Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Craig234

A reminder why the right-wing war on the rule of law matters, Bush appointee strikes down Obamacare

Recommended Posts

This judge is a Federalist Society radical rightist appointee of Bush 43 - one of many far right, bad judges appointed by him.

 

His history is ruling against medical care for gay people, equal rights for transgender people, protecting native children, and now ruling against the ACA.

 

It makes very little news that Republicans blocked judges massively under Obama, and have rushed huge numbers onto the bench under trump.

 

They're the last protection of the constitution and the rule of law, and the right has declared war on the rule of law, creating an army to fill judge positions. They now control a majority of the Supreme Court and a huge number of other seats.

 

They have an agenda for an anti-democratic, pro-plutocracy rule - they have for a long time, striking down FDR's policies and now much more aggressive, while the public is mostly oblivious to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Craig234 said:

This judge is a Federalist Society radical rightist appointee of Bush 43 - one of many far right, bad judges appointed by him.

 

His history is ruling against medical care for gay people, equal rights for transgender people, protecting native children, and now ruling against the ACA.

 

It makes very little news that Republicans blocked judges massively under Obama, and have rushed huge numbers onto the bench under trump.

 

They're the last protection of the constitution and the rule of law, and the right has declared war on the rule of law, creating an army to fill judge positions. They now control a majority of the Supreme Court and a huge number of other seats.

 

They have an agenda for an anti-democratic, pro-plutocracy rule - they have for a long time, striking down FDR's policies and now much more aggressive, while the public is mostly oblivious to it.

Agree. The Federalist Society is an organization of conservative and libertarians who seek reform with what the Federalist decry as an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

 

This is a society that builds a farm club of conservative judges whose focus is to diminish a list of safeguards already legislated into law regarding worker protection rights, the environment, bankruptcy, and criminal law, etc..

 

Federalist Society executive vice president Leonard Leo said: "What President Trump has done with judicial selection and appointments is probably at the very center of his legacy, and may well be his greatest accomplishments thus far."

 

And it's funny, or should I say ironic, that the Chicago School, or the Milton Friedman conservative view that all these legislative acts that protect the individual should be done away with. 

That a monetary policy that allows for expansion is the only required good law. In essence it says, if you have been abused, you should just take your case to court (good luck with that).

 

Just today, Trumps secretary of the interior, Ryan Zinke resigned amid investigations of impropriety while he was in office... Zinke opened up lands for oil exploration and pretty much shat all over the environmental laws put into place by Obama. He's a Geologist don't he know...

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2018 at 10:08 PM, TheOldBarn said:

Agree. The Federalist Society is an organization of conservative and libertarians who seek reform with what the Federalist decry as an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

 

This is a society that builds a farm club of conservative judges whose focus is to diminish a list of safeguards already legislated into law regarding worker protection rights, the environment, bankruptcy, and criminal law, etc..

 

Federalist Society executive vice president Leonard Leo said: "What President Trump has done with judicial selection and appointments is probably at the very center of his legacy, and may well be his greatest accomplishments thus far."

 

And it's funny, or should I say ironic, that the Chicago School, or the Milton Friedman conservative view that all these legislative acts that protect the individual should be done away with. 

That a monetary policy that allows for expansion is the only required good law. In essence it says, if you have been abused, you should just take your case to court (good luck with that).

 

Just today, Trumps secretary of the interior, Ryan Zinke resigned amid investigations of impropriety while he was in office... Zinke opened up lands for oil exploration and pretty much shat all over the environmental laws put into place by Obama. He's a Geologist don't he know...

 

Peace!

If these people who want to keep the government out of our business knew how to do it, other than just by blowing it up so that robberbarons can move in and dominate everything, I wouldn't mind so much.  But they are so destructive and appear to think if they just blow it all up that something better will automatically just happen somehow.

 

The tea partiers, the Federalist Society, the "libertarians", they are ruined utterly by one thing.  They believe a competitive market is best for solving problems, but they recoil in horror from all efforts to keep markets competitive.  Uncompetitive markets don't solve problems any better than a tyrannical huge central government would, because in the end, you get the same thing, albeit minus any sort of social contract that a government might feel:  very few high-powered players making all the decisions, by virtue of their established power, which they will use to keep their power long after they have earned it in any competitive market sort of way.

 

The GOP had the votes and the time to do something better than the ACA.  They failed utterly.  They produced nothing.  So now we've gone back to just tearing sh!t down.  Fine, you don't like the ACA, we get it.  I don't love it as a long-term solution, either.  But you can't just blow it up.  That's going to be a disaster.  Fix it.  Or replace it if you can.  Show us all how great your ideas are and get them passed.

 

That does not seem to be the agenda.  Again, the agenda is only to blow up the systems, the regulations, anything that stops the power players from making more money.  That's the end of the agenda.  A lot of Americans have bought into the idea that blowing it up will somehow pave the way for replacing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably the biggest, worst propaganda of our time - the right-wing propaganda, designed to get Americans to give up the very American system that gives them freedom, for the excessive greed of the plutocrats, by convincing them the government, their elected government that is their only protection from the powerful, is a menace to them.

 

It's seen in Reagan's propaganda war to do that, by saying the government was the biggest threat to the American people. That's how tyrants gain power - by claiming there is some threat they'll protect the people from. Whether it's Fidel Castro or North Korean leaders using the US, or the right-wing and government, ro trump and immigrants, or any other such 'threat'.

 

At least Democrats had better choices of threats to challenge - FDR challenged the powerful economic interests who led to the Great Deprssion and the fascists who led to WWII, FDR challenged the threat of the cold war, LBJ challenged the threat of poverty in the US (and, wrongly, the threat of Vietnam's war for independence).

 

But that propaganda is how tyranny is done. It's how the corrupt get Americans to throw away the valuable system they have giving them some power, giving them the vote, giving them protection from wealthy interests who would harm them and impoverish them - destroying the climate, paying lower wages, making healthcare unaffordable, whatever.

 

Take the government that can protect the people, and call it a menace. The biggest lie of our time.

It's not that government in theory can't be a menace - when these same forces unite with government and gain control of it, it can - whether with Hitler or with Mao. But that's not the case for the US - which is why we've seen such absurd efforts as claiming that more energy efficient light bulbs replacing worse ones was 'tyranny' against the people. And many fall for it?


As absurd as it sounds, these forces have created massive influence over the American people - their voices for harmful policies loud in the media, controlling all three branches of the American government (e.g., the federalist society), controlling the agendas of a majority of state legislatures (e.g., ALEC), and much more.

 

How? 'We're protecting you from the big government tyrants'. That's the big lie used to get people to vote for the real tyrants. All they have to do to get people to fear that government that wants to give them a healthy atmosphere and good income and clean water, is to say 'they want your guns', 'they want to force gays and trans people on you', 'they love immigrants', etc.

 

And it works. trump basically hasn't lost his core 1/3 of the country - which is the far-right 1/3 who have fallen for the propaganda, but enough to win all these elections combined with the cheating and low turnout of the democrats before 2018 - no matter how badly he does, how many of his people are convicted, how much he lies.

 

He's a sort of clown show distraction that makes the rest of the Republican plutocrats look better in comparison. The issue because the clown show more than the corruption and plutocracy of the right wing. And if all a voter cares about is 'hate immigrants', the tyrant can be embraced by them.

 

I could go on with that list of the fears tyrants use. In the Philippines he murders drug dealers and claims to 'fight corruption' (much as trump claimed he's 'drain the swamp). Putin, the Saudis, Israel's far right, anywhere, the tyrants use fear to gain support.

 

When there's more freedom, the people can resist that better. The Republicans used the 'red scare' to gain power in the US, but the American people finally rejected it, just as they rejected the right-wing in the 2018 elections - even if they couldn't do so enough yet to stop the ongoing takeover of the judicial branch with lifelong far-right appointees for two more years.

 

Ultimately, the forces of tyranny are at war with democracy for the people they want to oppress. Democracy is designed to give the people power - they want the same power for themselves over the people.

 

We haven't quite seen them actually try to convince the people democracy is bad yet, but they could try - point at the 90%+ rate of black people who vote for Democrats, demonize the 'mob' - we've heard that word recently for protesters of Kavanaugh - being a danger to the good Republicans, that democracy is a danger to them.

 

Once the people targeted view democracy not as giving them power, but as a danger as 'those people' - a Democratic mob of minorities and immigrants trying to gain power- they'll quickly hate democracy and demand the right-wing interests seize power to protect them. The word 'mob' is a one word propaganda war on democracy.

 

While they haven't quite yet launched that war on democracy, look how smugly the Republican voters embrace and defend all the corruption their side does - 'winning' elections through the archaic electoral system when they get fewer votes, Republicans getting 2/3 of a legislature with under 50% of the votes, voter suppression and more.

 

Historically, tyranny often has been a minority of the people holding power - the Nazi party in Germany, the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, the Sunnis in majority-Shiite Iraq under Saddam, etc. The right-wing third of America would happily hold power over the rest of the country and deny their rights, given the chance.

 

The plutocrats understand the technique for this tyranny, keeping that group fearful of things they say they'll protect them from even when the fear is of their fellow Americans. Which, while not quite saying that way, they've already done - such as when they destroyed voter-registration group ACORN with false claims of wrongdoing.

 

When the very justice system becomes an instrument of tyranny, with claims of corruption and lies used to attack opponents - such as Bush's US attorney scandal, charging Democratic candidates with false charges to win elections, the calls of "LOCK HER UP" to this day at rallies.

 

It's a dirty little truth of tyranny that its victims often support the tyrants, when they are convinced the oppressors are their protectors. It's not usually the case when brute force is used for tyranny - the slaves in America didn't much love the slaveowners as far as I know, the Indians (India) did not much love Britain when it ruled as far as I know, the Palestinians don't seem to much love Israel. But the Russians love Putin, the Philippinos (sp?) love their dictator, the list goes on, but the tyrants can actually get a lot of popular support that way, and the American right loves trump, who has record support from Republicans, more than previous Republican presidents, not caring about the climate or their healthcare or income inequality - at least, not caring enough not to be easily fooled by Republican lies that climate change is a lie, that Republicans are the ones really trying to provide healthcare, that Republicans are the ones fighting for the economic interests of their voters and trying to 'drain the swamp'.

 

And if Republicans just had more control of the media - one of the first things tyrants want - imagine how much more effective they could be, without the choice of shows daily reporting on the lies and the crimes and the facts. If all you heard about was the protection you get from dangerous immigrants, etc. - in other words, if Fox News was the only news channel.

 

People feel a false sense of security in democracy because the plutocracy happens in degrees, step by step - so Fox isn't the only news channel, but look at income inequality, look how unresponsive Republican government is to the people, and the topic of this thread, look how the judiciary is being undermined as it is taken over by Federalist Society ideologues.

 

When FDR won an election, at first, his reforms against the powerful interests were struck down by a Republican Supreme Court, led by a Chief Justice who had been the Republican nominee for president. Now, Obama's primary accomplishment for the people in healthcare is under attack by the Republican-appointed judiciary.

 

It passed by a margin of one vote, with not one Republican voting for it, Democrats needing 60 seats in the Senate to pass it to overcome a Republican filibuster.

 

Republicans already won a victory when the Supreme Court allowed states to refuse Medicaid expansion. They came within one vote on the Supreme Court of striking it down entirely. They've gutted its financing, slashing the budget to enroll people, eliminating the mandate making it profitable for insurers. Now, a Bush judge has struck down the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2018 at 11:36 AM, Craig234 said:

This is probably the biggest, worst propaganda of our time - the right-wing propaganda, designed to get Americans to give up the very American system that gives them freedom, for the excessive greed of the plutocrats, by convincing them the government, their elected government that is their only protection from the powerful, is a menace to them.

 

 

 

Agree! It's been sitting in the wings for a long long time but you are correct, it has become full fledgedly rampant these days. 

 

On 12/17/18 at 11:36 AM, Crag234 said:

"It's seen in Reagan's propaganda war to do that, by saying the government was the biggest threat to the American people. That's how tyrants gain power - by claiming there is some threat they'll protect the people from. Whether it's Fidel Castro or North Korean leaders using the US, or the right-wing and government, ro trump and immigrants, or any other such 'threat'.

 

O I think it has become even more than that. HW Bush saw through Reagan's pitch for the huge tax overhaul mostly for the rich. This was based on the Laffer curve which predicted a sweet spot between a 0 - 100% tax rate curve, and if you found it, the sweet spot, so to speak, you would then maximize tax revenue. The spiraling Federal Debt was the selling point in much of Reagan's rhetoric. Back then we had hyperinflation and suffered from stagnant growth due to a few issues, such as prices of oil, the after effects of the Vietnam era, and Nixon's decision 

for a wage and price freeze, etc.../ since then the Fed has tried to keep the inflationary rate below 2% which has helped slow down expansion, but I guess that's a different story.

Do you remember Jeane Kirkpatrick, the ardent anticommunist who was UN Ambassador under Reagan?

 

"Americans are understandably upset about any foreign interference in our elections. As are Hondurans, Chileans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, Italians, Iranians and citizens of scores of other countries where the United States has intervened much more heavily sometimes sponsoring military coups to reverse election results."

This was taken from a Mark Weisbrot article that appeared in the LA times.

 https://www.latimes.com/sns-tns-bc-uspoland-con-20181220-story.html

 

 

On 12/17/18 at 11:36 AM, Crag234 said:

"People feel a false sense of security in democracy because the plutocracy happens in degrees, step by step - so Fox isn't the only news channel, but look at income inequality, look how unresponsive Republican government is to the people, and the topic of this thread, look how the judiciary is being undermined as it is taken over by Federalist Society ideologues."

 

I think people feel security when they can hold down a job that pays the bills. I think a large swath of the electorate for the most part stays latent until there is some extreme shock, 

possibly caused by a recession, or war, or what one would call a constitutional catastrophe. Sort of like the frog sitting in the pond while the water slowly cooks.

The opposing forces mostly on the right, call out for people not to vote, or to be afraid, or to distrust government on the whole. Meanwhile, the most informed left leaning tribe ("tribe"as they call it, not my term) remains measurably small, until all hell breaks loose, that is.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2018 at 8:13 AM, splunch said:

If these people who want to keep the government out of our business knew how to do it, other than just by blowing it up so that robberbarons can move in and dominate everything, I wouldn't mind so much.  But they are so destructive and appear to think if they just blow it all up that something better will automatically just happen somehow.

 

The tea partiers, the Federalist Society, the "libertarians", they are ruined utterly by one thing.  They believe a competitive market is best for solving problems, but they recoil in horror from all efforts to keep markets competitive.  Uncompetitive markets don't solve problems any better than a tyrannical huge central government would, because in the end, you get the same thing, albeit minus any sort of social contract that a government might feel:  very few high-powered players making all the decisions, by virtue of their established power, which they will use to keep their power long after they have earned it in any competitive market sort of way.

 

The GOP had the votes and the time to do something better than the ACA.  They failed utterly.  They produced nothing.  So now we've gone back to just tearing sh!t down.  Fine, you don't like the ACA, we get it.  I don't love it as a long-term solution, either.  But you can't just blow it up.  That's going to be a disaster.  Fix it.  Or replace it if you can.  Show us all how great your ideas are and get them passed.

 

That does not seem to be the agenda.  Again, the agenda is only to blow up the systems, the regulations, anything that stops the power players from making more money.  That's the end of the agenda.  A lot of Americans have bought into the idea that blowing it up will somehow pave the way for replacing it.

What you say here is vital, the whole reasoning behind why any person should wish to share their entire identity.

 

They come up as native peoples or they come up as only slave or they come up as a poor people all wanting something which is a way to prosper and way to become safe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2018 at 2:36 PM, Craig234 said:

This is probably the biggest, worst propaganda of our time - the right-wing propaganda, designed to get Americans to give up the very American system that gives them freedom, for the excessive greed of the plutocrats, by convincing them the government, their elected government that is their only protection from the powerful, is a menace to them.

 

This is why we have to vote against money, consistently enough that we can reduce its influence in our government long enough that our government can right the ship.  We cannot really get this straightened out without busting up some really huge corporations and banks, putting in place Glass-Steagall-style hard limits on the size and scope of companies going forward, and ideally cleaning up the way political campaigns are financed.  I see every social issue as a sub-issue to this.  When the robber barons dominate the landscape, there is no equality for women, or minorities, or even children.  When the wealth concentration gets so intense there isn't even equality for white Christian males, who currently make up most of the GOP and Trump supporters, because they think America is theirs and the GOP is going to protect it for them.  It's utterly foolish.  These are the same people who were working for scrip that you could only use at the company store during the Gilded Age.  These are the same people whose children were working in factories and coal mines rather than going to school.  Is this really the America they think they want to go back to?

 

I think most people believe that's impossible.  They think that human beings back then were a different species or something, and we're so evolved now.  And yet they've readily accepted over the past 40 years that a household usually cannot survive on a single full time income.  That you cannot buy a car with your savings.  That it will take 30 years to pay off a house, and you'll spend more on interest than your home when you're done.  All of those would have seemed criminally out of control to your average middle class family in 1960.  And yet, we see it all and say, "Yeah, what's wrong with that?"  We most certainly CAN go back to the horrors of the Gilded Age, and we most certainly will if we continue to embrace the right-wing, or even to enable it through "centrism".

 

Politicians will never be perfect or perfectly clean, or anything else they should be in Plato's Utopia.  But we should be aggressively voting for those who at least make an effort, and who make keeping that banker money, that Walmart money, that Pfizer money, out of their campaigns, something of a central issue, so that we can hold them accountable for it when they do find themselves allied with those interests.  They don't have to march into Washington bashing everyone and everything and attacking all corporations and banks and so on.  But protecting competition in the marketplace should be on their minds and part of their platforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I see every social issue as a sub-issue to this."

 

I agree. When you vote for plutocrat-serving politicians, you get incompetence at best, hostility at worst to all the other issues for the public as well overall.

 

"We most certainly CAN go back to the horrors of the Gilded Age,"

Really, it's worse than that. I saw it said that perhaps the biggest economic change in human history was when the masses went from a net economic plus (exploit them, but keep them alive) to a net economic minus (feeding and housing the masses costing more than they produce, so it's in the economic interest of the rich to just kill them.)

 

There's nothing really in the way of policies to kill off a big part of the human race. Automation, AI, etc., even expensive medical advances,  only accelerate that economic pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 12:08 PM, Craig234 said:

"I see every social issue as a sub-issue to this."

 

I agree. When you vote for plutocrat-serving politicians, you get incompetence at best, hostility at worst to all the other issues for the public as well overall.

 

"We most certainly CAN go back to the horrors of the Gilded Age,"

Really, it's worse than that. I saw it said that perhaps the biggest economic change in human history was when the masses went from a net economic plus (exploit them, but keep them alive) to a net economic minus (feeding and housing the masses costing more than they produce, so it's in the economic interest of the rich to just kill them.)

 

There's nothing really in the way of policies to kill off a big part of the human race. Automation, AI, etc., even expensive medical advances,  only accelerate that economic pressure.

I think you might be talking about prison here. Automation is okay when it provides improvements. The thought regarding valuation of people still has to remain strong, the number one effort to enhance something we forgot about a long while ago. The reason why a strong democracy is required. 

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

I think you might be talking about prison here. Automation is okay when it provides improvements. The thought regarding valuation of people still has to remain strong, the number one effort to enhance something we forgot about a long while ago. The reason why a strong democracy is required. 

 

Peace!

 

Not prison, really.


Prison costs money; cheaper to kill people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Craig234 said:

 

Not prison, really.


Prison costs money; cheaper to kill people.

you mean like an automated killing machine? Are you suggesting that as a mechanism to enhance productivity?

Oh man, I hope not. 

 

Just kidding of course. We need to increase NATO, no decrease NATO, no, no, Nuclear Weapons, I mean we need to reduce the existential threat to all life, good lord. I mean, it only makes good economic sense.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...