Gun manufacturing has a higher markup than... anything. You are not going to curtail these creeps. The only thing you can do is take away the customer. Guns and shooting same is an addiction.
This, was some interesting reading Thom. Even with all the things the GOP don’t want to do except fill their pockets, good things can still happen. Thom you are right there are solutions. We who love democracy know this. I have been learning through you Thom the no empathy Party really stands for.Nothing Thom, guns are killing people all over our country and nothing is being done about it. These people go to sleep at night with blood money all over their hands with no problem at all. Thank you Oh Captain my Captain because we know who to point the finger at on all this. Thank you for that. Corporations people, no I don’t think so. Accountability, perhaps?
Having a hard time understanding why one of the largest progressive media outlets can't seem to recognize the single most popular and important progressive reaction to citizens United, which is ESG investing.
The Hartman report has been dug in for years in the idea of limiting judicial review, through a flawed and superficial notion that congress can do so merely by its powers to set rules governing the court's appellate jurisdiction.
One can argue these points both ways (and personally I do support attempts to increase the relative powers of congress, even if flawed), but what is not recognized or pointed out is that there's probably no jurist who ever sat in the federal court system (including the great influential liberals like Brandeis and Douglas) who would agree that congress can simply negate judicial review with the strike of a pen.
The flawed analysis that the article's so-called second option relies upon (repeated by Thom for years) simply ignores what are perhaps the most critical passages of the constitution on separation of powers - specifically that "all judicial power SHALL be VESTED in one Supreme Court ....." and erroneously equates the constitutions provisions governing "judicial power" with those applicable to "appellate jurisdiction." This is not to say that Congress has no tools by which to reform the court - on the contrary it has a multiple tools to do so - it's that just this simple jurisdiction stripping concept is not the solution that non-scholars may think it is. Other critical, but ignored, passages of the text of Article III include.... eg, that "the judicial power SHALL extend to ALL cases and controversies... " (ie, there is no exception! ) and that any other court or tribunal involved in excercusing such powers must be "INFERIOR" to the Supreme Court. So these basic textual provisions (Article III is pretty short) specifically say -- you cannot make some lower court the ultimate arbiter of a case or controversy, and you cannot allow congress or the president to be that arbiter, because that power is VESTED somewhere else.
The most direct and forceful means to address citizens United is through ESG investing. The SEC's proposed rules are critical to whether this might be productive, but to my knowledge no mainstream or lefty media outlets cover this topic.
This analysis is therefore quite flawed in that it fails to recognize the single most direct and practical method of attacking citizens United, and instead continues to extoll the virtues of jurisdiction stripping which to my knowledge has never been held as plausible by any member of the Supreme Court - ever.
According to a recent law review article:
"Citizens United initially sparked protest and opprobrium among American progressives, who lamented the Court’s lais- sez faire approach to campaign finance. (An)
unremarked shift occurred in the decade following the deci- sion: with other avenues for shaping corporate values fore- closed, progressives took up Justice Kennedy’s invitation to embrace the deliberative conception and use the levers of cor- porate democracy to instill liberal values in companies. Thus, the nascent ESG movement blossomed into a defining feature of the current economy, prompting corporations to adopt pro- gressive stances on a number of social, ethical, and political issues."
First: Who are these major progressive or leftist media. I know of none. From WAPO, to NYT and MSNBC, they are corporate media, and don't really take on "leftists" or progressive causes.
their writers, hosts, and talking heads are constrained by an earbud telling them what to do, or to stop what they are doing. There revenue is depended on ad agencies and the board of directors who represent the plutocrats. The only progressive media that I know of is Free Speech TV and radio, it is viewer funded. There are a few, almost unheard of to the gen pop, magazines and blogs that are progressive and even leftist, but not one major outlet.
Guns and shooting same is an addiction. A form of masturbation, Lauren Boebert obviously sees guns as a dildo, or she is a transmale in denial.
Judicial review is a two edged sword as is every law. State laws that criminalize abortion and the Dobbs decision has set a precedent for criminalizing gun laws. The 2nd amendment says that we have the right to own a gun, but it doesn't say that we have the right to carry it, open or concealed, and a state could pass a law that says anyone who is caught carrying a gun, shall be arrested and if convicted sentenced to a minimum of 10 years in prison.
You are also ignoring Article 3, Section 2, which says, “[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
By doing 2 things at once - "reading" and "thinking" - one can easily tell that my comment does not ignore the very subject matter of the comment.
My ability to do those things resulted in my ability to graduate from the same law school as the president of the United States, but with much higher grades. When you've taken the law school curriculum you might understand things better, or at least temper your rash tendencies.
As for your own inability to appreciate what a progressive media outlet is, one suggestion would be to tune your satellite radio to the channel that's simply entitled "progressive" - which has other shows as well as Tom Hartmann's show. Assuming that you have heard of satellite radio, which is worth mentioning to someone like yourself who has indicated you know nothing about podcasts, which is the main form this media takes today.
And since you're so passionate and obnoxious about all of the subjects that you know very little about, it would be interesting to know what exactly is the best way to reduce blockage in the mitral valve during a heart surgery ... or at least tell us whether or not the "power Jews" you sometimes refer to have all the answers to this!
If anyone has an inability to understand what a progressive media outlet is, it is you.
You haven't named one, have you, just throw out a baseless charge. And don't quote the MSM, they are all corporate, that means they are all conservative, and the fact that MSNBC will allow some hosts, that hold a critical eye on the right, does not mean they are progressive, it is called "market differentiation" Fox has a business model that has a lip lock on the extreme right, CNN is Fox Light, and makes a half hearted attempt to not show it's prejudice, but it fails, like when it gave Trump a Town Hall, with only Trump humpers in the audience, a format to be followed with other right wingers. They siimply want to bite into the Fox customer base.
MSNBC knows that it has no chance of capturing any part of the base, so they concentrate on the sector of the population that leans to progressive, stopping at critical issues and events that would adversely effect their corporate owners and the conservative donors .
They have no ideology, but money and access to power, which is money, in fact they helped Trump get elected in 2016, with millions of dollars of free air time, and are essentially doing it again, because if it bleeds it leads.
You can't help but make puny jabs at me, can you, trying to ridicule my disdain for podcasts.
Well I have better things to do, than waste money and time listening to some one spout their own opinion. You see I have an opinion, my opinions are arrived at and not acquired
And since I don't live in my car driving to and from work every day, I have no used for satellite radio, there are other and more entertaining things to do than hang on the over the air words of people who have their own opinion.
I use to watch Maddow, but she is pedantic, she takes a 5 minute subject (if that) and bloviates about it for an hour. I still watch her on occasion, so I know about her podcast The Bagman, but I actually lived through that decade, and others before, and was in my early 30's when it all occurred, I lived through history, so don't need to rehash it. I remember the plumbers and that crook Agnew and knew that Gordon Liddy was a Hitler Fan. Altogether I am still a fan of Maddow, for trying at least,but I dont have the ability to sit through an hour of hers, as well as an hour of many others.
But, how about knocking this crap of bragging and boasting about your credentials and attacking me as somewhat deficient. All you are doing is projecting. And I don't buy it, and I doubt that most of the others who read Thom,buy into it either.
Thom Hartman did an article today implying tgat their only certain ways to deal with citizens United. When I challenged this assertion, I provided both reasoned statements and citations to acknowledged legal scholars. He didn't mention esg, the most popular way people are dealing with corporate greed all over the world now. Why someone needs to attack me personally for doing so actually has nothing to do with me. It shows your own insecurity that you feel compelled to come here every day and attack people personally.
It's a matter of expert testimony by Biden's appointee that anti-semitism has nothing to do with anything but the anti-Semite, in this case you. Or the fact that some people don't even stop to realize that under Thom's analysis, by necessity you must conclude that FDR (who was a Wall Street lawyer) was a complete buffoon when he failed to understand how easy it is to strip judicial review from the Supreme Court.
There are right wing Jews and Left wing Jews, just like right wing Christians and Left wing Christians, right wing Muslims and Left wing Muslims, right wing Hindus and Left wing Hindus, right wing American Descendants of slaves and Left wing Descendants of slave, take any demographic and you will find the divisions.
It is OK to mention or critique Christians and Muslims, but not Jews. Apparently you don't realize it but you are actually contributing to anti semitism, by, in fact, saying that any criticism is "antisemitic"
By the way, this atheist is more vocal about the Christian and Islamic culture,
Nobody is special, or has special privileges, so stop withe back handed attempt to intimidate and shut me up. You don't have special privileges, neither do I.
But the first thing you default to is "anti semitic", pathetic attempt at turning the question and put me on the back foot.
It doesn''t work. I truck on.
And what is dragging FDR into the conversation to do with anything, except perhaps your personal prejudice.
Your assertion that you provided both reasoned arguments and citations to articles is spurious. You can claim anything. It is called selectivity.
You obviously have an ideology and an agenda, which you can not defend or are not willing to clarify, your only response is to attack, make allegations, call names, and that is not an argument. It is for the right wing though, Tucker Carlson, and Fox hosts, OANN, Townhouse all use that tactic.
So tell us who you really are, what your ideology is, what you believe.
Otherwise you force me to assume bad faith, and I really don't favor that.
Once again, look to federalist 78 (the single most-cited by federal courts of all the federalist writings) and to Archibald Cox's great book "The courts and the constitution" to understand why Thom Hartmann has been off base for years about judicial review.
Again, this is not to question or criticize the notion that the courts should be reformed and that the Congress should assert its power in any possible way.
But at least someone has to make the obvious point that judiciary review (more often than not) has protected human rights and the principles of the bill of rights and that's what the framers thought was needed to protect against bad laws of Congress. It's so obvious that you have to be really unfamiliar with basic constitutional principles to think otherwise.
In addition to law review articles previously linked showing that judicial review was clearly contemplated by federalist 78, here is a long-standing federal judge explaining this and more reasons why establishing simple jurisdiction-stripping is not something viewed as beneficial to the constitutional order or democratic principles
This article, and some others those like it that discuss how important ESG investing is to younger generations, shows the connection to Citizens United that is omitted from the discussion here.
Gun manufacturing has a higher markup than... anything. You are not going to curtail these creeps. The only thing you can do is take away the customer. Guns and shooting same is an addiction.
This, was some interesting reading Thom. Even with all the things the GOP don’t want to do except fill their pockets, good things can still happen. Thom you are right there are solutions. We who love democracy know this. I have been learning through you Thom the no empathy Party really stands for.Nothing Thom, guns are killing people all over our country and nothing is being done about it. These people go to sleep at night with blood money all over their hands with no problem at all. Thank you Oh Captain my Captain because we know who to point the finger at on all this. Thank you for that. Corporations people, no I don’t think so. Accountability, perhaps?
Having a hard time understanding why one of the largest progressive media outlets can't seem to recognize the single most popular and important progressive reaction to citizens United, which is ESG investing.
The Hartman report has been dug in for years in the idea of limiting judicial review, through a flawed and superficial notion that congress can do so merely by its powers to set rules governing the court's appellate jurisdiction.
One can argue these points both ways (and personally I do support attempts to increase the relative powers of congress, even if flawed), but what is not recognized or pointed out is that there's probably no jurist who ever sat in the federal court system (including the great influential liberals like Brandeis and Douglas) who would agree that congress can simply negate judicial review with the strike of a pen.
The flawed analysis that the article's so-called second option relies upon (repeated by Thom for years) simply ignores what are perhaps the most critical passages of the constitution on separation of powers - specifically that "all judicial power SHALL be VESTED in one Supreme Court ....." and erroneously equates the constitutions provisions governing "judicial power" with those applicable to "appellate jurisdiction." This is not to say that Congress has no tools by which to reform the court - on the contrary it has a multiple tools to do so - it's that just this simple jurisdiction stripping concept is not the solution that non-scholars may think it is. Other critical, but ignored, passages of the text of Article III include.... eg, that "the judicial power SHALL extend to ALL cases and controversies... " (ie, there is no exception! ) and that any other court or tribunal involved in excercusing such powers must be "INFERIOR" to the Supreme Court. So these basic textual provisions (Article III is pretty short) specifically say -- you cannot make some lower court the ultimate arbiter of a case or controversy, and you cannot allow congress or the president to be that arbiter, because that power is VESTED somewhere else.
The most direct and forceful means to address citizens United is through ESG investing. The SEC's proposed rules are critical to whether this might be productive, but to my knowledge no mainstream or lefty media outlets cover this topic.
This analysis is therefore quite flawed in that it fails to recognize the single most direct and practical method of attacking citizens United, and instead continues to extoll the virtues of jurisdiction stripping which to my knowledge has never been held as plausible by any member of the Supreme Court - ever.
According to a recent law review article:
"Citizens United initially sparked protest and opprobrium among American progressives, who lamented the Court’s lais- sez faire approach to campaign finance. (An)
unremarked shift occurred in the decade following the deci- sion: with other avenues for shaping corporate values fore- closed, progressives took up Justice Kennedy’s invitation to embrace the deliberative conception and use the levers of cor- porate democracy to instill liberal values in companies. Thus, the nascent ESG movement blossomed into a defining feature of the current economy, prompting corporations to adopt pro- gressive stances on a number of social, ethical, and political issues."
First: Who are these major progressive or leftist media. I know of none. From WAPO, to NYT and MSNBC, they are corporate media, and don't really take on "leftists" or progressive causes.
their writers, hosts, and talking heads are constrained by an earbud telling them what to do, or to stop what they are doing. There revenue is depended on ad agencies and the board of directors who represent the plutocrats. The only progressive media that I know of is Free Speech TV and radio, it is viewer funded. There are a few, almost unheard of to the gen pop, magazines and blogs that are progressive and even leftist, but not one major outlet.
Guns and shooting same is an addiction. A form of masturbation, Lauren Boebert obviously sees guns as a dildo, or she is a transmale in denial.
Judicial review is a two edged sword as is every law. State laws that criminalize abortion and the Dobbs decision has set a precedent for criminalizing gun laws. The 2nd amendment says that we have the right to own a gun, but it doesn't say that we have the right to carry it, open or concealed, and a state could pass a law that says anyone who is caught carrying a gun, shall be arrested and if convicted sentenced to a minimum of 10 years in prison.
You are also ignoring Article 3, Section 2, which says, “[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Why is that?
By doing 2 things at once - "reading" and "thinking" - one can easily tell that my comment does not ignore the very subject matter of the comment.
My ability to do those things resulted in my ability to graduate from the same law school as the president of the United States, but with much higher grades. When you've taken the law school curriculum you might understand things better, or at least temper your rash tendencies.
As for your own inability to appreciate what a progressive media outlet is, one suggestion would be to tune your satellite radio to the channel that's simply entitled "progressive" - which has other shows as well as Tom Hartmann's show. Assuming that you have heard of satellite radio, which is worth mentioning to someone like yourself who has indicated you know nothing about podcasts, which is the main form this media takes today.
And since you're so passionate and obnoxious about all of the subjects that you know very little about, it would be interesting to know what exactly is the best way to reduce blockage in the mitral valve during a heart surgery ... or at least tell us whether or not the "power Jews" you sometimes refer to have all the answers to this!
OK, you just made your case weaker by bragging, about unverifiable credentials.
You are implying that you are superior to me because you can read and think, implying that I can't. That is a losers response.
I don't refer to power Jews, I simply post a link to https://observer.com/2016/03/algemeiner-celebrates-power-jews-at-packed-manhattan-gala/ whiich happens to laud both Putin and Murdoch as power Jews. The source by the way is Jewish.
If anyone has an inability to understand what a progressive media outlet is, it is you.
You haven't named one, have you, just throw out a baseless charge. And don't quote the MSM, they are all corporate, that means they are all conservative, and the fact that MSNBC will allow some hosts, that hold a critical eye on the right, does not mean they are progressive, it is called "market differentiation" Fox has a business model that has a lip lock on the extreme right, CNN is Fox Light, and makes a half hearted attempt to not show it's prejudice, but it fails, like when it gave Trump a Town Hall, with only Trump humpers in the audience, a format to be followed with other right wingers. They siimply want to bite into the Fox customer base.
MSNBC knows that it has no chance of capturing any part of the base, so they concentrate on the sector of the population that leans to progressive, stopping at critical issues and events that would adversely effect their corporate owners and the conservative donors .
They have no ideology, but money and access to power, which is money, in fact they helped Trump get elected in 2016, with millions of dollars of free air time, and are essentially doing it again, because if it bleeds it leads.
You can't help but make puny jabs at me, can you, trying to ridicule my disdain for podcasts.
Well I have better things to do, than waste money and time listening to some one spout their own opinion. You see I have an opinion, my opinions are arrived at and not acquired
And since I don't live in my car driving to and from work every day, I have no used for satellite radio, there are other and more entertaining things to do than hang on the over the air words of people who have their own opinion.
I use to watch Maddow, but she is pedantic, she takes a 5 minute subject (if that) and bloviates about it for an hour. I still watch her on occasion, so I know about her podcast The Bagman, but I actually lived through that decade, and others before, and was in my early 30's when it all occurred, I lived through history, so don't need to rehash it. I remember the plumbers and that crook Agnew and knew that Gordon Liddy was a Hitler Fan. Altogether I am still a fan of Maddow, for trying at least,but I dont have the ability to sit through an hour of hers, as well as an hour of many others.
But, how about knocking this crap of bragging and boasting about your credentials and attacking me as somewhat deficient. All you are doing is projecting. And I don't buy it, and I doubt that most of the others who read Thom,buy into it either.
Thom Hartman did an article today implying tgat their only certain ways to deal with citizens United. When I challenged this assertion, I provided both reasoned statements and citations to acknowledged legal scholars. He didn't mention esg, the most popular way people are dealing with corporate greed all over the world now. Why someone needs to attack me personally for doing so actually has nothing to do with me. It shows your own insecurity that you feel compelled to come here every day and attack people personally.
It's a matter of expert testimony by Biden's appointee that anti-semitism has nothing to do with anything but the anti-Semite, in this case you. Or the fact that some people don't even stop to realize that under Thom's analysis, by necessity you must conclude that FDR (who was a Wall Street lawyer) was a complete buffoon when he failed to understand how easy it is to strip judicial review from the Supreme Court.
Playing victim are you?
There are right wing Jews and Left wing Jews, just like right wing Christians and Left wing Christians, right wing Muslims and Left wing Muslims, right wing Hindus and Left wing Hindus, right wing American Descendants of slaves and Left wing Descendants of slave, take any demographic and you will find the divisions.
It is OK to mention or critique Christians and Muslims, but not Jews. Apparently you don't realize it but you are actually contributing to anti semitism, by, in fact, saying that any criticism is "antisemitic"
By the way, this atheist is more vocal about the Christian and Islamic culture,
Nobody is special, or has special privileges, so stop withe back handed attempt to intimidate and shut me up. You don't have special privileges, neither do I.
But the first thing you default to is "anti semitic", pathetic attempt at turning the question and put me on the back foot.
It doesn''t work. I truck on.
And what is dragging FDR into the conversation to do with anything, except perhaps your personal prejudice.
Your assertion that you provided both reasoned arguments and citations to articles is spurious. You can claim anything. It is called selectivity.
You obviously have an ideology and an agenda, which you can not defend or are not willing to clarify, your only response is to attack, make allegations, call names, and that is not an argument. It is for the right wing though, Tucker Carlson, and Fox hosts, OANN, Townhouse all use that tactic.
So tell us who you really are, what your ideology is, what you believe.
Otherwise you force me to assume bad faith, and I really don't favor that.
Once again, look to federalist 78 (the single most-cited by federal courts of all the federalist writings) and to Archibald Cox's great book "The courts and the constitution" to understand why Thom Hartmann has been off base for years about judicial review.
Again, this is not to question or criticize the notion that the courts should be reformed and that the Congress should assert its power in any possible way.
But at least someone has to make the obvious point that judiciary review (more often than not) has protected human rights and the principles of the bill of rights and that's what the framers thought was needed to protect against bad laws of Congress. It's so obvious that you have to be really unfamiliar with basic constitutional principles to think otherwise.
In addition to law review articles previously linked showing that judicial review was clearly contemplated by federalist 78, here is a long-standing federal judge explaining this and more reasons why establishing simple jurisdiction-stripping is not something viewed as beneficial to the constitutional order or democratic principles
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4812973/judicial-review-federalist-78
This article, and some others those like it that discuss how important ESG investing is to younger generations, shows the connection to Citizens United that is omitted from the discussion here.
https://rollcall.com/2021/07/22/esg-movement-origins-trace-back-to-financial-crisis-citizens-united/