0
POPSThe Personhood of Corporations
I started out with clipping the Mark Morford article called "This is a difficult letter to write, Of course it will never happen to you. Until it does. --- As frightening as becoming a victim of the Capitalist System is... there is even a more shocking event going on right now in the chambers of the Supreme Court. This Bush/Roberts Court is about to give to the greedy corporations the power to gobble up all our freedoms and become the omnipotent POWER over everything and everyone who inhabits this Earth. They (the corp) will have the power to choose who is to be elected here in the USA Excerpt from this article: http://forum.colbertnation.com/tcr/board/message?board.id=politics&thread.id=12732 This new case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, presents the best opportunity for the Roberts Court to use its five vote majority to totally re-write the face of politics in America, rolling us back to the pre-1907 era of the Robber Barons. THIS IS NO JOKE! thinkin
7
POPSNo, You CAN'T See the Numbers; the King is a Fink and it was going to pass quickly and “I mean it.” President Obama’s daily finger-wags and bully-pulpits are not in the mode ala President Bush, who said, “I have all this political capital, and I’m going to spend it,” which the press found unpardonably arrogant. It’s not even Obama saying, “I won,” which made the media giggle. This withholding of public information/ramming through of legislation is a whole ‘nother kind of arrogance. The other day, I got it in my head that we don’t hear the word “fink” anymore. It used to be a big word, but it’s fallen into disuse. On twitter, I joked that it was time for us to reclaim the word “fink,” and then tried it out a few times. I called another blogger a fink, and he took it in the spirit it was offered, as a joke. Then someone else reminded me of The Wizard of Id cartoons, and the line used by the commoners, from time to time, shouted out from the crowd: “The King is a Fink!”
2
POPSThe Other Hispanic Nominee We keep hearing about how Sotomayor is the first Hispanic nominated for the SCOTUS. That's only because Democrats didn't allow another judge anywhere near the position....
3
POPS"Sonia Sotomayer & Associates" Now it appears from a NYT story that between 1983 and 1986, on behalf of some friends or friends of friends, Sotomayor wrote a few wills, incorporated a few businesses, or helped skim the closing documents for a few condo sales under the exaggerated firm name of "Sotomayor & Associates" while she was really a full-time employee of the Manhattan D.A.'s office or another law firm. I agree with my blogospheric friend and fellow lawyer Andrew McCarthy that it doesn't take a sophisticated legal analysis for anyone, lawyer or layman, to recognize that claiming to be "Sotomayor & Associates" " when you really don't have any associates " is stupid and misleading. It ought not be done. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/us/politics/07firm.html?_r=1 I very, very seriously doubt, however, that lawyer Sotomayor's transgression in exaggerating the size of her firm ever actually misled anyone. . .
14
POPSFour top Palin cringe-worthy moments in commemoration of her resignation, here are four unforgettables: Can't name any newspapers or magazines she reads; can't name any SCOTUS cases besides Roe; winks in VP debate; doesn't know what a VP does.
10
POPSMarxist Atheist Attacks "New Atheists" Good to see the Young Turk has entered late middle age intact and with mind as sharp as ever. This is a great article/interview. Terry Eagleton knows his stuff, and any thinking Christian or atheist will be at home with him. "Reason, Faith and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate" by Terry Eagleton is published by Yale University Press
2
POPSWhite House Spins Court Ruling: "Nominee Not Biased" "There's little political significance to whatever the court decided today in terms of Judge Sotomayor except to render a fairly definitive opinion that she follows judicial precedent and that she doesn't legislate from the bench," Gibbs said. Gibbs said the White House wants Sotomayor to be sworn in and seated by Sept. 9, when the new court will hear a First Amendment case. "We want her to be an active participant" to avoid the possibility of a divided court, Gibbs said.
0
POPSOBama alal Corte Suprema: siamo al di sopra della legge Secondo l'amministrazione Obama, nessun tribunale americano ha il diritto di questionare la legalità dell'uso del fondo TARP, anche quando vengono impiegati per scopi non previsti dalla legge che ha istituito il TARP stesso. Il governo st ain sostanza chiedendo carta bianca sia per lo sperpero di denaro del contribuente, sia della sospensione dei diritti di creditori ed investitori. Chi vorrà più investire negli USA, sapendo che il Governo può prendersi tutto con un colpo di penna?
3
POPSObama Administration to Supremes: We are Above the Law ~ Supremes to Obama: Go Pound Sand 
Fortunately, the high court ruled this afternoon that the administration is full of s*** and that indeed it does have the authority to delay the Chrsyler sale. Ahead of the decision, Chrysler LLC and the federal government warned such an intervention might lead to the liquidation of the automaker. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a brief order, said the court will extend a temporary stay put in place by an appeals court "pending further order of the undersigned or of the court." The administration -- who always seems to be in a hurry, whether it's spending trillions of dollars on useless government pork, destroying the health care system, or simply nationalizing automakers -- argued that the delay would scuttle the deal. But dissenters were equally clear-cut on reasons to oppose the deal. The bankruptcy laws were written so that companies could dramatically overhaul themselves, becoming leaner and more efficient enterprises.
2
POPSGinsburg Temporarily Blocks Chrysler Deal Among the likely explanations for her action: * Ginsburg may have decided to share the decision on what to do with her eight colleagues, and they needed more time to think or talk about it. * Members of the Court may have decided that they wanted to give some explanation, or perhaps some may have decided to dissent and wanted a chance to prepare a statement saying so. In the meantime, it was her task, as the Circuit Justice, to impose a limited stay. * Ginsburg or the Court may be waiting to see how the Second Circuit explains its decision to uphold the terms of the sale. The Circuit Court issued no opinion on Friday, indicating that such an explanation would come “in due course,” although the expectation was that one or more opinions would emerge from those judges on Monday.
4
POPSNYTimes "Conscientious Liberal" On SCOTUS Nominee Sotomayor I’d like to think that bright Jewish kids make the best economists. I probably have somewhere along the line. It doesn’t mean anything. …The judicial record shows nothing of this." If there's one thing that's been missing from the Supreme Court in recent decades, it's been the ability to laugh. Far be it from me to differ with the esteemed Dr. Krugman. Instead, read Sotomayor's speech and decide for yourself if her comments about the superior jurisprudence of Latina over Whitey elicit the heartiness of guffaw for which Krugman must be aiming. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. Handcrafted by Suitably Flip Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
17
POPSRemember Newt's line on men and women? Which would you rather have on the Court - Sotomayor's assertion that latina women can empathize with some situations that white men might not (and, presumably, vice versa), or Newt's notion that women are ill equipped to be soldiers (while men are "biologically driven to to go out and hunt giraffes")? Really.
9
POPSLiddy: Hope Sotomayor's "not menstruating" C'mon right wing. You owe it to America to make a clean break with the kooks, and to stop keeping them in business. Bravo to Cornyn, Sessions, and Hatch who have criticized Limbaugh and Gingrich. If La Raza is racist, so is the NAACP.
6
POPSCompare Sotomayor with Bush 1's Clarence Thomas University of Utah dropout Karl Rove opines that Sotomayer - the summa cum laude Princeton grad - might be a little light for his taste. But George the First nominated Clarence Thomas, who remains, to the right, "a reassuring beacon of black inferiority."
12
POPSSotomayor "most experienced nominee in 100 years" Why is it so hard for the GOP to see women and minorities as intelligent? She's an award-winning, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Cappa Princeton grad, editor Yale Law review - yet many in the GOP will go after her - as they often do women and minority candidates - as "not that smart."
0
POPSStay On Message: I Won President Obama must not allow his propensity for compromise to play a role in his nominations for the Supreme Court. The balance is precarious enough as it is.
4
POPSYou Do Not Have The Right To Remain Silent? Instead, with Obama in office, we have to discover this from a British newspaper . The only other coverage seen on this side of the pond has been from SCOTUS Blog (neutral analysis) and the HuffPo’s reprint of an AP report. Rolling back Michigan v Jackson would be a mistake. People who ask for an attorney should get one without further questioning. Americans have the right to counsel at all stages of the process, not just in court, as Obama argues. The adversarial process begins with arrest and interrogation, not when people first face a judge. While Miranda has been turned into a fetish, Michigan actually does the work Miranda promises — to get people counsel when they most need it. That does serve a real purpose, despite what Obama argues. You Do Not Have The Right To Have An Attorney Present During Questioning? Wasn’t Barack Obama supposed to be a Constitutional scholar?
3
Pops
Newest Clips
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update