Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
18 replies, 4506 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (77)
ReplyReply to this post
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Have you seen the new uniforms, ... er, costumes? (Original Post)
ashling
Apr 2014
OP
Wonder if the next republicant selected will appoint GE to the SCOTUS since corps are people now. nt
Mnemosyne
Apr 2014
#9
All may not be lost. Another case of property vs. people had unexpected consequences:
freshwest
Apr 2014
#17
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)1. If that isn't the truth! nt
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)2. Can't we name the Supreme Court building
after the highest paying corporation like stadiums are named.
ashling
(25,771 posts)7. There is scaffolding around the front
I think it was timed for the announcement of the new corporate logo
lastlib
(23,287 posts)15. This used to be the highest court in the land......
today, and forevermore, it's the lowest.
Until we can get these GOPbasturds off of it.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)3. Kick for the oligarchs' victory.
Dirty Socialist
(3,252 posts)4. Members of Congress Should Have The Same Uniforms
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)6. Spot on
We should do that to the politicians as well
Baitball Blogger
(46,758 posts)8. He is a reincarnation of a Borgia pope.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)9. Wonder if the next republicant selected will appoint GE to the SCOTUS since corps are people now. nt
lpbk2713
(42,766 posts)10. He needs a cowboy hat.
Then he'd look like Richard Petty.
On the back must be Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon, Exon Mobil ....
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)12. He'd need a mustache and sunglasses too
lastlib
(23,287 posts)16. ...Bank of Amerika, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Fox.......
AAO
(3,300 posts)11. What a filthy lowlife. I hope he needs to step down soon.
BlueJac
(7,838 posts)13. Fitting...
very true
freshwest
(53,661 posts)17. All may not be lost. Another case of property vs. people had unexpected consequences:
Dred Scott
Dred Scott (circa 1799 September 17, 1858) was a slave in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott Decision." The case was based on the fact that although he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, they had lived with his master, Dr. John Emerson, in states and territories where slavery was illegal according to both state laws and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory).
The United States Supreme Court decided 72 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.
While Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and Congressional authority by this decision, it aroused public outrage and deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern U.S. states. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the post-Civil War Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments nullified the decision...
As to those unexpected results:
Following the ruling, Scott and his family were returned to Emerson's widow. In the meantime, her brother John Sanford had been committed to an insane asylum.
In 1850, Irene Sanford Emerson had remarried. Her new husband, Calvin C. Chaffee, was an abolitionist, who shortly after their marriage was elected to the U.S. Congress. Chaffee was apparently unaware that his wife owned the most prominent slave in the United States until one month before the Supreme Court decision. By then it was too late for him to intervene. Chaffee was harshly criticized for having been married to a slaveholder. He persuaded Irene to return Scott to the Blow family, his original owners. By this time, the Blow family had relocated to Missouri and become opponents of slavery. Henry Taylor Blow manumitted the four Scotts on May 26, 1857, less than three months after the Supreme Court ruling...
The Dred Scott Case ended the prohibition of slavery in federal territories and prohibited Congress from regulating slavery anywhere, overturning the Missouri compromise, enabling "popular sovereignty", and bloody Kansas.[9]
The ruling of the court helped catalyze sentiment for Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the three constitutional amendments ratified shortly after the Civil War: the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, abolishing slavery, granting former slaves citizenship, and conferring citizenship to anyone born in the United States (excluding those subject to a foreign power such as children of foreign ambassadors).[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
Interesting that his case arose in the region where Paul Ryan has called for the elimination of those three Constitutional amendments. He claims when the GOP control enough state legislatures they'll call a Constitutional Convention and re-write it. As a Koch lackey, we know pretty much what the new Constitution will look like. Remarks by the GOP show it, too.
Dred Scott (circa 1799 September 17, 1858) was a slave in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott Decision." The case was based on the fact that although he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, they had lived with his master, Dr. John Emerson, in states and territories where slavery was illegal according to both state laws and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory).
The United States Supreme Court decided 72 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.
While Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had hoped to settle issues related to slavery and Congressional authority by this decision, it aroused public outrage and deepened sectional tensions between the northern and southern U.S. states. President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the post-Civil War Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments nullified the decision...
As to those unexpected results:
Following the ruling, Scott and his family were returned to Emerson's widow. In the meantime, her brother John Sanford had been committed to an insane asylum.
In 1850, Irene Sanford Emerson had remarried. Her new husband, Calvin C. Chaffee, was an abolitionist, who shortly after their marriage was elected to the U.S. Congress. Chaffee was apparently unaware that his wife owned the most prominent slave in the United States until one month before the Supreme Court decision. By then it was too late for him to intervene. Chaffee was harshly criticized for having been married to a slaveholder. He persuaded Irene to return Scott to the Blow family, his original owners. By this time, the Blow family had relocated to Missouri and become opponents of slavery. Henry Taylor Blow manumitted the four Scotts on May 26, 1857, less than three months after the Supreme Court ruling...
The Dred Scott Case ended the prohibition of slavery in federal territories and prohibited Congress from regulating slavery anywhere, overturning the Missouri compromise, enabling "popular sovereignty", and bloody Kansas.[9]
The ruling of the court helped catalyze sentiment for Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the three constitutional amendments ratified shortly after the Civil War: the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, abolishing slavery, granting former slaves citizenship, and conferring citizenship to anyone born in the United States (excluding those subject to a foreign power such as children of foreign ambassadors).[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
Interesting that his case arose in the region where Paul Ryan has called for the elimination of those three Constitutional amendments. He claims when the GOP control enough state legislatures they'll call a Constitutional Convention and re-write it. As a Koch lackey, we know pretty much what the new Constitution will look like. Remarks by the GOP show it, too.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)18. ashling, I think it was a poster
on DKos who said John Roberts was the worst nominee ever. The Chief Justice is in bed with Scalia and Thomas? My worst nightmare has become the SCOTUS law of the land.
No Justice, No Peace