I’m just going to throw it out there for discussion.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg lost one of her best friends and close confidants. Most people don’t realize how close these two were. I don’t suspect her in having many years left either with losing a close friend.
Surprised to hear he was a friend of Kagan, and he recommended to David Axelrod that Obama nominate her.
Justice Scalia didn’t believe in the American citizen or “we the people” nor their democratic process, overriding American votes in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.
In Bush v. Gore Justice Scalia, before a final official Florida tally could finish that showed Gore indeed won, instead gave the vote to Bush:
“The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush”
Laster Justice Scalia — voted with the majority in Citizens United – “limiting corporate independent expenditures does not serve a compelling governmental interest, since “the absence of prearrangement and coordination undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate [and] … alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments.”
You know the media conducted their own recount, and failed to find a lead for Gore?
Citizens United is aggravating and perplexing and I don’t understand the reasoning behind it.
In the long run, it’s probably ok …
I think democracy was always going to be a temporary thing.
The future will about megacorps, thought crimes and restricting free speech and 24/7 surveillance — and then eventually robots, eugenics and clones.
Europe already has the oligarchs back.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin was asked on the final day of deliberation; by a lady, “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”
And so it goes!
We deserve what we elect! And to elect those who will serve the many and not the few, takes knowing the truth through a free press.
Since corps have bought and consolidated newspapers, radio and TV news; we the people have lost that too!
The free for all internet is a half baked replacement.
Citizens United was about the government attempt to censor a film critical of Hillary Clinton. During argument the lawyers argued that under the law the government had the power to ban the publication of books, as long as it was paid for by a corporation.
Well, now we have Super PACs and unlimited corporate money capable of buying politicians.
There will be no Republicans.
There will be no Democrats.
There will be 2 types of candidates:
A) Ones who are corporation friendly and like outsourcing and replacing you with a foreign worker.
B) Candidates with no funding
I wonder what would happen if Obama nominated Cruz…
That would be hilarious and there have been six justices born outside the United States; so, a Canadian birth is no prob!
One of the true great legal and scholarly minds, regardless if you agreed with his opinions or not (which I usually did not)!
My letter to the Editor
Now that there is an opening on the Supreme Court the Republicans are saying that they will refuse to process and appointments that President Obama will make. That they will refuse to allow Obama to make the choice even though he is still president. It makes me wonder if they would take that same stance if it were the last year of a Republican presidency. The Republicans are challenging the authority of the presidency because they think Obama is weak. It will be interesting to see if President Obama will have the guts to stand up and do what the President is supposed to do.
Boo-Yah, recess appointment!
Take that to the Supreme Court Repuks!
Note to Perkel.
In August 1960 the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”
Flippity-Floppity
Just because you forget history Perk doesn’t mean everyone does.
Except Perkel didn’t say anything about recess appointments. How about Chuck Schumer in 2007 saying Democrats should not approve any more appointments by George Bush to the Supreme Court?
They didn’t approve many regular judges either.
They are not refusing to allow Obama to make the choice, as they can’t do that. They are simply exercising their advise and consent role, and advising him not to make a choice. They are not obligated to consent to this choice.
There hasn’t been an election year vacancy filled in 80 years, and Cardozo was not objected to by the Democrats in 1932, and not one with Senate and Presidency split since the 1890s. And that was before Democrats politicized the courts with the Robert Bork nomination.
Over 2/3 of failed Supreme Court nominations never came up for a vote.
So Marc, was it acceptable for Obama to filibuster the vote on Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito?
This is the best thing to happen for the American people in years. This guy was a terrible person and worse Justice. He was a bigger threat to the American way of life than Osama Bin Laden and ISIS combined.
“He was a bigger threat to the American way of life than Osama Bin Laden and ISIS combined.”
Oh and lets not forget about SATAN!
Idiot.
So how was he a threat, since his primary view was that most things should be left up for people to vote on, while liberal justices liked to overturn people’s votes and implement their policy preferences as rights, not letting people vote.
It remains to be seen if the Senate has the balls to do what is right for the country and hold up the appointment until after Obomba is out of office and can no longer do any more damage.
The Democrats said that GWB would be allowed to select a justice in the last 18 months of his.
All the Senate has to do is stay in session and just keep rejecting whoever the dumb ass sends up. Simple. It is the Constitutional responsibility of the president to nominate a justice. It does NOT say that the Senate has to accept the nominee. Learn the difference. Consent of the Senate. Article II Sec 2
With all the supposed damage Obama has done after recovering from a worldwide disastrous GWB administration, you would think the Koch brothers, Karl Rove and the Rupuks would be wrapping everything up nicely in the primaries? Money talks, right?
It begs obvious questions, why people don’t believe rupukes? Why are the repukes such a clown circus?
“Why are the repukes such a clown circus?”
Because being the village idiot was already taken by the demorats?
Term Limits – For both the politicians and the appointed minions at the various federal departments/agencies. Two terms, thats it. Goodbye career politician/admin, your system serves no one but yourself.
National Sales Tax – One rule, 6% (food/medical exempt). Bub-bye IRS.
Election campaign finance reform – $100 per person per candidate per election cycle. Must be 18 to “contribute”. Adjusted to the inflation index every 3 years.
Balanced budget every year – Failure triggers nationwide recall elections with present (failing) politicians not eligible for government service ever again.
Until these four things happen the USA will continue to endure political corruption and the system gaming that thrives off the ignorance of those that only contribute “blame the other side” insults.
Amen, brother.
Too bad the Democrats did this to themselves. Boo hoo.
https://govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415
You do understand we are not in an Obama engineered recovery…do you not?
http://telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12149894/Mapped-Why-negative-interest-rates-herald-new-danger-for-the-world.html
After this election, Big Money is going to have to spend big money to restore the reputation of Big Money.
Quotes from Scalia:
If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.
If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour. The only thing in the world not for sale is character.
As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to ‘do what the people want,’ instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically.
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless.
It is difficult to maintain the illusion that we are interpreting a Constitution, rather than inventing one, when we amend its provisions so breezily.
That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things.
“It is difficult to maintain the illusion that we are interpreting a Constitution, rather than inventing one, when we amend its provisions so breezily.” //// You mean interpret provisions. Without doing so, the legal system would indeed be dysfunctional close to not existing at all.
There was no electricity in 1781 so how would privacy rights be interpreted regarding phones, internet, microwaves etc? The dysfunction would be that every law that Congress passed would be legal because: “The Constitution doesn’t address that.”
Course, OTOH, the whole Corps are People and Money is Speech would be avoided as well…..except who knows what laws Congress would pass, all being in the pocket of Big Biz?
Scalia voted for outlawing police use of infrared to detect marijuana growers, as a violation of the fourth amendment.
There was electricity in 1781, as Billy Madison could tell you.
We have Ben Franklin to thank for choosing the electric polarities such that the electron is a negative charge.
Most students are taught Conventional Current flows out of the positive terminal, through the circuit and into the negative terminal of the source.
This was the convention chosen by Benjamin Franklin during the discovery of electricity. Some say Ben was wrong for choosing electrons to be a negative charge!
For many students it’s easier to understand (it’s more intuitive) current as Electron Flow, from out of the negative terminal, through the circuit and into the positive terminal of the source.
Yea, I thought it was – to +. And I meant Bobby Boucher not Billy Madison.
There has been electricity since the formation of gas clouds.
………I wonder what the clear meaning was?
Or, just an idiot trap: “Say wut?”
Since when does the means of a private “one to one” communication fundamental change the privacy of that conversation?
If someone is having a private conversation in open air in your home is it private in 1781 and not today?
Today we have the technology to intercept that conversation, from planting bugs to shining/bouncing lasers of nearby windows. Since we have technology that didn’t exist in 1781 does it now make it legal?
If someone is having private conversation in open air/over the phone/email/whatever from your home, is it only private until extra technology is used to intervene?
Why does technology make something once private and illegal to
not private and legal? All technology does is make things more convenient and easy!
What our “supposedly” democratically government is now arguing; since, technology can do things unobtainable before without huge investment of resources, it should now be legal to destroy privacy! Why … to fight a George Bushism, “terrorism”?
If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy (If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption)!
”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”
Ben Franklin
Government surveillance is annoying.
And with all of their surveillance, they use their own failures as justification for needing more of it.
The TPP trade agreement actually requires government surveillance and it is part of the treaty (in order for governments to enforce copyright law).
Obama sells the TPP as a “tax cut”.
Yeah, the tax cut that will kill your job and take your freedom so you might save $1 on crap.
It’s a sucker deal.
But it’s great for outsourcers, foreign governments and megacorps.
Schumer calls for stopping all Bush appointees to Supreme Court with a year and a half to go.
https://youtu.be/tkRZVE3aDm8
Two wrongs don’t make a right, even with republicans!
Here’s an idea.
Intentionally structure the Supreme Court to always have eight members: four lefties, four righties.
Have an honest debate. Vote of 5-to-3 or better wins.
I case of a tie, FLIP for it. Everybody wins some of the time.
Too many ties? Vote out one lefty and one righty.
POTUS, stays out of it.
Odd there is no further information about the cause and manner of death. No inquest, no autopsy, apparently no MD involvement at all. One wonders if there was something unseemly to be concealed.
Maybe he was wearing J. Edgar Hoover’s bra when they found him.