Has any decision by the Roberts court similarly expanded rights for actual people?

[Orrex]

Or just the artificial ones?

[FreakinDJ]

1. crickets chirping..........

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. District of Columbia v. Heller

[old mark]

5. Yeah, that was the big one for me, too...but a lot of the old line "liberals"

hate it.
Seems there are "good" rights and rights that are not appropriate.....


mark

[depakid]

21. Another example of an expansive case that was wrongly decided using results oriented jurisprudence

rather than sound legal theory and facts.

[old mark]

25. See? "Bad rights!" nt

[depakid]

29. Nope- poor jurisprudence

the case didn't require sophistry nor a grand pronouncement to settle the issue at hand. But then- this court (even more so than the Rhenquist court) doesn't care about anything other than their political agenda. Law, tradition and procedure are irrelevant- except when it furthers that agenda.

Much like the Lochner Era- which it seems to many scholars that the court hearkens to. (curiously- some movement "conservatives" have actually admitted to that- including a federal judge who the usual suspects among the Democratic party voted to confirm).

Oh, believe you me- you're going to LOVE those "rights" as they're announced- especially if you enjoyed today's case.

[old mark]

31. I really didn't enjoy today's case, not the one saying that government

surveillance of great numbers of US citizens is NOT subject to judicial review.
I will keep my guns, thanks - and you are welcome to not have any.

I am an armed progressive and there are nowhere near enough of us.

mark

[Toots]

22. Maybe some of those guns could be put to good use.

:shrug:

[depakid]

30. Well, somone did try to shoot up the Texas state capital yesterday...

:crazy:

[Orrex]

8. That's a big one, but I disagree that it has the same scope

Certainly it doesn't grant anyone any rights out of whole cloth. It simply removed an unconstitutional restriction.

Yesterday's ruling granted incredibly powerful rights to artificial entities--rights that didn't exist until yesterday.

[-..__...]

32. That was phase one...

Phase two (McDonald v Chicago), is scheduled to be heard on March 2nd with the decision announced sometime in late June.

Assuming good things happening there (and the level of scrutiny applied), phase three would be challenging; with the intent of overturning, as many state gun control laws as possible.

Our work is far from over, but at least we have the foundation in place to build on.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal

[Orrex]

11. Does it summarily manufacture rights out of thin air?

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Georgia v. Randolph

[Orrex]

12. Does it summarily manufacture rights out of thin air?

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. House v. Bell

[Orrex]

13. Does it summarily manufacture rights out of thin air?

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White

[Orrex]

14. A big one, but does it summarily manufacture rights out of thin air?

[HughBeaumont]

9. The Kangaroo Jack Court is a SHAM.

Not only is it a sham, it's one that has the potential to be patently dangerous in the coming years, since only two on the rogue side are in their 70s (Fat Bastard Tony and Kennedy).

Here's what I don't get - how is it that we're not allowed to screen justices so that we don't have to deal with obvious over-partisan ones such as Roberts, Thomas and Fat Bastard Tony? Judges aren't politicians or pundits. Isn't the position of Supreme Court Judge supposed to be above that sort of nonsense?

[blondeatlast]

27. It's really troubling. The RW trails against activist judges, but that's been their

agenda for thirty years.

Calssic case of projection.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez

[Orrex]

16. Does it summarily manufacture rights out of thin air?

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

[Orrex]

17. The answer I'm getting from all of your replies is "no"

Although these cases have removed restrictions on rights and have clarified rights, they haven't created those rights out of nowhere.

[NJmaverick]

18. The activiist right wingnut judges only rewrite the Constitution against the people

not for them

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Lopez v. Gonzales

[Orrex]

24. An interesting one, but hardly equivalent in scope

Nor does it grant rights out of nowhere.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[safeinOhio]

20. Are individuals still limited to $2,000?

Or do corporation have MORE rights than you or I?

[Orrex]

23. It has never been satisfactorily explained why corporations should have any rights.

A corporation can buy $5M worth of advertising in a limited market, thereby eclipsing all ads except for the candidate it has chosen, for instance.

[blindpig]

28. Where are all of those assholes who said 'keep the powder dry'

during the Roberts nomination?

Anybody wanna step up?

[jacksonian]

33. that's so far from the point

look, if you shot down Roberts Bush would have just kept sending Roberts clones trying to pose as moderates until the cows came home. You can't filibuster everybody just because they're a Repug choice. The only way out was to have Bush not be pres.

[Kingofalldems]

34. Kick this for a real answer--excellent question