Supreme Court Justice Commits Sedition By Telling People to Revolt Over Income Taxes

[CatWoman]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is now actively calling for disobeying the government, as during a recent speech he told students that if taxes get too high, they should revolt.

According to CBSDC:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a crowd of law school students that if taxes in the U.S. become too high then people “should revolt.”

Speaking at the University of Tennessee College of Law on Tuesday, the longest-serving justice currently on the bench was asked by a student about the constitutionality of the income tax, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports.

Scalia responded that the government has the right to implement the tax, “but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt.”

When a sitting Supreme Court justice tells anyone to revolt against their government, that’s a problem. It is difficult to tell if Scalia was snarky or serious, but with his record, and loyal service to the Koch brothers it’s likely that he was serious.

Last year, Democrats introduced a bill that would have opened the door to impeachment for Justices Scalia and Thomas. Democrats are seeking mandatory ethics rules for all Supreme Court justices. Scalia and Thomas have been frequently featured guests at Koch conferences. Their conflict of interest involving campaign finance laws has been obvious, but neither justice has felt the need to recuse themselves from these cases.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/04/19/supreme-court-justice-commits-sedition-telling-people-revolt-income-taxes.html

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

1. Sounds like Fat Tony's losing it

Not sure he had it in the first place.

[KittyWampus]

46. Rachel Maddow once called Scalia a Troll. The guy on the internet who says shit

Scalia is the guy on the internet who says intentionally inflammatory stuff to stir things up and also just because he can.

[arely staircase]

2. awe man we must elect a dem in 16

I also hope, and I may catch hell for this, but maybe a lib or two should retire so Obama can nominate there replacements.

[TexasTowelie]

3. The key word that keeps him from being prosecuted is

"perhaps."

[JEFF9K]

4. Thomas Piketty, in his new book, ...

... says the only answer for the economy is higher taxes on the rich.

[WillyT]

5. Is That In Impeachable Offense ??? - Remember These ???

[Cha]

6. Yeah, perhaps you should lead the charge, asshole.

[pintobean]

59. Jury results.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Sun Apr 20, 2014, 03:07 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yeah, perhaps you should lead the charge, asshole.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4846044

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling another poster an "asshole" is a clear violation of CS. Not sure why the need for such language.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Apr 20, 2014, 03:23 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's calling Scalia an asshole, not CatWoman. Either the alerter isn't very sharp, or s/he is hoping to find at least four idiots on the jury.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm pretty sure the poster was referring to Scalia not the OP.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't think the asshole was meant for Catwoman.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As far as I can tell the poster was giving a rhetorical "asshole" to Scalia not any poster at all.

I might be the one missing something but I think you are misreading the intent behind the response. The poster and I butt heads but I have no reason to believe they would be calling someone an asshole for exposing Scalia. I know this place is growing more conservative but I don't think we are to that place yet, even from the more right leaning and/or tolerant.
TheKentuckian
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: 141k posts into DU and I would have assumed the poster would know a little bit about argumentative etiquette, especially in a post title. Com'on, let's try to stay a few inches out of the gutter.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Calling Scalia an asshole is just a statement of fact - it's not over the top at all.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[pangaia]

81. I agree..it was aimed at Tony.

Someone called me an asshole (AH, actually) several days ago.. Nothing happened. Eh..

[Cha]

84. Yeah, it was named at scalia.. I would never make a personal attack of calling someone an

asshole.

Oh, they were being sneaky and attacking you with "AH"? Sounds like they were projecting.

[sheshe2]

92. Funny, I have been accused of a lack of reading skills here.

The alerter takes the cake! Hands down.

The jury was great...! LOL how dare you Cha, how dare you post 141K! I guess you are being told to sit down and shut up!

Keep up the good work!

[Cha]

94. I "should know better with 141 K to stay out the gutter!

fascist tony

Rofl! she~

[Cha]

83. JHC, Alerted on for calling Scalia an "asshole".. I woulda thought it was self-evident..

but, nooooo.

Love this one.. Calling scalia an asshole is in the gutter?.. Well, Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.

Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: 141k posts into DU and I would have assumed the poster would know a little bit about argumentative etiquette, especially in a post title. Com'on, let's try to stay a few inches out of the gutter.

Thanks pinto for calling my attention to it. Next time I'll say "Yeah, maybe you should lead the charge, asshole, Scalia Sir!"..

[pangaia]

88. Cha, I can not imagine ANYONE who had read

even a small sampling of your posts would ever think you could say such a thing about anyone here.

I mean, was 'at. mon?

(You haven't, have you?? )

[Cha]

89. And, the subject was Scalia, was it not?

Scalia saying.. "Scalia responded that the government has the right to implement the tax, “but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt.”

Why in all that's wholly would I be calling the OP one? Think Alerters.. think.

And, no.. who me? I have not.

[pangaia]

96. I knew not.

Love your sig..

[pintobean]

97. I thought it was pretty funny

unless you have an alert stalker. It should have been a 7-0 leave.

[Cha]

98. It is funny.. I'm glad there were 5 thinking jurors, though.. whew! again, thank you

for the heads up, pintobean~

[SunSeeker]

90. Wow. There sure are some on DU with itchy alert fingers. nt

[Cha]

100. No doubt! I've been on more than a few juries that corroborates

that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

103. Tell me about it....

alerted on and hidden on my own thread (which I rarely write for this reason) for asking if someone "lived under a rock"......Apparently that is enough to hurt somebody's FeeFees?

[sheshe2]

7. That man needs to go!

[99Forever]

8. So...

.. how's about our Democratically appointed and controlled Justice Department step up and charge this asshole with sedition, as that is the traitorous crime he has committed?

Well AG Holder? Where are you? Mr President? The ball is in your court.

[onenote]

10. Maybe because our Democratically appointed and controlled Justice Department

understands that what Scalia did was no more sedition than what many of did while protesting the Vietnam War and calling for revolution.

Supreme Court Justices don't give up their right to express opinions on matters of public policy. William O. Douglas wrote numerous books and articles while on the bench making clear his views on all manner of issues. There were some who thought he should be impeached. No one on this board should be emulating those people.

[DhhD]

48. What will Senators Warren and Sanders say about Scalia's intentions?

Is it being suggested that the 1% Hoarders America, of America, take over the federal services and federal programs needing federal revenue in order to dissolve the Union over time? I did see where there is word of the Koch Brothers taking over State after State in America.

[fasttense]

64. Since Scalia is likely taking bribes

and is probably getting very wealthy from it, he has tons and tons of free speech to use and can say whatever he wants.

The rest of us average people who are not getting wealthy anytime soon, just have a very little amount of free speech and must be very careful how we use it. Not that anyone is listening to us.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

99. Perhaps a progressive populist revolution is needed,

a peaceful one of coarse, one with a huge general strike.

[Niceguy1]

12. what about our people

Who call for not paying taxes for war? Should they be tried for sedition, too? Whwt about occuoy which actually took control of government property?

[99Forever]

14. This is a Supreme Court Judge calling for traitorous and treasonable acts.

Your response is pure unadulterated Libertarian horseshit.

[Niceguy1]

16. I dont like this judge

But I dont see the comment as treasonous. ...or traitorous. Hr was just exercising his 1st admin rights...just like we did when shrub was in office......

[99Forever]

43. Who you like or not is irrelevant.

This is a sitting Supreme Court Justice, NOT a private citizen, calling for acts of sedition.

1st Amendment "rights" my ass. This traitorous bastard needs locked up in a VERY deep, dark hole. You're welcome to visit him.

[onenote]

54. See post #20

You've made it pretty clear, whether you admit or not, that you'd have sided with Gerald Ford against William O. Douglas. And the placement of quotes around the word rights is pretty interesting too.

[NYC Liberal]

82. Should Thomas Jefferson have been "locked up in a VERY deep, dark hole"?

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

That's a hell of a lot stronger than what the asshole Scalia said.

[onenote]

20. For someone who clearly doesn't understand the legal concepts

of treason and sedition in US law, you certainly are certain in your views. Are you familiar with the book Ponts of Rebellion? What do you think about a Supreme Court Justice writing the following:"Violence has no constitutional sanction; and every government from the beginning has moved against it.
But where grievances pile high and most of the elected spokesmen represent the Establishment, violence may be the only effective response."

William O Douglas wrote those words and they were part of the "evidence" cited by Gerald Ford in his effort to impeach Douglas. Sadly, it sounds like you'd have been siding with Ford.

[Boreal]

71. It's even more fundamental than that

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


It doesn't matter what impels the people to revolt, and what impels one group may be vastly different from another, but we damn sure better start figuring how to make EVERYONE is happy rather than struggling to lord it over each other. If we can't figure this out, we'll have a civil war (which many here seem to be trying to provoke of the Bundy deal).

I dunno. Maybe we're at that point in the cycle of history where this ends, anyway. Becoming an empire was the kiss of death and all empires end.

[JDPriestly]

26. Occupy did not "take control" of government property.

Citizens erected campsites on public property, property open to the public and available for citizen expression of political opinions.

The point with Zaccoti Park in NYC was that it had no posted closing or opening times. When the occupiers set up tents, they violated no restriction for which notice had been given. That is why the judge ruled in favor of the occupiers in at least one instance. The Park authorities had to adopt a regulation setting hours for use of the park before the occupiers were technically required to leave. Only after the rules were adopted was their a violation. The occupiers did not "take control" of the sites they occupied in the sense that they did not prevent people from joining them unless the newcomers created a disturbance or brought weapons, etc. That is my understanding.

[Niceguy1]

31. they occupied with the intent to disrupt

To protest injustices.... and did a lot of damage to the sites where they were at.

I dont like to throw around sedition accuations as our protests can be equally labeled as such......

[JDPriestly]

35. The Occupy movement was protesting the banks, not so much the government.

As I understood what they were saying, they were mostly protesting the banks and the financial sector. That is not sedition. That has nothing to do with and is not comparable to what Bundy is doing. Bundy is not protesting against the government. He is rebelling against the government.

What is the difference? The use of arms. Bundy assembled a group of people with arms to stand off against the government. That could be called sedition.

Camping out peacefully without weapons in public places is nonviolent civil disobedience not sedition. There is a huge difference.

When you bring guns, you signal that you are in rebellion.

When you bring your unarmed body and your voice, you signal that you are in a peaceful assembly. You signal that you are petitioning the government.

The First Amendment guarantees our freedom of speech, our freedom of assembly and our right to petition the government. It does not guarantee our right to refuse to pay fees for the use of federal lands after having lost our claim that the lands belong to us. And it does not guarantee our right to prevent federal agents from arming ourselves and pointing guns at federal agents who have come to carry out a court order permitting them to remove cattle that are illegally grazing on federal lands.

[Niceguy1]

36. bundy was not part of the discussion

And occupy didnt limit itself to bank properties. ..they were mostly on government owned land. The occupy camp in my city wasnt that big but did thousands of dollars of damage to the courh house site. In the mid five figure range, when we had no money in the par ks budget at all. N ot to mention law enforcement overtime due to the crime spike in the area...


Feel free to use sedition threats when people merely speak or peacefully gather...but dont complain when it is used against us the next time the pubes are in power.... we all have the right to protest. ..not just the people we agree with.

[JDPriestly]

37. Nobody has the right to intimidate law enforcement with guns and then call it peaceful assembly.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

We have the right to free speech. And we have the right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

When people bring guns to what they call a protest, they are not protected by the First Amendment because they are not peaceably assembling.

It's very important to understand this and explain it to your friends and family. Guns are not the indication or the signal that a protest is peacefu.

When Martin Luther King led protests he taught the protestors how to peacefully assemble and protest. The protestors had to learn the humility and patience that allowed them to not struggle or resist violently when abused and arrested. It took practice. I was not a part of the protests but have read Martin Luther King's statement on this.

I visited an Occupy site at a time when they were preparing to be ousted by the police. They practiced nonviolence. Bundy's crew is thirsty for violence. They are horrible. They are not nonviolent protestors. Nonviolent protest is a meditative or even for many a religious experience, not an angry one. Bundy's people are angry.

[Niceguy1]

39. why are you bringing a bundy up this is not a thread

[JDPriestly]

63. Because you brought up Occupy.

"Whwt about occuoy which actually took control of government property? "

And Occupy is being compared to Bundy in threads on DU.

Scalia's comments are similar to Bundy's action. I never thought not paying taxes as a war protest was a good idea.

[Niceguy1]

65. us citizens have a history

Of protesting excessive taxes.....I personally dont have a problem with peaceful non destructive or obstructive protest...the more the better.

[Iterate]

38. Is this speech or peaceful assembly?

[Niceguy1]

40. it was an obvious photo op

is not germane to the conversation about speech being sedition. ..

[2pooped2pop]

42. I saw no damage at Zucotti Park

that wasn't caused by the police.

[DhhD]

49. Their intent was not to protest outside their tent, but on the streets, in front of the banks.

[rhett o rick]

62. Sedition: "Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state."

If I stand on a street corner and yell for revolt it wouldnt incite anyone. If a Supreme Court Justice does similar , it may actually incite rebellion.

[onenote]

69. Under US law it doesn't matter what it might do. The question is whether it it does so.

There is no chance, not even one in a million, that what Scalia said would be found by any court to be actionable.

[99Forever]

9. Kick

[Dustlawyer]

11. Scalia is nothing but a glorified partisan hack! He revels in the fact that the normal rules

followed by Federal Judges across the land. Speaking to Koch &Company right before hearing a case in which Koch had an interest. His quote that normal people may feel uncomfortable at a gay owned business demonstrates he has lost his objectivity (probably longer than when he lost his virginity). Any other time he would tell people that the Free Market will determine if it is ok, or some such bull shit.

[DirkGently]

13. Scalia used to keep his crazy on a much tighter leash.

[Helen Borg]

22. When people get old...

That is what happens...

[DirkGently]

24. He's really let it hang out now.

He actually had some solid jurisprudence, long ago. Now he seems like a caricature of a hateful old man.

I'm so embarrassed for the Supreme Court. So many great people, with great minds have graced that bench.

Now we have ... this.

[clg311]

18. Just the usual crybaby right winger routine...

whining about taxes. But he's entitled to free speech even though he doesn't support it for others.

[Octafish]

19. Guess some laws (wink wink vaffanculo) you don't need to follow.

Tax dodgers have ruined America.

[Helen Borg]

21. This mean drunk thinks

He's untouchable.

[Samantha]

28. Well he probably is safe from impeachment as long as Republicans hold the House

He would have to be impeached through the House and tried in the Senate, in the same manner as when a President is impeached. Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments as long as they practice "good behavior" (that is where Scalia's words and some of his deeds put him in danger) but "failure to maintain good behavior" is generally considered to have to rise to that same "high crimes and misdemeanors" level. So for right now, Scalia can probably safely continue on as he has done in the past. Should those new, improved rumors that the Dems chances of winning the House bear fruit, Scalia might start keeping a lower profile, assuming of course the Dems manage to hold onto the Senate.

Sam

PS He is and has been a disgrace not only as a Supreme Court judge but as a human being for decades. There is nothing I would like better than to see him go but I think the odds are remote....

[defacto7]

29. In a general sense

he is untouchable and he knows it. A Scalia quote about a presidential comment, "What can HE do to me?" (Nothing). When someone feels powerful and untouchable megalomania finds its way.

Very unfortunate... for us.

[DhhD]

50. Next he will be wearing a winter ermine collar with a reversible brown one, with a sewn in label

reading, Fourth Reich Free Market.

[MohRokTah]

23. I would call sedition a high crime or misdemeanor. eom

[onenote]

25. But this isn't sedition any more than my calling for revolution while protesting the Vietnam War

And its no more sedition than the over the top posts here on DU calling for Scalia and other to be
Pelican Briefed (i.e., assassinated) or guillotined.

I will be the first to criticize Scalia for trashing the Constitution. But I won't trash it myself.

[defacto7]

30. As hard as it is to take,

you are right.

I wish it were sedition; we would have an easy out. But we'd also have lost some of our own freedom.

[KauaiK]

27. WHEN is enough enough???

Judas Priest...when are they two idiot going to be removed? What does it TAKE?? Someone please tell me.

[defacto7]

32. It seems to me

we past that point of "enough is enough" a long time ago. But this is an oligarchy not a democracy so at this point there is little to nothing we can do.

[Moostache]

33. That is one man who I absolutely intend to piss on his grave.

Scalia is a piece of human refuse to begin with, so all I will be doing is adding to the pile...

[mississippi62]

34. Scalia's partisanship goes way back. He doesn't even try to hide it.

Scalia spoke at my son's school in Hattiesburg in 2008. I was quite surprised that a sitting Supreme Court justice spoke at a small private college that no one outside of this state has heard of. Most people in Mississippi have never heard of this school.

Turns out, Scalia goes turkey hunting in Mississippi every year with his BFF Charles Pickering (retired U.S. District Court judge). The speaking engagement at this Baptist college was arranged as a favor to Pickering. His long term relationship with the federal judge was no problem when Branch v. Smith[/link] was argued before the Court in 1993. The majority decision in that case allowed Pickering Sr. to control districting lines in Mississippi while his son, Chip, was serving in the House of Representatives. How convenient.

Scalia has tried to keep his political alliances quiet in the past but apparently doesn't care if anybody knows now. With the Koch Brothers bragging about featured speakers Scalia and Thomas[/link] at their annual political retreats, Scalia has no reason to maintain even the appearance of non-partisanship. The ruling in Citizens United was to be predicted.

[Exposethefrauds]

41. Somehow I don't think a revolt would work out the way Fat Tony thinks it would

If this country got to the point of another Revolution, old Fat Tony's may very likely find himself standing on the gallows with a rope around his neck as the angry mob permanently fixes the problem of corrupt judges bought by the, what would be the former, oligarchs.

Be careful what you wish for Tony the unwashed masses have a sense of justice you may not really like, ask the French how things turned out for the rich and the corrupt in government when unwashed masses got pissed off at government and revolted.

[malletgirl02]

44. Scalia's Salary

The federal government should stop paying his salary since the money to pay him comes from the so called evil taxes.

[DhhD]

52. And now too, he should stay off interstate highways paid for by federal tax revenue.

He has just set a new president for himself. He needs to stop using anything that taxpayers provided him with to include his salary and benefits.

[erronis]

60. That's my thought - doesn't he (and his rich buddies) need us to pay our taxes?

While it's probably true that Scaley and all the other Justices don't need their federal salaries to pay for their livelihood I would think that the longer-term ramifications of all of the US not paying any taxes would make their lives rather difficult.

No tax income means no government. No regulations on private jets landing/taking off. Probably no subsidized airports. No highway maintenance, no police to keep the peace, no Army/AirForce/Navy to enforce the rules of the plutocracy.

Of course these friends-o-Scaley can afford their own infrastructure and protective forces, for a little while. They can sip their cocktails looking out over the wastelands of their former country or they can move their enclaves to foreign shores.

But in the end there just won't be enough places to run and hide and pretend that our world is a generally good place to live.

Scaley and his shooting buddies can have a good time for awhile - The Greatest Game - but their ilk and spawn will pay the price.

[sorefeet]

45. Instigator, inciting violence

inciting riots, what the fuck is a revolution? Are they peaceful?? Don't they involve killing usually?? I am confused people.

[seveneyes]

47. “but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt.”

I'm not seeing the sedition. Unless there is a mindset that would accept a 100% tax, this makes perfect sense. What am I missing?

[99Forever]

51. There is none so blind..

... as they who simply refuse to see.

A sitting Supreme Justice calling for revolt is the very definition of sedition.

[onenote]

55. It may be your definition of sedition, but it isn't the definition that the courts have applied

I'd be interested in seeing a case that says that the sedition law distinguishes between what I say and what a Supreme Court Justice says if you have one.

[seveneyes]

58. Perhaps I missed the quote that is attributed to sedition?

If one parses this quote, “but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt”, there is noting in it calling for a seditious act. My point is that it leaves open the possibility of a tax of 100% (all your income) and suggests that might be a cause for revolt. Is see no sedition in that predicated quote.

What quote are you finding that is seditious?

[onenote]

56. What you're missing

is the fact that some people who justifiably dislike Scalia for his jurisprudence are willing to accuse him of the same things that repubs accused William O. Douglas of doing because they disliked his jurisprudence.

[deathrind]

53. This man is an embarrassment...

To this nation and the principals of justice it was founded on. His blatant disregard for impartiality alone should have gotten him removed from the bench long ago.

[radhika]

57. Opus Dei Catholic fascist Scalia needs to be ex-communicated...

Publicly, and the other OD fake traditionalists of SCOTUS should be revealed as the anti-democratic, hierarchical Torquemada plutocrats they serve.

Are you listening Pope Francis?

Nothing would expose that blowhard bully's I-rule-the-world-schtick more than kicking him off that bully faux-moralist pulpit that he sneers from.

That would be a real Easter celebration.

[saidsimplesimon]

61. Scalia is a disgrace for SCOTUS. He is not the only

one. I've been so upset with SCOTUS interference in domestic politics that my health (blood pressure) is in danger of exploding.

[silvershadow]

66. Can we start impeachment proceedings now? nt

[onenote]

70. They can be started as soon as the House agrees to start them. So don't hold your breath.

Even if the Democrats controlled the House, there would be no impeachment proceedings. Democrats with a sense of, and knowledge of, history, remember the efforts to start impeachment proceedings against William O Douglas championed by Gerald Ford. Those of us who opposed that crap will not turn ourselves into hypocrites by engaging in a similar effort against Scalia. He said something provocative -- so what. He made decisions (supported by at least 4 other justices) -- not impeachable. He annoys the crap out of people. Yep. And so did Douglas.

[DeSwiss]

67. K&R

- I agree that Scalia should be impeached forthwith along with Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy and that other little punk, Alito.

On the other hand.......

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

MORE

[center][/center]

[muntrv]

68. Fine, Tony! Can we stop paying your salary?

[geretogo]

72. It just shows how corrupt this government has become in 34 years since Reagan .

[nolabels]

75. With instant news and so many other inventions it's probably just more noticeable

Raygun, the political stooge he was, no doubt would have said much the same had it been fashionable

[geretogo]

77. Exactly . Fox News is the Trojan hoarse entering homes and altering peoples perception of

reality and producing the Far Right as the " norm " .

[CFLDem]

73. Actually according to our nation's founding fathers-

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

I don't think we should exercise this right as we haven't reached absolute despotism. The system still kind of works and we should use it until it doesn't.

[geretogo]

78. Ater I read that I feel we are coming close to the words in the last three sentences . I guess it

depends on the class your in , bottom , middle , or top 1% .

[Reter]

74. He's a scumbag, but not a total idiot

By using the word "perhaps", he probably cleared himself from breaking any laws.

[Jack Rabbit]

76. I concur in part with Justice Scalia, but he won't like why

Many on the right like to make the American Revolution out to be a tax revolt. British taxes on the colonies weren't the only grievance the colonists had against Britain, but it was no small part of the colonies' irritation the King and parliament.

Today's right goes on to complain about "taxes, taxes, taxes" as if taxation is in and of itself a form of tyranny. The worst way to characterize the levying of taxes in general is that it is a necessary evil. Turn everything over to the free market and people won't benefit from public services if they live in unprofitable areas. No one should expect mail delivery, garbage collection or to be able to send his children to school if one lives in some remote backwater area. Don't expect police protection if you live in a neighborhood without the funds to support it, which sounds like the kind of neighborhood that has a high crime rate in the first place. A neighborhood like that is likely to get a cop on the beat like George Zimmerman. Of course, libertarians who think this is a bright vision of the American of tomorrow will answer the critique that such a vision is flawed with "well, nothing's perfect." I agree, so I would rather keep the imperfect system we already have where everyone gets mail delivery, everyone gets his trash collected, everyone gets fire and police protection (and the expectation that the local cop is better trained than George Zimmerman) and all children go to school. The proper question is whether taxpayers are getting enough bang for their buck, not whether taxes are an unnecessary government intrusion into our lives.

Let's not let the Koch brothers and their allies rewrite history. The colonists weren't complaining about British taxes per se. They said, "taxation without representation is tyranny." American colonists had no representation in parliament, yet parliament used the colonies as an ATM machine. The colonists didn't seem to complain about it, but that's because there was no MP from Virginia or Pennsylvania to raise a stink in London and suggest to their fellow MPs that they get the money by taxing the the landed aristocracy.

Since eighteenth century transportation made it impractical for the colonists to send representatives to parliament, the colonists demanded independence and, having achieved that, set up their own governments with their own system of taxation and let voters choose their own representatives. At first, voters were wealthy white males, but soon the franchise was extended to all white males, then to males who weren't necessarily white and in 1919 to women.

America is a democracy, perhaps not always in the political sense but always in a cultural sense. Democracy is what Walt Whitman praised in free verse and what Woody Guthrie and later Bob Dylan celebrated in song. Democracy is what Martin Luther King marched for and willing went to jail many times. Democracy was in the blood of the labor movement, fighting for a decent wage and safe working conditions. Those who claim America is not a democracy but a mere republic are just wrong, and we are not going to let them take it away from us.

Today, the Koch brothers, through their organization, ALEC, have crafted model legislation and sent it to the states to deny poor people the right to voting by requiring they show ID before voting. The ID required by this legislation is usually not a drivers' license but something more expensive and tailored to be biased to Republican voters. For example, in Texas it is valid to show one's firearms permit for voting, covering gun owners, which studies show to be a predominantly Republican voters; on the other hand, a college student body card is not valid for the same purpose. College students are a predominantly Democratic demographic. In this way, the state of Texas is deliberately barring Democrats from the polling place in greater numbers than Republicans.

During the past decade there have been proposals from the right to continue and expend tax cuts for the wealthy and pay for it with higher taxes on the poor and middle class. If the poor, who are more likely to vote for Democats, are barred from the polls in greater number than others, and then have their taxes raised to benefit the rich, then how is this not taxation without representation?

It's bad enough to claim that the rich are "job creators" when after 30-plus years of Reaganomics there is only one job being offered for every three unemployed Americans. The rich certainly haven't earned a tax cut from the government nor, for that matter, a pay raise or a bonus from the board of directors. But even if the economy were in better shape than it is, barring the poor from participation in the process of choosing elected representatives and raising their taxes to cover the shortfall from revenue lost by cutting the taxes of the wealthiest Americans is simply outrageous.

Taxation without representation is still tyranny. We, the people, should revolt against it, just as the colonists did 240 years ago.

[geretogo]

79. High taxes are relative . In the Nordic countries taxes are high but most goes back to the people

for things they need to have a more civil and educated society unlike here where the money is for war or
basic subsistence just to keep the people from violent revolt .

[Hekate]

80. 2016:Primary for your choice of POTUS, but at the polls elect a Dem,any Dem. If you don't understand

...by now how crucial that is, you have been asleep under a rock somewhere.

Note: This is a generic injunction to a generalized plural "you" and not aimed at the OP.

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. If revolt is justified by high taxes, what should we do about stolen elections? n/t

[Hekate]

95. ^^^THIS^^^

[BlueJac]

87. Impeach him

[SunSeeker]

91. Domestic terrorist.

And for the alert-obsessed, I am referring to Scalia, not CatWoman. LOL

[blkmusclmachine]

93. In other words, just another Tuesday in Scaliaville.

[Miigwech]

101. get out the vote

We must mobilize the vote for 2014 and take over the House of Reps -- maybe then we might get to impeach the bastard!

[totodeinhere]

102. I think he would have had to be more specific than that for it to be called sedition.

What did he a actually mean by the term "revolt?" Could he have meant that if taxes get too high people should revolt by voting for other politicians who call for lower taxes? Or was was he calling for an open violent revolt? I suspect that if he were pressed on it he would indicate the former.

Some people might be reading more into that comment than is really there because they understandably hate Scalia and what he stands for so much.

[betterdemsonly]

104. I don't like Scalia

but the term revolt is used to describe elections as well as revolution, and half the people here could be accused by the same standard.

I definitely used the term revolt to describe the Iraq war protests and I participated in them. Let's not be reverse Anne Coulters.

Now the Bundy Ranch people are definitely Seditionists. They are using arms against the Government and seek it's overthrow actively and obviously.

[Agnosticsherbet]

105. Not surprised he is a devotee of Ayn Rand.

[OutNow]

106. Commits Sedition? No, not really

One Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas, actually published a book "Points of Rebellion" outlining why we should revolt. Published in 1970, it was a favorite reference book among my peers at the time. Justice Douglas was much more direct in his advocacy of revolt. Of course the wacky right wing at the time demanded his impeachment. They were ignored. I dislike Scalia, Thomas, etc, etc. as much as you do, but I try to refrain from charging them with federal crimes.