truth.
The Robert's Court is becoming
more and more extreme. What
is completely appalling is the
way this is directly effecting the political fairness of a region of
the country.
Since when does political corruption of a region of the country become dominant to the rights of the entire country? This is a designer court
and acts in disregard to the US Constitution. This is not about states
rights, it is about dismantling civil rights and removing the vote as the
only means nominating and electing our 'representative democracy.'
It is time to seriously consider impeachment of the judges willing to
weaken the strength of the citizen in favor of political power. This
directly relates to the disseminating of citizen's rights to corporate
cronys.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (click here)
This site at the Justice Department is safe as accurate for at least the next four years.
The 1965 Enactment
By 1965 concerted efforts to break the grip of state disfranchisement had been under way for some time,but had achieved only modest success overall and in some areas had proved almost entirely ineffectual. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism. Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would
become the Voting Rights Act.
court. Since the Bush appointments the Supreme Court has been openly
hostile toward the citizen while yielding to corporations. There is a lot
wrong here and it is time to begin serious hearings on impeachment. The
Court has become to emboldened with 'anti-citizen' themes. Roberts
was densely linked to The Heritage Foundation before his appointment
to the Court. I am confident his priorities for same comes from attachments
to that foundation as well. Scalia is nothing but hubris anymore. We
already know the irreverence of Alito. Thomas will probably write one of
the two opinions on this priority of this Court.
November 9, 2012, 4:18 p.m.
WASHINGTON — Acting just three days (click here) after the election,
the Supreme Court announced Friday it would consider lifting a legal
cloud that has hung over the South since the 1960s by striking down
part of the landmark Voting Rights Act as outdated and unfair....
The Supreme Court should be strengthening voter rights by demanding
standardization across the country of early voting, voting mechanisms
and opening opportunity to the citizen rather than weakening it. The
electorate is growing with every generation coming of age, the need for
expanding the voting opportunity is paramount to a functioning election.
This decision by the Roberts' Court came on the heels of President Obama stating "...and we need to do something about that." The statement was
in regard to teh voting rights fiasco this year. This decision to assail this
law is a direct attack on the results of the 2012 election when Citizens'
United failed to buy the elections in the Senate and Executive Branch.
Abstract: The right to engage in free speech--particularly political
speech-- (click here) and the right to freely associate are two of this
nation's most important founding principles. That is why the Supreme
Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission is so important: It protects these principles against those, including President Barack Obama, who favor a federal ban on
independent political advocacy by corporations....
Chief Justice John Robert's decision in regards to The Affordable Care
Act is in line with his Heritage Foundation connections.
...On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court (click here) upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare, particularly its core provision – the
so-called individual mandate under which most Americans would be
required to buy health care insurance with at least the minimum
amount of coverage stipulated by the federal government or pay a
fine. The Court upheld the mandate on the grounds that it was within
the taxing authority of Congress. Chief Justice John Roberts provided
the swing vote to give the liberal justices on the bench the majority
they needed to uphold the controversial law.
In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, he concluded that
“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid
it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”...
The Affordable Care Act was originally authored by The Heritage
Foundation. Why would it be inconsistent for Roberts to align his authority
against a law he probably contributed to nearly two decades before? I
haven't done a study on the parallels between The Heritage Foundation
and the decisions of the Roberts' Court, but, my guess is the comparison
is very strong.
