Wow, the Wall Street banksters strike back

[wgrr]

[QUOTE=Krazygrrl;79010]Quite frankly, you are... about the typing. The only "reliable" source here is the NY Times. There is not one mention, of any bribes, of any kind, that any Supreme Court justice are even accused to have taken. In fact, there is not even the most minor assertion of graft made.

Huffingtonpost.com, Atlanticwire.com, alternet.orq...

You are quite right... you may have to "buy a book", or visit a library.... how sad, but it would be so good for you.[/QUOTE}

If bribes were a proven fact they would be be gone, maybe.

It is highly improper for any judges, in any court, to accept any money, or even attend a function that is sponsored by anyone they may have to hear a case that involves the anyone. They can attend and Maaaaabyee accept money from the anyone. The second it is clear their ruling may affect anyone, they have to recuse themselves. Koch was directly affected by the Citizens United decision. Alito and Thomas should have withdrawn from hearing the Citizens United case. They did not.

I read a lot. I have spent thousands of hours in libraries over the years. Oh, I am a Nazi. Right now I am reading a 1949 publishing of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" Some of the footnotes are hundreds of pages long. Fascinating stuff.

When do I get that definition of "social government".

[painter]

[QUOTE=wgrr;79015

I read a lot. I have spent thousands of hours in libraries over the years. Oh, I am a Nazi. Right now I am reading a 1949 publishing of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" Some of the footnotes are hundreds of pages long. Fascinating stuff.

When do I get that definition of "social government".[/QUOTE]

I read that book in the fifties. It was a gift from a dear family friend who was a prisoner in/at Auschwitz. More people should.


This ones for you Stan....(tribute) +

[whell]

Originally Posted by wgrr

Congratulations on being a 1%'er. Why are you here.

To have folks like you brighten my day.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

If bribes were a proven fact they would be be gone, maybe.

I read a lot. I have spent thousands of hours in libraries over the years. Oh, I am a Nazi. Right now I am reading a 1949 publishing of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" Some of the footnotes are hundreds of pages long. Fascinating stuff.

When do I get that definition of "social government".

About being a Nazi: Are you? I have never said that, nor would I.

"If bribes were a proven fact..." -- IF -- is the operative word. Even conservative judges are presumed innocent under the law until proven guilty. All the Supreme Court Justices, especially Thomas who survived a bitter, ideologically based smear campaign prior to his confirmation, have a nearly spotless history of ethical behavior. Thus, they should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

A Republican administration, particularly with its fealty toward the moneyed class, faces significant pressure to nominate judiciary candidates who are loyal to the interests of the financial elites. A Democratic administration is drawing from a similar pool of candidates, but is more likely to nominate a person who does not have absolute fealty to the members of the corporate plutocracy. This collection of circumstances allows the president to exercise influence well beyond the end of his term. That is not the only, but certainly a sufficient reason for concern about the type of judges a Romney, Cain, or any of the GOP candidates would nominate when given the chances.

Regards,

D-Ray

Where do you come up with this stuff? Where do you get the notion that Dem politicians are more resistant to the power of the almighty dollar than the Repubs? Or any politician of any stripe for that matter? Reality and history don't support you.

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by wgrr

Merrill Lynch = investment house, BOA = bank, Under Glass-Steagall the two could not intermingle and this potential financial SHIT STORM would have never happened.

If you are saying Glass-Steagall should be reinstated, at least we do have a single point of agreement. Too bad that Bill Clinton signed the legislation to get rid of it.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Where do you come up with this stuff? Where do you get the notion that Dem politicians are more resistant to the power of the almighty dollar than the Repubs? Or any politician of any stripe for that matter? Reality and history don't support you.

Are you suggesting that a Democratic president would be just as likely as a Republican president to appoint an economically conservative, laissez faire justice? I don't deny that Democrats are close to being as invested in the system that favors the financial elites as the Republicans are, but just not quite as much.

I will point out one judicial nomination that might support your point - Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren. I'm not quite sure Ike got what he thought he was getting.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

A Republican administration, particularly with its fealty toward the moneyed class, faces significant pressure to nominate judiciary candidates who are loyal to the interests of the financial elites. A Democratic administration is drawing from a similar pool of candidates, but is more likely to nominate a person who does not have absolute fealty to the members of the corporate plutocracy. This collection of circumstances allows the president to exercise influence well beyond the end of his term. That is not the only, but certainly a sufficient reason for concern about the type of judges a Romney, Cain, or any of the GOP candidates would nominate when given the chances.

----------------------
I don't deny that Democrats are close to being as invested in the system that favors the financial elites as the Republicans are, but just not quite as much.

Regards,

D-Ray

How do you quantify that, considering that 7 or the 10 wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats; That more American billionaires are Democrats than Republicans? Personally, I think the assertion you made is quite outrageous.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I will point out one judicial nomination that might support your point - Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren. I'm not quite sure Ike got what he thought he was getting.

Regards,

D-Ray

I would submit, no President knows exactly what his is getting. That some Justices, like Warren, who were appointed because they appeared conservative turned out to be quite liberal, and that those appointed to because they were deemed liberal turned out to be rather conservative.

"It's like a box of chocolates, you new know what you get" - Forrest Gump.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

If you are saying Glass-Steagall should be reinstated, at least we do have a single point of agreement. Too bad that Bill Clinton signed the legislation to get rid of it.

Because his treasury seretary advised him that it was a good idea.

[merrylander]

Ever since the Supremes misread the First and decided that bribery was legal we have been on a slide into total corruption (Ben Franklin had summat to say on the topic, as I have quoted elsewhere). Now that the Robert's court had decided that corporations are people, the deed is done. AS one OWS protestor's sign noted "I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."