Streams

Political Roundup with Heilemann and Zwillich

Monday, June 25, 2012

A person carries an American flag while marching in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Getty) A person carries an American flag while marching in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Getty)

The Supreme Court may release some key decisions today, and the 2012 election marches on. John Heilemann, national affairs editor for New York Magazine and author of Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime, talks about the latest in national politics. Plus, Todd Zwillich checks in to describe the scene on the steps of the Supreme Court.

Guests:

John Heilemann

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [10]

Amy from Manhattan

The part about the Court's granting certiorari on the Montana case but invalidating its law is very confusing, even on a 2nd hearing--is the law just suspended till the Court hears new arguments (which is what it sounds like...I think), or what?

Jun. 26 2012 12:21 AM
IF a Supreme Court judge was a suspected Terrorist from It's almost impossible to impeach a Supreme Court Judge


It's almost impossible to impeach a Supreme Court Judge -
it requires super majorities of both houses.

Now if a Supreme Court judge were suspected of TERRORISM ...
(not that they would be !) could they be "disappeared"
into the post-Patriot-act military prison systems (i.e.
Guantanamo, etc) where they might wait for a decade without
a trial and then face a military tribunal ?

This would be particularly ironic since the current
Supreme Court has shredded Habeas Corpus and grossly
extended arbitrary police and secret police powers over
and above the fundamental rights of US citizens.

Wouldn't it perhaps even be a perverse sort of
"poetic justice" that they would have been the authors
of their own unjust detention and secret-police
sponsored "disappearance" ? (Not that any sane person
would actually advocate this!).

I suppose that - in practice - a Supreme Court judge is
"too big to fail" and can basically get away with anything
they want to. They are effectively above all societal sanction.
They are - personally - above the law.

The rest of us - of course - are increasingly being treated
like powerless peasants - thanks (in part) to their actions.

Jun. 25 2012 05:14 PM
Appearance of Corruption WITHIN the Supreme Court?

The Citizen's United ruling asserts that large donations
do not even give the APPEARANCE of Corruption.

This is an empirical question - best answered by public POLLING.
Is there a Pew or Gallup poll asking people how many people
think that unlimited donations by companies corrupt or give
the appearance of corruption ? I'd bet a large plurality
(or even a majority) of US citizens think so. IF this is
the case, then the Supreme Court is demonstrably and EMPIRICALLY WRONG.

But a scarier question emerges : Have any of the members of the
Supreme Court accepted "soft bribes" - donations, investment tips,
generous speaker's fees, favorable loans, jobs or other favors for
family members or "significant others", or other relations which
might give the "APPEARANCE of corruption" to reasonable Americans ?
If so, shouldn't these be HIGHLIGHTED PUBLICLY AND INVESTIGATED ?

If a majority of the Supreme Court sitll actually believes that
taking millions of dollars from wealthy individuals and corporate donors
doesnt even give the APPEARANCE of Corruption- PERHAPS IT'S BECAUSE
THEY ARE ALREADY GROSSLY CORRUPT THEMSELVES ???????

Brian - Please INVESTIGATE!

(It'd also be an interesting show - include Biographers of current
Supreme Court justices, NYU/Brennan Center academics re: the recent
Montana ruling, and Pew or Gallup poll representatives to estimate
WHAT % of US Citizens think that the current status quo under Citizen's United DOES - IN FACT- give rise to the appearance (or existance) of
corruption.) Proving corruption may be challenging - proving
the APPEARANCE of CORRUPTION is an EASY STRAIGHTFORWARD FACTUAL QUESTION.

IS the SCOTUS saying that a large plurality (or majority of the US
population) are NOT REASONABLE PERSONS ? (Otherwise they'd
have to admit that a Reasonable person would object).

HAVE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT PERSONALLY TAKEN "SOFT BRIBES"
for themselves, their family or friends ?

If so, this would explain their position.

If so : IS THERE A LEGAL PROCESS TO IMPEACH A SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE WHO IS CORRUPT ?

Jun. 25 2012 04:48 PM
Appearance of Corruption WITHING the SupremeCourt?


The Citizen's United ruling asserts that large donations
do not even give the APPEARANCE of Corruption.

This is an empirical question - best answered by public POLLING.
Is there a Pew or Gallup poll asking people how many people
think that unlimited donations by companies corrupt or give
the appearance of corruption ? I'd bet a large plurality
(or even a majority) of US citizens think so. IF this is
the case, then the Supreme Court is demonstrably and EMPIRICALLY WRONG.

But a scarier question emerges : Have any of the members of the
Supreme Court accepted "soft bribes" - donations, investment tips,
generous speaker's fees, favorable loans, jobs or other favors for
family members or "significant others", or other relations which
might give the "APPEARANCE of corruption" to reasonable Americans ?
If so, shouldn't these be HIGHLIGHTED PUBLICLY AND INVESTIGATED ?

If a majority of the Supreme Court sitll actually believes that
taking millions of dollars from wealthy individuals and corporate donors
doesnt even give the APPEARANCE of Corruption- PERHAPS IT'S BECAUSE
THEY ARE ALREADY GROSSLY CORRUPT THEMSELVES ???????

Brian - Please INVESTIGATE!

(It'd also be an interesting show - include Biographers of current
Supreme Court justices, NYU/Brennan Center academics re: the recent
Montana ruling, and Pew or Gallup poll representatives to estimate
WHAT % of US Citizens think that the current status quo under Citizen's United DOES - IN FACT- give rise to the appearance (or existance) of
corruption.) Proving corruption may be challenging - proving
the APPEARANCE of CORRUPTION is an EASY STRAIGHTFORWARD FACTUAL QUESTION.

IS the SCOTUS saying that a large plurality (or majority of the US
population) are NOT REASONABLE PERSONS ? (Otherwise they'd
have to admit that a Reasonable person would object).

HAVE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT PERSONALLY TAKEN "SOFT BRIBES"
for themselves, their family or friends ?

If so, this would explain their position.

If so : IS THERE A LEGAL PROCESS TO IMPEACH A SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE WHO IS CORRUPT ?

Jun. 25 2012 04:41 PM
RJ from prospect hts.

See Scalia dissent pp. 20-22 for ludicrous, unsupported comments about DREAM act.: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

Jun. 25 2012 11:56 AM
Burtnor

To: John from office -- Wish there were more Repubs like you out there with whom Dems could have reasonable discussions about moving the country forward.

Jun. 25 2012 10:36 AM
Burtnor from Manhattan

Please discuss the disturbing SCOTUS ruling on the Montana law challenging Citizens United -- a reaffirmation of this terrible (Citizens) distortion of our democracy.

Jun. 25 2012 10:26 AM
Nick from UWS

The supreme court are a bunch of shamefully corporate-corrupted shills for all sectors of big business....healthcare, insurance, oil...you name it. They do not deserve even the vaguest respect from the American people, and it's a shame that some kind of mechanism is not in place to decontaminate the government and the country of these vermin.

Jun. 25 2012 10:15 AM
john from office

Martin, your numbers maybe right, but you and other Obama obsessives forget that he came in to office with a distroyed economy, two wars, a banking crisis and a housing crisis. In 3 years, he has done a good job, if you view it from where he came from.

I am a Republican, but I still don't have an answer how we can have more military spending and tax cuts, without finding new sources of income, aka taxes. Even Reagan, who I adore, raised taxes to pay the bills, that is called leadership.

Nor am I happy with the anti intellectual streak in the party.

Jun. 25 2012 09:56 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Is it true that recent polling suggests some drop in support for Obama among Blacks? What Obama has actually meant to regular black folks (his most loyal voting bloc) is fewer jobs and harder times. African-Americans have fared worse since 2008 than the rest of the population (down 5.4% versus 2.1%) as noted in the New York Times front page article last week. When you hinder recovery, everyone suffers. (Link below)

“More than half of all of African-Americans in the city had no job at all this year. Fewer than half — 49.2 percent — of all black women of working age in the city had jobs in the year that ended in May. A statistic known as the employment-to-population ratio is down 5.4% from May 2008 for Blacks versus a decline of 2.1% in all groups”

While the nationwide unemployment rate is 8.2%, it’s 14.0% for Blacks.

While the national underemployment rate is 15.1%, for Blacks it’s 23.1%.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/nyregion/blacks-miss-out-as-jobs-rebound-in-new-york-city.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/21/nyregion/black-new-yorkers-not-keeping-pace.html?ref=nyregion

Jun. 25 2012 08:39 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.