cawacko
Well-known member
I'm an idiot and you're the one calling supporters of free markets radicalized?
Weren't Supreme Court Justices suppose to be detached and impartial?
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
I'm an idiot and you're the one calling supporters of free markets radicalized?
cawacko
Well-known member
You made reference to free market think tanks as being radicalized.
OK, that was the topic of the bigger picture of the movement. I had been using the word radical for the Federalist Society court agenda, but it could apply to the larger right-wing agenda as well.
'Free market' itself is a propaganda term for an agenda of plutocracy as used by these groups.
I'd call plutocracy a radical agenda for the country - close to the opposite of what the founding fathers intended with democracy much less the more liberalized American ideals as the country has become more inclusive.
These 'think tanks' as I said are propaganda factories, basically funded by wealthy interests to try to build support the agenda for those interests - plutocracy. Attacking regulation, government power, economic equality, etc.
yes. she's been on Rachael Maddow. this OP is weak soup/gruel
Fascists were corporatist, they used corporates under which both labor and capital came under direct control of the state IE totalitarianism which is anathema to free market capitalism you laughable fuck.
Facist corporates used regulations and licensing to bring complete state control over labor and capital you ignorant fuck.
Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by government- or privately- controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer corporation would, theoretically, represent its professional concerns, especially by negotiation of labour contracts and the like. This method, it was theorized, could result in harmony amongst social classes.[31] Authors have noted, however, that historically de facto economic corporatism was also used to reduce opposition and reward political loyalty.[32]
In Italy from 1922 until 1943, corporatism became influential amongst Italian nationalists led by Benito Mussolini. The Charter of Carnaro gained much popularity as the prototype of a "corporative state", having displayed much within its tenets as a guild system combining the concepts of autonomy and authority in a special synthesis.[33] Alfredo Rocco spoke of a corporative state and declared corporatist ideology in detail. Rocco would later become a member of the Italian Fascist regime Fascismo.[34]
Italian Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which the economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level.[35] This non-elected form of state officializing of every interest into the state was professed to reduce the marginalization of singular interests (as would allegedly happen by the unilateral end condition inherent in the democratic voting process). Corporatism would instead better recognize or "incorporate" every divergent interest into the state organically, according to its supporters, thus being the inspiration for their use of the term totalitarian, perceivable to them as not meaning a coercive system but described distinctly as without coercion in the 1932 Doctrine of Fascism as thus:
"When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.[36]
and
[The state] is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual... Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State... Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers.[36]"
A popular slogan of the Italian Fascists under Mussolini was, "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" ("everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state").
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
In Italy from 1922 until 1943, corporatism became influential amongst Italian nationalists led by Benito Mussolini. The Charter of Carnaro gained much popularity as the prototype of a "corporative state", having displayed much within its tenets as a guild system combining the concepts of autonomy and authority in a special synthesis.[33] Alfredo Rocco spoke of a corporative state and declared corporatist ideology in detail. Rocco would later become a member of the Italian Fascist regime Fascismo.[34]
Italian Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which the economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level.[35] This non-elected form of state officializing of every interest into the state was professed to reduce the marginalization of singular interests (as would allegedly happen by the unilateral end condition inherent in the democratic voting process). Corporatism would instead better recognize or "incorporate" every divergent interest into the state organically, according to its supporters, thus being the inspiration for their use of the term totalitarian, perceivable to them as not meaning a coercive system but described distinctly as without coercion in the 1932 Doctrine of Fascism as thus:
"When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.[36]
and
[The state] is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual... Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State... Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers.[36]"
A popular slogan of the Italian Fascists under Mussolini was, "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" ("everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state").
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
10-1 he believes it only applies to state regulated militias.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Should be forcibly removed from the court, and his position appointed by the next Democratic president.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The liberal interpretation of the constitution can be referred to simply as "the constitution". The conservative interpretation is some bullshit they pulled out of their asses to shove their ideology down their throat.
Also this is you irl:
plutocracy crosses ideological grounds. when you have a bunch of millionaires running Congress-
or at least that is the Dems argument against Trump.
Big Money can't govern for any interests except their own
Ummm no conservatives are originalists who believe the Constitution can only be changed through Article 5 protocols; whereas, the left believes in judicial activism through the living document doctrine, get educated fucktard or STFU on matters that are clearly above your pay grade.
So should Ginsburg be removed for being on Madow and trashing the POTUS on national tv? Again the Constitution is quite clear on the protocols necessary for removing a sitting judge.
Getin the ring
Verified User
The short answer to the OP is yes, Supreme court justices are suppose to be strict constitutionist, leaving partisan ideology out of their decisions.
There is hope, beyond hope actually now that Trump will be appointing at LEAST one more conservative judge to the court.
The 6-3 majority and maybe 7-2 by 2024 will assure that redefining the constitution is a thing of the past
There is hope, beyond hope actually now that Trump will be appointing at LEAST one more conservative judge to the court.
The 6-3 majority and maybe 7-2 by 2024 will assure that redefining the constitution is a thing of the past
It's also clear on how to amend the Constitution. Liberals believe it can be amended by the supreme court with "feel good" decisions.
It's the Supreme Court's job to render their decisions based on the Constitution alone, not their "personal interpretation" of it.
That's why we cannot allow liberals to have a majority on the Supreme Court. They've already overstepped their bounds on the
1st. Amendment when ruling in favor of burning our flag, which has NOTHING to do with free speech.
Article 5 FTW.
It might cross some ideological grounds, but the Republican Party is 100% committed to plutocracy as there one real priority. Democrats are only partially corrupted and the strongest enemies of plutocracy are the progressive Democrats.
No, Democrats are in favor of accurately applying the constitution, not ignoring where it says things like all rights that are included not being explicitly listed.
You miss the bigger picture on flag burning - that it's yet another issue the right uses to divide the public to it can keep forcing plutocracy on the country.