1. Cube rats thrive on scraps of details

yum yum

[cascadiance]

2. I'm still hoping that Hartmann is the one who can push Bernie Sanders

or a Dem in congress to ask the million dollar question he's been waiting for an answer on all of these years on whether Roberts would overturn the "judicial activist" language from the Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific Railroad decision that has given corporations the rights of persons all of these years. I know Thom would personally like to see this brought down.

But even if you can't get Roberts to endorse overturning that decision (given his historical support of corporate America), you can at least expose all of this characterization of him being a *strict* constructionist as not being a *strict* constructionist, but a pretty hollow, selective, and partisan constructionist. Would remove the image of him as being a "principled" jurist. On the other hand, if he were to fall into the trap of being "prinicipled" and advocate tearing Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific language down, he would do us all a greater favor and likely would get his name pulled from selection by the corporatocracy that reigns in this white house.

Has Hartman mentioned this sort of tactic at all today? I did say something to this effect on his chatroom a few weeks ago when O'Connor resigned which he responded to on there (though not sounding too confident on how it could work).