Well, not so worthless as teats on a bore hog when you consider who is suckling on 'em. Ya know? NAMASTE

As Mr. Spock would say, the Supremo's are humans; therefore they are incapable of impartiality.

Illogical Captain.

Once put in place, they can do as they please. However, I doubt they are free from "partisan demands" as past rulings have shown.

Sure Justice Roberts we believe you just like we believe that corporations are "people"! Your as crooked as the lobyists who line your pockets and the pockets of crooked congressmen both GOP and DEMS! What a joke, equal justice under the law,indeed!

Making it legal for corporations to influence elections wasn't partisan? That he had to make a defense at all shows that they are up to no good. I am waiting for them to rule on an appeal for the murderer of an abortion doctor. Full well expecting them to rule it as 'justifiable homicide' in defense of the fetuses.

It is sad to see that disagreement in today's world has to include name calling, thinking the worst of others, rather than considering that maybe, just maybe, we disagree simply because we view things differently.

From killing the unborn vs protecting an individuals right to control their own body, to acknowledging that Corporations are simply a collection of citizens in a particular organizational method vs those that believe corporations cannot be anything but evil.

I do understand being emotionally or logically committed to beliefs and ideas, but this constant distrust and automatic belief that disagreement means nothing more than partisanship is wrong headed and awfully ignorant.

I respect someone who believes strongly in their stuff. I do not respect people that then automatically question those with whom they disagree with regard to their moral clarity and character. Baseless claims of "lining pockets" speak more of your character than those with whom you disagree.

What a wad of BS...no Judge will rule impartially if they have major stock holdings in companies that are lobbying against the health care law. I personally feel in major cases of law, that a Judge or Judges (ie" Supreme Court seats) should pass a "on demand" validation of interest so that our judicial branch can be held responsible for decisions that so greatly affect the American People. Our government has become a melting pot of people who can claim no responsibility for the actions, corruption is so openly flaunted that many don't have to report their income, their stock holding nor their ties to corporate powers.

The Supreme Courts decision on the Citizens Untied case shows that with no argument, corporations were given powers to act as political entities. If you don't have a social security number, you can't vote, if you can't vote, you can't act as a political entity, pure and simple. Masking the corruption with fancy words and their power to "interpret and define" our Constitution and laws is a joke!

IMO they should hold regular validation sessions for such appointed life long seats, where their decisions and especially their explanations are reviewed and held up for scrutiny to see if Judges are voting or ruling in favor of entities that they have interests in, or merely voting against the American populace in favor of powers that be. If their actions prove to be consistently questionable, their seats should be held in question with Americans then given the right to vote in Judges who can run for those seats.

We are tired of appointed seats where Judges rule in favor of political parties or administrations or powers.

Paul F,

If you believe that politicians, judges and others within our governing body politic are not lining their pockets illegally, you have just not been paying attention for decades! Maybe you believe that power and money do not corrupt, especially officials who have been in these positions for 15 to 25 years. I firmly believe, not just casually suspect, that OUR political leaders and, yes, the justices of the Supreme Court, are corrupt and stealing money from the citizens of this country. To ignore the 'mountains' of evidence of this corruption and thievery is actually naive and ignorant, not the other way around!

They only should step away if they have ruled on a case previously, or brought a case to a court whether arguing for, against or assisting in a case.

The Thomas not recusing himself for his wife's activities has precidents supporting him not recusing himself.

Kagan on the other hand was consulted on the writing of the law, and unfortuneately should recuse herself. There are innumerable calls from press, polliticians, and legal groups saying she should and that their is even a couple of court decisions saying she should.

kagan http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/12/kagan-recuses-herself-arizona-immigration-law-case/46060/

Recusals are not easy to get on search engines, but I knew there were several.

Scalia did Recuse himself on this case http://www.theonion.com/articles/scalia-recuses-self-from-capital-murder-case-citin,26778/

Yes Thomas did recuse himself from a case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Virginia

You really shouldn't put such accusations on the web or even newsvine. There are people who will check out to find the truth - and post it in response.

DB "They only should step away if they have ruled on a case previously, or brought a case to a court whether arguing for, against or assisting in a case." Baloney. Where did you come up with that? Besides, Roberts isn't saying that they shouldn't recuse themselves in any particular case. He just said that he has confidence in his colleagues' ability to decide whether it is necessary. I think you see expressed in these posts doubt about the SCOTUS' judgment and impartiality, for which a strong case can be made.

Scalia and Thomas are OWNED by the Koch Bros. Though we totally expect then to rule against affordable health care, destroying Obama it will still be a shock to us.

This is one distinct reason why they have done everything to block millions from voting,

The people it will help the most are the poor and minorities.

This never needed to be this way if the effected would have gotten out and voted in the 2010 midterms. Now it may be to late.

We have been taken over by the religious Dark Agers, and every law and rule they have made must be overturned.

These oligarchs are pulling all of the strings and are based in the John Birch Society mind set. Little by little we will loose "our" freedom "they" tout as THEIR motto.

Thanks to so many, that do not pay attention to the issues much less bother to vote, The RRR (rich, religious, republicans,) have prevailed in what they have set out to do for years.

How did they do it? We let them. To many of us were distracted, all of them were engaged.

They used the ignorant and uninformed to gumshoe and rally on their side, and vote on their side with out ever knowing what they were voting for.

Their members in the south were of KKK of skin mind set and origins, and rallied behind the idea that country MUST NEVER have a democrat much less a black president. The message has resonated well with the low information mind sets of these people.

We have a lot of work to do if we are not to loose everything. If this last election has not been a wake up call, then there is no hope.

Happy New Year everyone,...now get to work.

Kriblet - From a Phd in Constitutional law. I missed one btw - case directly involves a family member. Scalia recused himself on one of these. Here is what the debate is over and it says it clearer than I did.

All federal judges – including Supreme Court justices – are required to recuse themselves from any case in which their impartiality "may be reasonably be questioned," creating an objective standard that hinges on the appearance of bias. 1 The statute governing recusal – 28 U.S.C. § 4552 – also sets forth a number of specific circumstances which demand recusal such as when the judge has personal knowledge of the disputed facts, a personal bias concerning a party to the case, earlier involvement in the case as a lawyer or material witness, or a financial interest in any party or subject matter of the case.3

Kagan has personal knowledge and input on a disputed fact - having been contacted several times allegedly oh how to make the mandate legal. If she does not recuse herself she is saying what I did was of no consequence. Being the Justice department refuses to release the content of administration discussions, this is a problem we cannot resolve and casts a shadow of reasonable doubt.

kagan has recused on 21 cases so far. All of them she previously worked or ruled on them in some way.

Clarence Thomas isn't fit to be a judge in traffic court. Prime example of GOP "quota" judge.

Thomas has a financial stake. His wife has received $600K from an anti reform group, since they are married that would be community property, therefore he directly benefits financially.

DB: I honestly hope that your citation of the article from the Onion regarding Scalia recusing himself was in jest. If not, I feel very very sorry for you, and would suggest that you actually read the links that you post.

jamesbrummel - except he never reported it as income - violating the rules that you must report your spouses income - he put "0" as in nothing

Right wing activist judges pollute the Supreme Court. "Little Tony" Scalia has been warning anybody who will listen about the "radical homosexual agenda" threatening America. Thomas is little more than his judicial lap dog and together they pursue their own radical right wing agenda. If the democrats had any intestinal fortitude the degenerate Thomas would STILL be waiting for Congressional confirmation. The next republican nominee for the Supreme Court should die of old age before his confirmation gets through democratic filibusters.

DB: I think I know what those initials stand for... or ought to stand for.

Really??? You're going to direct people to an article on the Onion as confirmation that Scalia recused himself??? REALLY???? Did you even read the article ya DB???

Holy crap! You oughta work for Faux News or Andrew Brightbart... HA! I just read on the Onion that you do work for them!!!

Roberts should have recused himself in the "citizen united" ruling. Tell me he didn't have "personal knowledge" about how that was going to affect future elections.

DB Akron posting articles from the Onion as support for his point! LMAO!!!

So, DB Akron, only in American justice do two wrongs make a right.

"The Thomas not recusing himself for his wife's activities has precidents supporting him not recusing himself."

Off topic - the comment window is hosed today and most other days. The cursor gets locked up.

The People Are Supreme.

The Court Is NOT.

My bad on the link - here is the correct one (Onion link was right next to it)

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1066080440869&slreturn=1

DB--"appearance of bias" that's a high bar. You set a very, very low bar. Hardly "Supreme", but typical of the legal culture.

DB--Thank you for that Onion link. Hilarious!!

The National Bar Association is largely responsible for allowing this to happen. Thomas is about to commit a bold-faced violation of trust, and will get away with it.

Everyone.

my exact thought. to suggest they are impartial is absurd and to do so by pointing to an invalid partisan process of confirmation is equally absurd. the reputation of the court is greatly compromised by this man giving such absurd protest; validating what we know to be true. the supreme court is highly tainted; more so in the past 20 years than anytime in US history.

This (Chief Roberts) is supposed to be the most adept guy at identifying and calling out logical inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and areas of questionable ethics among his colleagues...

He (Roberts), like the rest of the GOP wants to be able to rail on Kagan without giving up Thomas. That cannot happen. Upon recusal, Those TWO votes go to the affirmative in maintaining the Healthcare law as it was voted in the Affirmative by Congress. That leaves 7 and you still have to get to 5 with 2 in the can... and you only need 3 to be forced to leave it as is. That is why he's making statements about "partisan demands" He's trying to keep both Kagan and Thomas out of recusal!!!

If there's anything that is wholly partisan/political, it's Roberts' statement in the year end report!!! LOL

actually, he didn't say that kagan should have to step aside either. Read the article.

Wakehead

I think that you've put your finger on it . . . I, too, believe that, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

(cribbed from Hamlet)

Amen to that.

wakehead:you are wrong:it only validates a poiticians desire to aquire news space. congress is in no position to judge anyones morality.taking into account their lax enforcement of conduct of fellow members of congress.

Justices are installed because of the way they are expected to vote. If a president wants his policies carried out for the long haul he needs to install as many justices as he can and just watch them support the policy. This is not new.

The Supreme Court justice confirmation process is about as partisan as things come.

Supreme court rulings are not forever. They have reversed themselves time and time again. To think that they are superhuman (sorry John R. but you are clueless) is to go through life with blinders on.

Was John's statements absurd? Yes. Were they meaningful in the long run? No.

HAZEL: Just once? Uh, I think you'll be waiting a long time for that. Bush really buried the nation when he saddled us with this loser and the rest of the "of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation" crowd.

What's the matter, you don't have complete confidence in Clarence Thomas's impartiality??? LOL

Roberts is NOT acting like a Supreme Court Judge.

Every decision he makes favors the Republican party. The decision to allow a Corporation to contribute any amount of Money they want to a Super Pac is destroying our Democratic Election System.

They refuse to address this bad decision. It killed Ginrich's chance to win Iowa. The Romney Super Pacs destroyed him with the negative advertising on TV.

Funny isn't it? Now they realize the damage that is done by corporate super packs Virgina is rushing to change the rules, so the others can qualify to get on the ballot.

Rules one way or another don't mean anything to them, they just change them as needed to benefit themselves, as the Roberts Court did. When stuck with their own bad decisions they change them again. Must be nice.

But if we don't like that ruling, it's up to Congress (pushed by We the People) to change the law. Go ahead and call me naive, but that's the way our democratic system was designed. I think the ruling is absurd as well as dangerous, but doing nothing but complain about it is equally absurd and dangerous.

Carl Lafoon

Roberts is NOT acting like a Supreme Court Judge.

Every decision he makes favors the Republican party. The decision to allow a Corporation to contribute any amount of Money they want to a Super Pac is destroying our Democratic Election System.

They refuse to address this bad decision. It killed Ginrich's chance to win Iowa. The Romney Super Pacs destroyed him with the negative advertising on TV.

Yea and the Unions don't pour $$$ into Democrats pockets. That is one reason the UAW is going after "foreign car makers in the US" that don't want to unionize. They need the cash for their politician buying. Neither side has clean hands here people, the fact is to get the Government under the People's control again would require the moderation of how much campaign contributions can be received and have all of it documented. Lobbyists are fine if they are presenting information, but not if they are presenting million dollar checks.

The amount of money contributed by unions is pocket change compared to the money dumped in this organized bribery by corperations and foriegn investors. Did the union contibutions stop Nafta? This court is stacked with corperate lackeys.As good ole Mitt put it. Corperations are people to my friend. 2 lies there, first being that corperations are a legal entity and second being that Mitt( my daddy gave me a lot of money) Romney is no middle class taxpayers friend.

The most effective thing we could do is elect an Independent. That is the ONLY thing that will send a real wake-up call to Congress and end the tyranny of a two-party system that is nothing more than a shill game.

The next thing we need to do is insist on a cap for campaign advertising and total campaign contributions, along with a law that requires any donated money remaining after the election be divided equally among the states and donated to animal rescue organizations.

You Obomanites should research how much money El Presidentee has raised from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Big Pharma and so on. Not even countin the pay to play crony corporte scandles going on. Only BREATHIN PEOPLE should be able to contribute. Not Corps , not Unions, not non-profits, not Red Chinese, not Oil Ticks. Just people.

4 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices support International Law over the Constition of the United States of America, contrary to their oath. They are Traitors. Enough said. Enjoy your New World Order. LOL!

Both sides are OWNED by the Trans National BANKSTERS. How many BANKSTERS went to jail under Bush or President Obama? LOL!

Bumper sticker on Roberts car - "Fascism or Bust".

@Judge Roberts: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Whew.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ulp.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

He'll never live that whopper down.

I remember when Roberts was first appointed - almost immediately he started sniveling that the position didn't pay enough. What, he didn't know what the salary was when he began climbing for the position?

Same old, tired "lawyer" argument: That he could be making more money if he was employed in the "private sector", whah whah whah.

Bull$hit. Then ya should have done everyone including yourself a favor and done your "lawyer'in" in the private sector, Roberts - where in order to be successful, ya gotta - Pursue cases. Win cases. Be competent.

Of course we know that they don't hand lawyers money in "the private sector" merely for showing up to work sometimes, like they do with government employed lawyers (i.e., judges, et al). Roberts thinks that we are all too stupid to know that though.

Roberts thinks the whole country is beneath him, and that we all owe him a grand and comfortable living, since he went to law school.

We also remember when the m a f i a guaranteed IL for JFK.

Almador - we have an electoral college so smaller states don't get rolled by more populous states. So no one region of the country can easily dominate our governemnt. It's amazing how smart the founders were, they already understood that 50% +1 = quorum dictatorship. I suppose you would like to get rid of the 60 vote Cloture rule in the Senate, oh heck, let's just dissolve Congress so your barely popular leader can go straight to dictator!

These things were written so government would change slowly and hopefully not move in anyone one direction to radically.

DB--so the swings from Clinton to Bush, to Obama, to the Tea Party weren't radical? And W with all of his executive signing statements and deceptions weren't the acts of a dictator (whoops, excuse me, I guess he was just a decider).

Ford to Carter was big change, Carter to Reagan was a bigger change than Ford to Carter. Clinton to Bush wasn't so big, Bush to Obama was bigger and pretty radical in some respects. As I look back the difference of big to small change was amplified, or dampened depending on who controlled Congress.

I think we are missing the point here. This is not an issue of Republicans versus Democrats, right versus left, or anything else other than the issue of justice. Suppose if you will, a man had wronged another and was taken to court. When the man enters the court, in the honorable seat of judgement sits the brother, sister, husband, wife or close friend of the man who was wronged. Is it right for that judge to not recuse themselves? No, the man MUST step down as he is already bias per his relationship with the prosecution. In any case, from the smallest court to the Supreme Court, there must be honor and the protection of justice. This applies equally to the interpretation of the law as decided, by our highest court. To not recuse themselves is a smack in the face of justice, liberty and democracy

Yeah! That was fair and unbiased. What's upsetting me is the PAC law...which benefits corporations and Clarence Thomas's wife. "Corporations are People, my friend"...cause the Supreme Court said so....can we impeach them? I think we can ! Let's go there!

Chief - clever but fails the test of precedence. There have been at least 3 other occasions where a Justice's wife had her political activism regarding a case. Politicians went baulistic, Newspaper railed on those Justice's. The bottom line is, just because a spouse publicly is for or against some case, does not disqualify a justice.

I act as an official at tournaments. It is can be difficult to rule on some matches, because you get familiar with the kids involved. But, the bottom line is - I'd better rule without undo favour, or my days officiating are over.

This is where Kagan has a problem. She was in contact with the administration on how it should be done in some way.

DB - If that is true (not that I doubt you but I am honestly unfamiliar with such instances), then those Justice's should have been recused by force/ outcry of the people. Justice and law of the land are quite different and crucial to democracy than a tournament that you may have presided over, although, working with children in my past, I understand your sentiment. Precedence or not, there is right and wrong, and this is wrong. It is an open door policy to favoritism which has no place in any branch of government, let alone society.

DB Akron:
I think I am more concerned that the Supreme Court will rule against the individual mandate - 5/4 like Bush v Gore - not so much for the Obama Plan, but more for the return to "Wild West Healthcare" which we seem to have now (the GOP doesn't have a "Replacement Plan"), paying at least twice as much as every other advanced economy for less coverage, elders shopping for unaffordable healthcare insurance which covers so little, and paying too much for prescription meds.

The middle class in America is dying day by day.

Having lived abroad in "Socialist Democracies (we should have had all our kids there)," I am not sure what all the fuss is about. The costs of health care come through private or public funds.

There are multiple examples of extremely successful public/private hybrids, but we have let the whole process get caught up over one issue, (something the GOP once suggested) whether we expect everyone to have health insurance, which will make it affordable for all....

Given the amount of political dysfunction that we have experienced over the last few years, I imagine a 40% chance of positive improvement in 2012.

Does anyone else see something different in the tea leaves? Australia is looking very attractive right now.

Far right is hoping people will forget about the decisions in 2000 concerning Al Gore. But the people aren't forgetting and we are seeing skewed decisions that any fair minded person would not call justice since that time, like the money that corporations have spent to control the Supreme Court. I am sure there are other subjects that I am leaving out!

Actually, I would like to get rid of the 60 vote cloture rule in the senate. If the minority wants to filibuster, they should have to do it the old fashioned way. The 60 vote rule is just a lazy way of stopping movement. They (whichever party is in the minority) can just decide to be obstinate without having to actually put their principles on the line.

Anyone who says that the Supreme Court chose a President in 2000 just displays their lack of education on the subject. There were two rulings that effected the election and it was a 7-2 decision, not the later 5-4, that resolved the situation. The 7-2 decision was whether or not deadlines to vote counts were constitutional. The Florida deadline for requesting a recount had passed: Gore was attempting to re-open the recounts AFTER the deadline for requesting such had passed. It was Gore's poor legal stratagem that lost him the election. He felt that he had the election won with the votes already counted, and when it turned out he didn't it was THEN that he requested the recount. By then it was too late. The 5-4 decision was to decide whether or not the election should be re-opened after it was certified, and it was the liberal justices that tried to overturn centuries of precedent, even though two of them had voted the deadline precedent Constitutional.

As well, several news outlets did work to complete the election tally recounts to see
if such would have changed the end results and the answer was "NO". Bush still won the Florida popular vote. I am certain that had the results been different, with Gore actually getting the plurality, a liberal media establishment like MSNBC, the NY Times, or the Wash. Post would have harped on it for weeks or months.

If you are really looking for funky voting for the 2000 election check out New Mexico, where at least 20000 dead people were shown to have voted for Gore. Remove those fake votes and Bush takes the state AND the election anyways. As well, Illinois had similar issues. Bush was already to request official recounts in both those states because of the issue. But he didn't need to owing to Gore's legal gaffe in Florida.

I am not a Bush supporter (I am a true libertarian), and I think he was a disaster. I can live with a true conservative as president, but Bush was not: he was a radical right-winger (out of control spending on social issues dear to him and his party, excessive foreign interventions, ideological intrusion of the state on personal choice, etc.) who relied to heavily on Washington insiders who were motivated more by personal gain than by the best interests of the country exactly like Obama now, just with diametric viewpoints.

Funny how the liberal left always conviniently forgets the facts.

Al Gore tried to warn us about the SCOTUS, he said who nominates justices is important and it sure as hell was........Bush put his butt buddies in there. We need a total Dem victory in 2012 to start undoing some of this crap.....like the outrageous idea that corporations are people........they are laughing at us while playing ball with the big boys. Time for change in the way we put people on the court.

Chief Big,

I look at the time of your post and suspect alcohol may have been involved. I had to read your post twice, and found I was not mistaken. You used the word "honor" when referring to our government. Imagine that. Honor in Washington. Seems like a mistake a clearer head would not have made.

Baron Ringler via Facebook

Thank you for the reminder to those who cannot remember or ever so conveniently forget.....

I (also) have had to remind individuals of the two votes since the 2000 election, though called a liar by many, the facts are still the facts!!

replytoj001

I too forgot about the second vote. Good post!

Funny how the liberal left always conviniently forgets the facts.

Funny how the hard core right wingers always ignore facts... And their spell-checkers!

No, that did it.

Kilo vs. New London.

You have no constitutional right to own your property. If the government thinks they can get more tax money they can forcibly take away from you and give it to another private citizen.

Kold:
You are so right. Did you know that the disputed property ended up undeveloped? Not anti-anything really, it irks me to see how the majority of Americans are losing ground at an astounding rate, as if we have lost control of the conversation.

koldwindblows - That was Pfizer - drove prople out of town - closed businesses who had been there for twenty thirty years - and nothing came of it - Pfizer said oops sorry guys - strike that they never said sorry - I was there

All of that pales in comparison to someone taking Joe or Jane's gun or not allowing them to crawl inside the womb and dictate who's liberties they will defend and whose they will deny. The cold hard facts are that most of Americas voting public is totally uninformed and woefully misguided by corperae media and propogandists such as Faux and hate jocks spewing thier distortions and conspiracy theories handed them by their puppetmasters.

If corporations are people, lets take away their limited liability. Shareholders could become joint and serverally liable, just like partners in a general partnership.

koldwind...what's funny is that the majority of your beloved Dumbocrats and liberal media (like MSDNC) supported the Kilo vs New London ruling...funny how liberals love anything that allows them to tax the citizens of this country more and more...you know why liberals are typically called "tax and spend" liberals? BECAUSE THEY ARE! Liberals never met a tax they didn't like!!!

As long as a decision or law does not interfere with someone's U.S. Constitutional rights, why would you not want the states to decide the rules under which the people in that state will live? Community norms are different for each state, and each state should decide how their lives are led. Why should someone in Nebraska decide how a person in New York should live, or vice-verse? Now, if Nebraska wants to limit someone's Federally guaranteed rights, like gay marriage or abortion, then the Feds should step in. But trying to dictate local infrastructure projects or similar from D.C is jsut a waste of time and money; money that can be better spent by the local officials. Do you really trust The Federal Government to make good decisions? If so, then you are one of the reasons this country has so many issues.

The President warned Roberts in his state of the union address that crap like this would happen, and sure enough it has already.

One has to take bribe money from seedy organizations just to compete. The only winners in all of this is the mega rich corporations. The people be damned.

and if I remember Roberts was greatly offended.....but the President was right and now Roberts is on the defensive.

Do you think he believes what he says? Sadd!!!!

Roberts:

We The People will accept that, as you contend, corporations are people as soon as one is executed in Texas.

Here Here. The Constitution was written for the people NOT for the Corporation.

It is very simple they make a huge mistake.

Why was the challenge to the law called Citizens United? It had nothing to do with citizens being united. A smells like another Republican trick to weaken the United States.

Nevada - Every agency treats any business or corporation as a person. It might be more appropriate to say they are treated like a marriage to which one person is held responsible for the household. In that way certain corporate officials are held responsible for the acts of the corporation where appropriate.

DB, that's a crock. Corporations can't vote, although under the Roberts court they can control elections. They don't vote because they are not people and therefore are not citizens but they control elections because the Supreme Court of the United States of America under Chief Justice Roberts is highly corrupt. In my opinion, only the Roger Taney court has made a more disastrous decision (Dred Scott) than the Roberts Court in Citizens United. I believe this court will go down and one of the worst and most corrupt in the illustrious history of the Supreme Court. The current Roberts court is a blight on the Supreme Court's history.

A corporation can also not go to prison when caught breaking the law, which was a huge advancement from the republican point of view.

It wasn't me, personally, that broke that law; it was the corporation. So, the corporation will pay a fine, which is part of the cost of doing business. The corporation pays a fine, I still get my zillion dollar bonus, the public takes it up the butt once again, it's all good.

And the fine is tax deductible!

DB you are a fool if you believe anything you have espoused on this vine

The Supreme court made the Bush/Gore ruling knowing that soldiers where woken up from thier sleep after the election and given ballots and told to vote but of course the hate jocks where waiting to call Gore unamerican and a soldier hater if he complained and the Supreme court appointed our President knowing full well that they where in fact negating a states decision. Isn't it amazing that the party that screams about states right will throw it all out if those rights might conflict with thier agenda.

If corporations are people, lets take away their limited liability. Shareholders could become joint and serverally liable, just like partners in a general partnership.

Sure, that would likely end the stock market as we know it - the little old lady from Omaha (Warren's neighbor) could be held responsible for the entire BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill if she owns just one share of BP - that's what "joint and several" means - all or just one can be gone after for the whole amount.

the monies of Harvard and Yale combined would not run the US Govt for a month . . . learn some facts.

facts are known not learned. governments are not run, they are managed. learn some English, especailly methaphors, but h and v are not the places to attend for such education.

George if Al Gore could have won his on state he would have won. His on state didn't want him. Tells you a lot. Plus I live in Fla and Al tried to steal the election by suing to stop the overseas Military vote from being counted!!!!! Pigs if you ask me

No truer words ever posted.

The "Supreme Court" has NO LEGAL RIGHT TO INTERVENE in National Elections.

None. Nada. Zilch.

Bush was and is a fraud, imposed by the far right wing SCOTUS

Doubt that? Read the Constitution.

Scott. You do mean the illegal military votes don't you? The ones taken after the election when soldiers where awakened and handed ballots and told to vote. Those are the votes you are defending, correct? Just wanted to see if you where as morally bankrupt as the judges you are defending. States rights thrown to the wind and a federal court imposing thier will on that state. By the way, before you go all( libbie leftist) on me i'm a combat vet. No i won't post my dd214 but you can take my word. It is allready proven better that yours.

If your claim was even remotely true the MSM would have been all over it.

Of course if you were military you would no the mil doesn't handle ballots, you ( as a deployed mil member ) have to request a absentee ballot from your state elections office etc. The idea that the mil somehow had Florida absentee ballots and chased down all the Florida residents in the military they could find on short notice to vote for Bush is ludicrous...

First, I think the only "military" Sam was in was his local militia! Secondly, all of you keep throwing out these allegations and opinions as fact, ie. soldiers being handed out ballots, members of the SCOTUS profiting from unethical relationships, Thomas being the most "corrupt" member of the SCOTUS, etc., etc....where are you all getting these so-called facts? Just like Cheney led us to war with Iraq so he could get rich via Halliburton...blah, blah, blah...none of you have any facts to back up these accusations. The OPINIONS of Rachel Madcow, Keith Olberman, Ed Schultz, and the other so-called journalists at MSDNC are just that...opinions. They are NOT FACT! Start presenting proof to back up your allegations or keep them to yourselves....

Google the HCL decision, or better yet use dogpile or some other search engine - (Google flunks impartiality on this one - HHS was paying them for priority links over the HCL ).

Once off google I was amazed at how many links were stories of foundations, think tanks, legal societies, politicians, news reporters who were after kagan to recuse and Thomas to Recuse or not recuse. Very few supported Kagan to hear the case.

Roberts, is simply putting the heat on Thomas and Kagan to make the right decision where it belongs. He really doesn't have the authority to make them recuse, but I'm certain, he may have a conversation with one or both of them about the matter, and they would be wise to get advise on the matter to make the correct choice.

Methinks he doth protest to much.

Good to read a sane post. If Obamacare is so great, why are the big unions and Demo districts and DEMO contributers excempt? Are Not ALL pigs equal? LOL!

If we are stuck with it, everyone from El Presidentee down should have to be covered, no excemptions, no LAUYERS suin, just sped up SSI payments so ya can git a check before ya die. LOL!

Well actually, they can be impeached and tried. Of course the possibility of that happening is non-existent unless one of them has an affair with a staffer - and given the Gingrich resurgence apparently that isn't even a career ender anymore - at least not if one is a republican.

Yeah, right, Anita...I guess you forgot about Bill Clinton...how convenient!

Clinton was impeached. That's not going to happen again to anyone because of how badly the congress embarassed themselves - you know impeaching someone for having an affair while a bunch of the people prosecuting him were having affairs.....

See 2.1 above

Elena Kagan recused herself from half the cases heard by the Supreme Court in her first session (25 out of 51 cases). The most recent case she recused herself from was the Arizona immigration law case earlier this month.