Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The most deceitful and activist court in history? I give you the Robert’s Court.

Posted 2 years ago on June 18, 2012, 9:55 a.m. EST by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If they are just going to lie under oath why do we even have questioning of Supreme Court nominees?

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/18/155148102/citizens-united-gets-renewed-scrutiny

They railed against “the liberal media” and now the 24/7 news media is pretty much owned by the right. They railed against an “activist court” and now we have the most activist court in history, and the most conservative.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/supreme-court-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/

60 Comments

60 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Honor among thieves - and purjerers
[an oldie but a goodie]
William Rehnquist Is Unfit to Judge Florida's Recount
by William Ruha
In the early 1960s, Arizona Republican Party members launched a massive effort to inhibit ethnic minorities from voting by making them read English and interpret what they read. The program, given a GOP code-name "Operation Eagle Eye," was eventually abandoned after Arizona legislators changed the laws that had allowed precinct workers to effectively intimidate would-be voters.

However, while the law was on the books, one of the GOP program's key activists was an ambitious 40-year old attorney with an 11-year practice in Phoenix. This attorney sought to recruit other local young Republican leaders to serve in what was then termed the Operation's "flying squads." His name: William Hubbs Rehnquist.

One lawyer that Rehnquist sought to press into service was Charles Tsoukalas, the son of Greek immigrants from Cleveland who anglicized his name to Charlie Stevens. Stevens, who led the local Young Republicans, listened to Rehnquist's arguments that the program was indeed legal, but since the young man's Greek parents had fled Turkey and arrived in America speaking broken English, he declined the recruitment call.

Said Stevens, "I didn't think it was proper to challenge my dad or my mother to interpret the Constitution. Even people who are born here have trouble interpreting the Constitution. Lawyers have trouble interpreting it. It just violated my principles. I had a poor family. I grew up in the projects in Cleveland, Ohio."

Unfazed, Rehnquist went about enacting "Operation Eagle Eye" as a tool to suppress heavily-Democratic ethnic minority votes.

In the 1964 election, Rehnquist so strenuously enforced Operation Eagle Eye that he ultimately engaged in a shoving match with Democratic Party poll watcher Lito Pena. Pena objected to Rehnquist's repeated efforts to prevent ethnic minority citizens from voting in South Phoenix because he knew they would vote Democratic.

Pena states, "He knew the law and applied it with the precision of a swordsman. He sat at the table at the Bethune School, a polling place brimming with black citizens, and quizzed voters ad nauseam about where they were from, how long they'd lived there -- every question in the book. A passage of the Constitution was read and people who spoke broken English were ordered to interpret it to prove they had the language skills to vote." (2)

As Pena recalls, by the time he arrived at Bethune, the voting line was a block long with people standing four abreast. A good number of would-be voters ultimately gave up and returned home. Outraged at this deliberate attempt to disenfranchise voters, Pena told Rehnquist to leave. An argument ensued that soon turned physical. First, the two men engaged in shoving. Then, the tall "Anglo" raised a fist and threatened Pena. Undaunted, the smaller man replied, "If that's what you want, I'll get someone to take you out of here."

Aware that this GOP voter suppression operation targeting blacks and ethnic minorities was in fact a repeat of the Republican Party's well-orchestrated 1962 program, Pena was understandably upset. He retired to a nearby motel to strategize with an assemblage of similarly mistreated and outraged iron-workers.

Shortly thereafter a larger member of this group returned to the polling place, seized Rehnquist, and swiftly dispatched him from the school.

Pena continued his political activism on behalf of citizen rights during his 30 year career as a Democrat in the Arizona State Legislature.

Charlie Stevens prospered as a well-regarded Republican attorney in Phoenix, and eventually became an instrumental figure in helping to launch the legal career of Sandra Day O'Connor, who served as a Republican state legislator before her appointment to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Rehnquist, who sought to recruit Stevens into "Operation Eagle Eye" and whom Pena recalls having had tossed out of the Bethune School polling place, likewise rose to prominence. He now serves as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. And on Saturday, he presided over a case concerning whether each vote for President was properly recorded in the state of Florida.

Rehnquist rose to power after being named by Richard Nixon in 1969 as a new assistant attorney general and head of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice. In such civil rights cases as Nixon's use of the Army to conduct domestic surveillance, Rehnquist vigorously defended the president, offering advice that the embattled Nixon valued so highly, that he privately called his legal aide as "Renchberg."

But perhaps the moniker derived from another of Nixon's schemes in which he again sought Rehnquist's aid, relying on the ultra-conservative's noted anti-civil rights legal opinions. In 1971, Nixon conspired with aides to have the House Internal Security Committee (the updated HUAC of Nixon's early Hiss-framing days) launch a "spy ring" investigation against his opponents using Republican congressional members of the ultra-right John Birch Society. At one point, Nixon stated, " . . you know what will charge up an audience. Jesus Christ, they'll be hanging from the rafters . . Going after all these Jews, Just find one that is a Jew, will you . . . Rehnquist is a bright fella. He can take charge of this thing." (4)

It was also was "Renchberg" who wrote the defense brief for Nixon's selection of G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court in 1970. Carswell - whose legal decisions had consistently supported his 1948 statement that "segregation of the races is proper and the only practical and correct way of life in our states. I have always so believed and I shall always so act." (5) - was ultimately seen as the racist he was, and rejected by the Senate. A year later, Nixon appointed Carswell's chief defender, Rehnquist to the same position: Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Initially reluctant because Rehnquist was "only the Assistant Attorney General," (6) Nixon recanted and advanced his name only after learning that Rehnquist had clerked for Justice Robert H. Jackson, who had once written a letter back commending a young Nixon for an essay he had written that had been forwarded to him by Nixon's Duke University law professor. Nixon, who was plagued with self-esteem problems, was extremely proud of the letter and it served to trigger Rehnquist's rise to the Supreme Court.

During Rehnquist's 1971 confirmation hearings, much opposition was voiced, based on his alleged association as a Goldwater Republican with various ultraconservative political organizations in Arizona. While regarded as a conservative ideologue, Rehnquist faced more serious problems in that he had written a memorandum while clerking for Justice Jackson that strenuously objected to desegregation. (7) This apparent racist slant was buttressed by testimony and evidence showing Rehnquist's vigorous opposition to the public accommodations section of the 1964 civil rights law.

It was at this point in the confirmation hearings that the "Operation Eagle Eye" matter surfaced. Rehnquist denied personally intimidating voters, offering the explanation that he may have been called to Election Day polling places in order to "arbitrate disputes over voter qualifications." Nixon's appointee, whom at one point he disparagingly referred to as "a clown" (9) was ultimately confirmed on a 68-26 Senate vote.

In 1986, when Warren Burger retired as Chief Justice, and President Ronald Reagan named Rehnquist to replace him, three additional witnesses - including a deputy U.S. attorney - testified that they had been called to polling places where angry voters pointed to Rehnquist as the election official tormenting them. Naturally, the Chief Justice's defenders dismissed the identification as cases of "mistaken identity," the disenfranchised voters apparently having failed to pass this "eagle eye" test as well.

Now, of course, Rehnquist is in the ideal position of being judge, jury, and executioner in administering the "Operation Eagle Eye" standards with the nation's Presidency at stake. He is one of only 9 Americans being asked to read passages of the Constitution and interpret them for the purpose of determining whether the predominantly Democratic ethnic minority votes in Florida's challenged counties will count or not.

Rehnquist's history offers a chief reason why this justice should have recused himself. He did not.

In light of all this, and inasmuch as justices are permitted to discuss their cases at length with each other, it will be interesting to see how successful the zealous ex-Phoenix "Operation Eagle Eye" enforcer will be in recruiting other members into his new updated "flying squad" to disenfranchise the votes of blacks and ethnic minorities in predominantly Democratic Florida counties.

Will the "Roberts Court" squad members make "Operation Eagle Eye" fly again?

I love republiclans - don't you?

  • William Ruha
[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks to decades of think tank thought they have raised a generation of true believers that unlike the earlier models can appear to be sane at first.

Reading this I am reminded of another, a young Robert Bork who cut his baby teeth on the bones of brown people in Arizona as well.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

mornin matt

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

The reason it matters who is president.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

This is why Presidential elections matter.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

and senate

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28162) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The People need to speak with a strong clear and Unified Voice.

Move to Amend - update.

From People for the American Way.

Dear Dan,

In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court upended our political system with its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The decision undermined more than a century of laws regulating the influence of corporations in elections, and was an unprecedented attack on the core democratic values of the Constitution.

Immediately thereafter, People For the American Way realized that mitigation efforts like the DISCLOSE Act, although important, would not be enough; we knew then, as we know now, that amending the Constitution would be the only way to restore democracy to the people. So we began to organize.

Working with allied organizations, we’ve launched efforts that have had striking results.

And it is because of your hard work that we can now say:

More than 200 cities and towns have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment Over 1,500 public officials support constitutional remedies Over 100 members of Congress now back a constitutional amendment President Barack Obama has voiced his support for a constitutional amendment 5 state legislatures support a constitutional amendment 23 State attorneys general took a position in support of Montana regulating corporate money in elections as its case develops in the U.S. Supreme Court

But there still is much more work that must be done.

To join organizing efforts that are currently underway -- like those surrounding the Resolutions Week initiative -- please check out this map, and reach out to the lead organizers in your area.

http://site.pfaw.org/site/R?i=Rm8njSDixnAHu9ZAQ2P94w

If your town is not yet listed, and you would like to start a local amendment campaign, please contact amendment@pfaw.org.

Money has overwhelmed the political system. We must do everything in our power to stop this process from continuing.

If we work together, we can create a more just and democratic country.

Thank you for all you do,

Calvin Sloan, Field Organizer


Town by town, City by city, State by state.

Grow Unity.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

good post, thanks, cu there

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 2 years ago

Bribery and blackmail.

The Thomases take the bribes, but he's also a hate-freak. I'd give a pretty to see the blackmail items. Dead girls and live boys -- too mundane.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Kennedy got pissed he’s not “the decider” anymore.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

which kennedy and I thought bush was the decider?

i

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Anthony Kennedy

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

oh thats a different kennedy unrelated to the boston kennedy's

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Is this the page where Occupiers are going to criticize the Supreme Court for not respecting the doctrine of stare decisis? I just think that's ironic since I spent all day yesterday on this site talking to a bunch of people who got angry with me because I kept talking about stare decisis and they kept telling me that it didn't matter. A lot of people here clearly don't even think that stare decisis exists in the first place.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

If that was true, they would overturning Roe Vs Wade. And a whole lot of other stuff.

Everyone forgets that bought out people (presidents and congress) are the ones that put these people in there.

I predict they uphold Obamacare, even though its completely unconstitutional, because the insurance cartel (one of the big three that run DC) is due to make a freakin fortune off of it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Are you saying Nate does bad math?

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The media is owned by the bankers, its why we never here any of the real news, and the news we do get is watered down and idiotic.

The media is not left or right, its there to keep us as dumb as humanely possible, and its doing a great fuckin job of it.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

and the GOP is hocking the country to the bankers too, if we don't get them out of office we will never be able to pay the pawn ticket off

99% inheritances tax now till debt is paid in full

no more 2010's no more 2001's

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

You want deceitful, read Ginsburg. It's as bad as pelosi's let's pass it first.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

One cannot protect the right of the individual liberally; rights must be guarded jealously, not awarded to others at will, and to do so, requires prudence.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Not sure what you are trying to say, but it is the court's duty to protect individual rights from unreasonable government control, now they get it wrong like CU where they grant natural rights to legal enties, but at other times when they tell folks that if you open your doors to the public you don't get to choose who walks through based on how they was born, they do a pretty good job.

Now this Robert's guy seemed to have told a few whoppers in front of congress, based on how he's been ruling.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

They got it big time wrong with Obamacare, absolutely despicable, and this definitely includes Robert's "stand-alone tax." Not sure what I am trying to say... I'm saying the rights afforded in our Constitution to us as individuals, and unto the states as independent sovereigns, united, must be guarded. This falls under the label of prudence, the path of prudence, and an undoubtedly "conservative" approach. A liberal view of the law allows them to spin and twist at will, as if to say, we didn't fully understand so we're going to redefine those "rights" - in the process they take from to the favor of another, create legislation to justify that theft, and that is not equality of right.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Obama was wrong to give up on the public optition and giving in to the GOP and putting in their ideal of a mandate. The mandate was wrong when the GOP came up with it and it still is.

So by your thinking Bush v Gore was a very liberal ruling?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"now the 24/7 news media is pretty much owned by the right"

literally LMAO!

thanks for starting my day with a laugh

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

FOX must have like 6 times the viewers MSNBC does, the right rules the airwaves alright!!!

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

fox has 6 viewers?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

at least 5, what with all the 5 to 4's we been getting

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

People choose what they watch. The 'right' has 1 network...and the 'left' has the rest. I'm not sure that Fox has 6 times the viewers of MSNBC, but if it is true - it certainly says something about the quality of programming by NBC.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I don't think any of them are owned by the 99%, pretty sure they are all owned by the 1% and ran that way, just mention MSNBC because they sort of try to be balanced, but are still mostly protective of the 1% when was the last time even they talked about wealth inequality, that's the biggest problem we have in this country, when does any of them talk it? Never that's when!!

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

sanders mentioned it

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

ok CSPAN when bernie's on

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Most news agencies are still very liberal - at least TV and printed media. But i agree that they are owned by the 1% and that they aren't dealing with wealth inequality.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

you say they are liberal when of course they are not, they are owned by the wealthy and the people who work there know it and act accordingly, what you call liberal is their tendentcy to sometimes tell the truth

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

You don't have to read too many newspapers or watch too many news broadcasts to realize the media leans strongly to the left.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The truth is the rich are very rich in this country, the truth is America is a country with very little opportunity to move from working class to middle class, the truth is that every other country that provides single payer healthcare gets better results with less costs, tell me how does the news media tell the truth without being liberal?

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Rich are very rich - true. Turn on "lives of the rich and famous" or "cribs" or any other television drivel and you'll get all the truth you want on that.

Very little opportunity to move from working class to middle class. Not truth.

Single payer healthcare getting better results? not truth.

Most MSM is extremely liberal based on what they DO say. I'm sorry they don't report on everything that you want them to.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/06/06/business/metrics-health-care-outlier.html

given the facts I'd say MSNBC is a little right of center

sucks when the facts don’t agree with you, doesn’t it

[-] 1 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

I want in the town building in which an ill or injured person can go to for help without charge

where people can get check ups for free

supported by the government taxes

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

That is the cheapest way to do it, that's why all the relief agencies do it that way,

They support a system where they pay more to keep us on the job hook.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

a buckle being an open supply end where need of medical supply could be exagerated to divert funding

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

a buckle? really dude? ok yeah there would be concern for the divert, happens in relief situations too, an efficient single payer works on almost the same principle and allows more control, Medicare works great, we just need to convince 51% (or 60 in the Senate) that medical care should be based more on need than who your parents were.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I don't see anything in these articles about MSNBC...but even if they were relevant - You're smoking crack if you think MSNBC is anywhere near center...much less to the right.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So you do at least admit that class is fixed and single payer is cheaper, I'll take that, who cares about MSNBC anyway.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Now you're just starting to flail...Where do you see me "admit" either of those things? But if it makes you happy to believe those things - far be it for me, or common sense, to stand between you and happiness.

And...just for the record - Al Sharpton has a show on MSNBC...right wing? I think not.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh I saw your comment on MSNBC did I miss your comment on the other two, let me look, no didn't miss it, so you're just a liar then? Is that your thing?

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Still flailing about, and now calling me a liar. You sound like a 5 year old.

I didn't comment on those two articles, I thought you were talking still talking about MSNBC. If you have an opinion about an article that you link, then state it in your response don't just put in a link by itself.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Good news, SCOTUS says you can be insured in spite of that preexisting mental condition.

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Seeing past media propaganda is a "condition" now?

Wow, you really want to believe the bullshit don' t you? You love it.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Watching FOX and seeing liberal bias is what we call a “break with reality”.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"Watching FOX and seeing liberal bias"

who said that?

making shit up and believing it is real...that truly is a condition. get yourself checked out. living in your fantasy world could be a problem if and when you reach adulthood.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So we do agree the dominant mass media news outlet is very conservative in their presentation. Good it is always nice to find common ground.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Oh, look, word games! What an adorable leftist puppy dog you are, what with your pathetic and transparent attempts to change definitions mid-discussion. Is this how lefties talk to each other when deciding who cares more about the environment?

For the adults in the room, the dominant mass media blatantly leans left. Fox is the exception.

frf, if this is news to you, or confusing to you, find another hobby. This one is way over your relatively small and pointy head.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I had no ideal FOX ratings had fallen so, I guess people are catchingg on.

[-] -2 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

I am going to vote for Mitt just to help insure the courts become more conservative. I believe that going back to the Constitution for our laws is the right thing to do for our posterity and for the freedom of man.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

There were no corporations in the Consititution, are you ready to take away all that wealth?

[-] -1 points by secnoot (-14) 2 years ago

There were no health care in the Consititution, are you ready to take away all that wealth?

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6831) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Health care can be provided without the creation of separate legal kingdoms.