History Notes and some Hopes for the Better : The Warren Court revolution was given crucial support by Eisenhower appointees. Eisenhower later remarked that his appointment of Earl Warren was "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made."

.

Are we going to watch and witness another Wonderful and Excellent U. S. Supreme Court in Next Years when President Obama appoints more intelligent and Intellectual People like him ??

FDR’s war on a conservative activist judiciary resulted in The Warren Court 1954-1969 : Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and the like. - Republican Earl Warren took his seat January 11, 1954 on a recess appointment by President Eisenhower.

Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson died suddenly in September 1953 and Eisenhower picked Warren to replace him as Chief Justice of the United States. The president wanted what he felt was an experienced jurist who could appeal to liberals in the party as well as law-and-order conservatives, noting privately that Warren "represents the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that I believe we need on the Supreme Court.... He has a national name for integrity, uprightness, and courage that, again, I believe we need on the Court". In the next few years Warren led the Court in a series of liberal decisions that revolutionized the role of the Court. 

Warren Court
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Supreme Court in 1953-1969, with Chief Justice Earl Warren

The Supreme Court in 1953-1969, with Chief Justice Earl Warren


Some excerpts :

The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents. The Warren Court expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways.[1]

The court was both applauded and criticized for bringing an end to racial segregation in the United States, incorporating the Bill of Rights (i.e. applying it to states), and ending officially sanctioned voluntary prayer in public schools. The period is recognized as a high point in judicial power that has receded ever since, but with a substantial continuing impact.[2][3]

Prominent members of the Court during the Warren era besides the Chief Justice included Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, and John Marshall Harlan II.[4]

Contents

    1 Warren's leadership

    2 Vision

    3 Historically significant decisions

    4 Warren's role

        4.1 Decisions

            4.1.1 Brown (1954)

            4.1.2 Reapportionment

            4.1.3 Due process and rights of defendants (1963-66)

            4.1.4 First Amendment

    5 Associate justices of the Warren Court

    6 See also

    7 References

    8 Further reading

    9 External links

Warren's leadership

One of the primary factors in Warren's leadership was his political background, having served three terms as Governor of California and experience as the Republican candidate for vice president in 1948. Warren brought a strong belief in the remedial power of law. According to historian Bernard Schwartz, Warren's view of the law was pragmatic, seeing it as an instrument for obtaining equity and fairness. Schwartz argues that Warren's approach was most effective "when the political institutions had defaulted on their responsibility to try to address problems such as segregation and reapportionment and cases where the constitutional rights of defendants were abused."[5]

A related component of Warren's leadership was his focus on broad ethical principles, rather than narrower interpretative structures. Describing the latter as "conventional reasoning patterns," Professor Mark Tushnet suggests Warren often disregarded these in groundbreaking cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, Reynolds v. Sims and Miranda v. Arizona, where such traditional sources of precedent were stacked against him. Tushnet suggests Warren's principles "were philosophical, political, and intuitive, not legal in the conventional technical sense."[6]

Warren's leadership was characterized by remarkable consensus on the court, particularly in some of the most controversial cases. These included Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Cooper v. Aaron, which were unanimously decided, as well as Abington School District v. Schempp and Engel v. Vitale, each striking down religious recitations in schools with only one dissent. In an unusual action, the decision in Cooper was personally signed by all nine justices, with the three new members of the Court adding that they supported and would have joined the Court's decision in Brown v. Board.[7]

Fallon says that, "Some thrilled to the approach of the Warren Court. Many law professors were perplexed, often sympathetic to the Court's results but skeptical of the soundness of its constitutional reasoning. And some of course were horrified."[8]

Vision

Professor John Hart Ely in his book Democracy and Distrust famously characterized the Warren Court as a "Carolene Products Court." This referred to the famous Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products in which the Supreme Court had suggested that heightened judicial scrutiny might be appropriate in three types of cases: those where a law was challenged as a deprivation of a specifically enumerated right (such as a challenge to a law because it denies "freedom of speech," a phrase specifically included in the Bill of Rights); those where a challenged law made it more difficult to achieve change through normal political processes; and those where a law impinged on the rights of "discrete and insular minorities." The Warren Court's doctrine may be seen as proceeding aggressively in these general areas: its aggressive reading of the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights (as "incorporated" against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment); its commitment to unblocking the channels of political change ("one-man, one-vote"), and its vigorous protection of the rights of racial minority groups. The Warren Court, while in many cases taking a broad view of individual rights, generally declined to read the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment broadly, outside of the incorporation context (see Ferguson v. Skrupa, but see also Griswold v. Connecticut). The Warren Court's decisions were also strongly nationalist in thrust, as the Court read Congress's power under the Commerce Clause quite broadly and often expressed an unwillingness to allow constitutional rights to vary from state to state (as was explicitly manifested in Cooper v. Aaron).

Professor Rebecca Zietlow argues that the Warren Court brought an expansion in the "rights of belonging," which she characterizes as "rights that promote an inclusive vision of who belongs to the national community and facilitate equal membership in that community." Zietlow notes that both critics and supporters of the Warren Court attribute to it this shift, whether as a matter of imposing its countermajoritarian will or as protecting the rights of minorities. Zietlow also challenges the notion of the Warren Court as "activist," noting that even at its height the Warren Court only invalidated 17 acts of Congress between 1962 and 1969, as compared to the more "conservative" Rehnquist Court which struck down 33 acts of Congress between 1995 and 2003.[9]

Historically significant decisions

Important decisions during the Warren Court years included decisions holding segregation policies in public schools (Brown v. Board of Education) and anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional (Loving v. Virginia); ruling that the Constitution protects a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut); that states are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and cannot ignore them (Cooper v. Aaron); that public schools cannot have official prayer (Engel v. Vitale) or mandatory Bible readings (Abington School District v. Schempp); the scope of the doctrine of incorporation (Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v. Arizona) was dramatically increased; reading an equal protection clause into the Fifth Amendment (Bolling v. Sharpe); holding that the states may not apportion a chamber of their legislatures in the manner in which the United States Senate is apportioned (Reynolds v. Sims); and holding that the Constitution requires active compliance (Gideon v. Wainwright).

    Racial segregation: Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe, Cooper v. Aaron, Gomillion v. Lightfoot, Griffin v. County School Board, Green v. School Board of New Kent County, Lucy v. Adams, Loving v. Virginia

    Voting, redistricting, and malapportionment: Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims, Wesberry v. Sanders

    Criminal procedure: Brady v. Maryland, Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v. Arizona, Escobedo v. Illinois, Gideon v. Wainwright, Katz v. United States, Terry v. Ohio

    Free speech: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Brandenburg v. Ohio, Yates v. United States, Roth v. United States, Jacobellis v. Ohio, Memoirs v. Massachusetts, Tinker v. Des Moines School District

    Establishment Clause: Engel v. Vitale, Abington School District v. Schempp

    Free Exercise Clause: Sherbert v. Verner

    Right to privacy and reproductive rights: Griswold v. Connecticut

    Cruel and unusual punishment: Trop v. Dulles, Robinson v. California

Warren's role

Warren took his seat January 11, 1954 on a recess appointment by President Eisenhower; the Senate confirmed him six weeks later. Despite his lack of judicial experience, his years in the Alameda County district attorney's office and as state attorney general gave him far more knowledge of the law in practice than most other members of the Court had. Warren's greatest asset, what made him in the eyes of many of his admirers "Super Chief," was his political skill in manipulating the other justices. Over the years his ability to lead the Court, to forge majorities in support of major decisions, and to inspire liberal forces around the nation, outweighed his intellectual weaknesses. Warren realized his weakness and asked the senior associate justice, Hugo L. Black, to preside over conferences until he became accustomed to the drill. A quick study, Warren soon was in fact as well as in name the Court's chief justice.[10]

When Warren joined the Court in 1954 all the justices had been appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt or Truman, and all were committed New Deal liberals. They disagreed about the role that the courts should play in achieving liberal goals. The Court was split between two warring factions. Felix Frankfurter and Robert H. Jackson led one faction, which insisted upon judicial self-restraint and insisted courts should defer to the policymaking prerogatives of the White House and Congress. Hugo Black and William O. Douglas led the opposing faction that agreed the court should defer to Congress in matters of economic policy, but felt the judicial agenda had been transformed from questions of property rights to those of individual liberties, and in this area courts should play a more central role. Warren's belief that the judiciary must seek to do justice, placed him with the latter group, although he did not have a solid majority until after Frankfurter's retirement in 1962.[11]

Decisions

Warren was a more liberal justice than anyone had anticipated.[12] Warren was able to craft a long series of landmark decisions because he built a winning coalition. When Frankfurter retired in 1962 and President John F. Kennedy named labor union lawyer Arthur Goldberg to replace him, Warren finally had the fifth vote for his liberal majority. William J. Brennan, Jr., a liberal Democrat appointed by Eisenhower in 1956, was the intellectual leader of the faction that included Black and Douglas. Brennan complemented Warren's political skills with the strong legal skills Warren lacked. Warren and Brennan met before the regular conferences to plan out their strategy.[13]

Brown (1954)

Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) banned the segregation of public schools. The very first case put Warren's leadership skills to an extraordinary test. The Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP (a small legal group separate from the much better known NAACP) had been waging a systematic legal fight against the "separate but equal" doctrine enunciated in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and finally had challenged Plessy in a series of five related cases, which had been argued before the Court in the spring of 1953. However the justices had been unable to decide the issue and asked to rehear the case in fall 1953, with special attention to whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibited the operation of separate public schools for whites and blacks.[14]

While all but one justice personally rejected segregation, the self-restraint faction questioned whether the Constitution gave the Court the power to order its end. Warren's faction believed the Fourteenth Amendment did give the necessary authority and were pushing to go ahead. Warren, who held only a recess appointment, held his tongue until the Senate, dominated by southerners, confirmed his appointment. Warren told his colleagues after oral argument that he believed segregation violated the Constitution and that only if one considered African Americans inferior to whites could the practice be upheld. But he did not push for a vote. Instead, he talked with the justices and encouraged them to talk with each other as he sought a common ground on which all could stand. Finally he had eight votes, and the last holdout, Stanley Reed of Kentucky, agreed to join the rest. Warren drafted the basic opinion in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and kept circulating and revising it until he had an opinion endorsed by all the members of the Court.[15]

The unanimity Warren achieved helped speed the drive to desegregate public schools, which came about under President Richard M. Nixon. Throughout his years as Chief, Warren succeeded in keeping all decisions concerning segregation unanimous. Brown applied to schools, but soon the Court enlarged the concept to other state actions, striking down racial classification in many areas. Congress ratified the process in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Warren did compromise by agreeing to Frankfurter's demand that the Court go slowly in implementing desegregation; Warren used Frankfurter's suggestion that a 1955 decision (Brown II) include the phrase "all deliberate speed."[16]

The Brown decision of 1954 marked, in dramatic fashion, the radical shift in the Court's--and the nation's--priorities from issues of property rights to civil liberties. Under Warren the courts became an active partner in governing the nation, although still not coequal. Warren never saw the courts as a backward-looking branch of government.

The Brown decision was a powerful moral statement. His biographer concludes, "If Warren had not been on the Court, the Brown decision might not have been unanimous and might not have generated a moral groundswell that was to contribute to the emergence of the civil rights movement of the 1960s[17]. Warren was never a legal scholar on a par with Frankfurter or a great advocate of particular doctrines, as were Black and Douglas[18]. Instead, he believed that in all branches of government common sense, decency, and elemental justice were decisive, not stare decisis, tradition or the text of the Constitution. He wanted results. He never felt that doctrine alone should be allowed to deprive people of justice. He felt racial segregation was simply wrong, and Brown, whatever its doctrinal defects, remains a landmark decision primarily because of Warren's majestic interpretation of the equal protection clause to mean that children should not be shunted to a separate world reserved for minorities.[19]

Reapportionment

The one man, one vote cases (Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims) of 1962–1964, had the effect of ending the over-representation of rural areas in state legislatures, as well as the under-representation of suburbs. Central cities--which had long been underepresented--were now losing population to the suburbs and were not greatly affected.

Warren's priority on fairness shaped other major decisions. In 1962, over the strong objections of Frankfurter, the Court agreed that questions regarding malapportionment in state legislatures were not political issues, and thus were not outside the Court's purview. For years underpopulated rural areas had deprived metropolitan centers of equal representation in state legislatures. In Warren's California, Los Angeles County had only one state senator. Cities had long since passed their peak, and now it was the middle class suburbs that were underepresented. Frankfurter insisted that the Court should avoid this "political thicket" and warned that the Court would never be able to find a clear formula to guide lower courts in the rash of lawsuits sure to follow. But Douglas found such a formula: "one man, one vote."[20]

In the key apportionment case Reynolds v. Sims (1964)[21] Warren delivered a civics lesson: "To the extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen," Warren declared. "The weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. This is the clear and strong command of our Constitution's Equal Protection Clause." Unlike the desegregation cases, in this instance, the Court ordered immediate action, and despite loud outcries from rural legislators, Congress failed to reach the two-thirds needed pass a constitutional amendment. The states complied, reapportioned their legislatures quickly and with minimal troubles. Numerous commentators have concluded reapportionment was the Warren Court's great "success" story.[22]

Due process and rights of defendants (1963-66)

In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) the Court held that the Sixth Amendment required that all indigent criminal defendants receive publicly-funded counsel (Florida law at that time required the assignment of free counsel to indigent defendants only in capital cases); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) required that certain rights of a person interrogated while in police custody be clearly explained, including the right to an attorney (often called the "Miranda warning").

While most Americans eventually agreed that the Court's desegregation and apportionment decisions were fair and right, disagreement about the "due process revolution" continues into the 21st century. Warren took the lead in criminal justice; despite his years as a tough prosecutor, always insisted that the police must play fair or the accused should go free. Warren was privately outraged at what he considered police abuses that ranged from warrantless searches to forced confessions.

Warren’s Court ordered lawyers for indigent defendants, in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), and prevented prosecutors from using evidence seized in illegal searches, in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). The famous case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) summed up Warren's philosophy.[23] Everyone, even one accused of crimes, still enjoyed constitutionally protected rights, and the police had to respect those rights and issue a specific warning when making an arrest. Warren did not believe in coddling criminals; thus in Terry v. Ohio (1968) he gave police officers leeway to stop and frisk those they had reason to believe held weapons.

Conservatives angrily denounced the "handcuffing of the police."[24] Violent crime and homicide rates shot up nationwide in the following years; in New York City, for example, after steady to declining trends until the early 1960s, the homicide rate doubled in the period from 1964-74 from just under 5 per 100,000 at the beginning of that period to just under 10 per 100,000 in 1974. Controversy exists about the cause, with conservatives blaming the Court decisions, and liberals pointing to the demographic boom and increased urbanization and income inequality characteristic of that era. After 1992 the homicide rates fell sharply.[25]

First Amendment

The Warren Court also sought to expand the scope of application of the First Amendment. The Court's decision outlawing mandatory school prayer in Engel v. Vitale (1962) brought vehement complaints by conservatives that echoed into the 21st century.[26]

Warren worked to nationalize the Bill of Rights by applying it to the states. Moreover, in one of the landmark cases decided by the Court, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Warren Court affirmed a constitutionally protected right of privacy, emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as substantive due process.[27] This decision was fundamental, after Warren's retirement, for the outcome of Roe v. Wade and consequent legalization of abortion.

With the exception of the desegregation decisions, few decisions were unanimous. The eminent scholar Justice John Marshall Harlan II took Frankfurter's place as the Court's self-constraint spokesman, often joined by Potter Stewart and Byron R. White. But with the appointment of Thurgood Marshall, the first black justice, and Abe Fortas (replacing Goldberg), Warren could count on six votes in most cases.[28]

**************

Self-Deportation Centers for Republicans that want to avoid the coming Marxist-Communist-Fascist-Gay-Medical-Brownies abortionist evolutionist and anti-Guns dictatorship of President Barack Obama in his second term. REPU DEPORT ORGANIZATION

. 

You don't want to live in a Police State dominated by a Minority of Communists in alliance with Gays, Lesbians, Transgenders, Death Panels of Murder Doctors, and ugly Brownies with strident repugnant Music of Mariachis, Rancheras and Norteñas that will drive you mad.

No you want a peaceful and restful sleep. And you want to tote your assault weapons, grenades and Rocket Launchers in every park, school, theater, stadium, etc ..... while listening to your beloved redneck music with powerful speakers, so that you can work peacefully to organize your own gang of vigilantes to dominate and hunt the uglies and warn those atheist liberals that believe in Evolution and Health Care for Everybody.

Go to the Self Deportation Centers for Republicans and we will help you to emigrate to  other Free Nations were you can live without fear of losing your weapons and having your vigilantes disbanded.

write to FindFreedom@RepuDeport.org 


and we will direct you to the closest Self Deportation Center for Republicans


signed :


REPU DEPORT ORGANIZATON


********************

Washington Post : "The Justice Department has set up a hotline for the public to report potential civil rights concerns regarding the Arizona law that requires police to check the immigration status of those they stop for other reasons."

.

The hotline phone number is 1-855-353-1010. 

The email is: SB1070@usdoj.gov.

My Own Comment :

The majority opinion inside the Supreme Court warned Arizona of many Civil Rights lawsuits that seem very probable. This warning of SCOTUS was very severe, stern, harsh, hard, strong.

Everybody that is not an ignorant can see that there are many impending lawsuits against Arizona for Civil Rights.

Only bloviating Ignoramus like Governor Jan Brewer and that Failure and Loser of a lawyer Kris Kobach can claim victory when their house of cards is collapsing, pushed by the U. S. Supreme Court.

The section of SB 1070 that SCOTUS upheld, passed or approved has no teeth and has no force because the other discarded sections were the Racist Dynamite.

Associated Press
Justice Dept. sets up hotline for civil rights concerns on immigration verification in Arizona.
June 25, 2012

Justice Dept. sets up hotline for civil rights concerns on immigration verification in Arizona


*****************

Conservative Lawyer of Harvard : "Chief Justice John Roberts correctly realized that he couldn't jump off that cliff without precedent or logic supporting him. Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas went all in." - "Repeal and Replace" is foolish Fantasy

.
The dissent of the "Gang of Four" dissenters is extremely shameful and unworthy of Justices of the U. S. Supreme Court. ( "unsupported legally and it's a mess logically" )

Lawyer David Frum considers the "Repeal and Replace" slogan of Mitt Romney as a very foolish Fantasy.


The Daily Beast
Did Scalia Scare Off Roberts?
June 29, 2012

by David Frum
Frum earned his Juris Doctor (J.D.) at Harvard Law School in 1987. He has been very conservative and has worked with the "National Review".

David Frum is a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Daily Beast and a CNN contributor. He is also former economic speechwriter for President George W. Bush, and author of the first "insider" book about the Bush presidency.


Did Scalia Scare Off Roberts?


Some excerpts :

The jointly-written dissent was intended to be majority opinion. Any informed reader would reach that conclusion after the first three pages --- and then again when seeing the fact that any and all problems with the actual majority decision are addressed only at the end of it, following an oddly placed " * * *."

The following is speculation, but plausible, and would be an interesting parallel to the conservative legislative strategy. Any objective legal observer would tell you (and I'm trying to be one here) that the dissent's treatment of the severability issue is detached from 200 years of constitutional law. It's unsupported legally and it's a mess logically. It also includes a citation to a quote that Harry Reid gave to the New York Times in Janauary 2010 concerning the bill --- this from at least two justices (Scalia and Thomas) who routinely say that any use of legislative history is a sham because it's necessarily incomplete. One wonders what a quote not uttered on the floor of Congress but to a journalist would constitute in that case? In any event, rather than holding the mandate costitutional and those portions of the bill inextricably linked with it (guaranteed issue/community rating), four members of the Court were primed to throw the whole bill out. That level of judicial activism, in a context like this one, would be nearly unprecedented.

*************

What was written was not measured judicial analysis, but rather an opinion that started with a goal --- throw the bill out --- and then figured out how to get there, blowing by any precedent in its path.

**************

But severability had been considered by the Court literally dozens of times, and the four dissenters charged right by what those decisions had said.

**************

TNR, Jeffrey Rosen : In praise of Chief Justice John Roberts : "When I teach constitutional law, I begin by telling students that they can’t assume that it’s all politics. To do so misses everything that is constraining and meaningful and inspiring about the Constitution as a framework for government."

.
The New Republic
Welcome to the Roberts Court: How the Chief Justice Used Obamacare to Reveal His True Identity
June 29, 2012

By Jeffrey Rosen

Jeffrey Rosen has been the legal affairs editor of The New Republic since 1992. He is also a professor of law at George Washington University and a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. His most recent book is The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America, the bestselling companion book to the PBS series on the Supreme Court. He is also the author of The Most Democratic Branch, The Naked Crowd, and The Unwanted Gaze, which The New York Times called “the definitive text on privacy perils in the digital age.” Rosen is a graduate of Harvard College, summa cum laude; Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar; and Yale Law School. His essays and commentaries have appeared in The New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, on National Public Radio, and in The New Yorker, where he has been a staff writer. The Chicago Tribune named him one of the ten best magazine journalists in America and the L.A. Times called him “the nation’s most widely read and influential legal commentator.”

Welcome to the Roberts Court: How the Chief Justice Used Obamacare to Reveal His True Identity

Some excerpts :

In 2006, at the end of his first term as Chief Justice, John Roberts told me that he was determined to place the bipartisan legitimacy of the Court above his own ideological agenda. But he recognized the difficulty of the task. “It’s sobering to think of the seventeen chief justices,” he said. “Certainly a solid majority of them have to be characterized as failures.”

Specifically, he was concerned that his colleagues were too often handing down 5-4 decisions that divided along predictable party lines, which made it hard for the public to maintain faith in the Court as an institution that transcends politics. Roberts pledged to try to persuade his colleagues to avoid party line votes in the most divisive cases. Roberts said he would embrace as his model his judicial hero, John Marshall, who sometimes engaged in legal “twistifications,” to use Thomas Jefferson’s derisive phrase, in order to achieve results that would strengthen the institutional legitimacy of the Court.

In the health care case, Roberts produced a twistification of which Marshall would have been proud. He joined the four liberals in holding that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate was justified by Congress’s taxing power even though he also joined the four conservatives in holding that the mandate was not justified by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

For bringing the Court back from the partisan abyss, Roberts deserves praise not only from liberals but from all Americans who believe that it’s important for the Court to stand for something larger than politics. On Thursday, Roberts did precisely what he said he would do when he first took office: He placed the bipartisan legitimacy of the Court above his own ideological agenda. Seven years into his Chief Justiceship, the Supreme Court finally became the Roberts Court.

IT WOULD BE easy, of course, to question the coherence of the combination of legal arguments that Roberts embraced, but it would also be beside the point: Roberts' decision was above all an act of judicial statesmanship. On both the left and the right commentators are praising his “political genius” in handing the president the victory he sought even as he laid the groundwork for restricting congressional power in the future.

***********

As Roberts recognized, faith in the neutrality of the law and the impartiality of judges is a fragile thing. When I teach constitutional law, I begin by telling students that they can’t assume that it’s all politics. To do so misses everything that is constraining and meaningful and inspiring about the Constitution as a framework for government. There will be many polarizing decisions from the Roberts Court in the future, and John Roberts will be on the conservative side of many of them. But with his canny performance in the health care case, Roberts has given the country a memorable example of what it means to be a successful Chief Justice.

   
*******************

VIDEO, Rachel Maddow, Health care ruling a victory for problem-solving policy - The Rachel Maddow Show (June 28th, 2012) - Rachel presents Old American Citizens in total poverty with no decent Health Care Attention - Great Suffering !!

.

That is why President Obama is a Problem Solver for America - This nation spends more than any other developed country in Health Care, but America gets the worst Attention to the Sick. And has the highest proportion of destitute people that need medical attention.

Seniors fall in poverty with the bills and necessary drugs for their Health.

Democrats in Congress approved the most conservative and prudent system of Health Care that has been baptized as ObamaCare.

Republicans have been always an obstacle to these Rational, Reasoned and Prudent Solutions for the Health System.

The Supreme Court has avoided destructive Conservative Partisanship and has helped to solve horrible painful problems ( for millions of senior citizens and people that are not rich to pay for every medical problem ) .

Published on Jun 28, 2012 by Panzerfaust04

Rachel Maddow points out the role of the Affordable Care Act in solving the problem of America's terrible health care system, and talks with Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor and legal correspondent for Slate, about the bigger picture of Thursday's Supreme Court ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. From the June 28th, 2012 edition of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC.

Health care ruling a victory for problem-solving policy - The Rachel Maddow Show (June 28th, 2012)

************************

VIDEO, Bloomberg Law, Lee Pacchia and Careen Shannon, attorney at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy, LLP - Careen Shannon predicts many lawsuits against Arizona for Racial Profiling as the Supreme Court warned in the Majority Opinion

.

The Supreme Court Ruling means that arizona will suffer many lawsuits at a big cost for its policies against Civil Rights. And the Supreme Court just warned Arizona of that possibility.

Published on Jun 28, 2012 by bloomberglaw

June 28 (Bloomberg Law) -- Careen Shannon, attorney at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen and Loewy, LLP, talks with Bloomberg Law's Lee Pacchia about the Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the new Arizona immigration law known as SB 1070. While the court struck down three of the controversial law's provisions, the majority allowed the so-called "show your papers" measure to stand. Shannon says there will be further litigation as Arizona implements the new law.

*****************************

VIDEO : Cenk Uygur : Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare - Conservative Reaction Absurd - Cenk Uygur supports the ruling of the Court and considers it a Victory for Common Americans

.

Published on Jun 28, 2012 by TheYoungTurks

"The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. upheld the heart of President Obama's healthcare law Thursday, ruling that the government may impose tax penalties on those who do not have health insurance.

The decision came on a 5-4 vote, with the court's four liberal justices joining with the chief justice. On one hand, Roberts agreed with the law's conservative critics who said Congress does not have the power to mandate the purchase of a private product such as health insurance. But the Affordable Care Act does not impose a true legal mandate on Americans, he said. It simply requires those who do not have health insurance by 2014 to pay a tax penalty...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare - Conservative Reaction Absurd

****************************

VIDEO : Mitt Romney: "Very Pleased With" the Individual Mandate - At a press conference held on March 6, 2006, Mitt Romney said he's "very pleased with" the individual mandate of his Health Care RomneyCare. - Footage obtained from the Massachusetts Archives.

.

The Champion of Lies, Hypocrisy, Cynicism, Flip-Flops, Turnarounds, Turnabouts, Reversals..... Mitt should be in Hollywood making stunts like driving at high speed and doing U-Turns on a dime.

Mitt is topmost in Opportunism. The "Well Oiled Weathervane"  ....... He only cares about his Narcissus and his Narcissism, Self-Adoration, Selfishness, Egocentrism, Egolatry.

Published on Jun 28, 2012 by americanbridge21st

Romney press conference Q&A following introduction of Robert Haas as Massachusetts public safety secretary, circa 3/6/06.

Mitt Romney: "Very Pleased With" the Individual Mandate

******************************

POLITICO.COM : Breaking News : Health care ruling: Individual mandate upheld by Supreme Court - The Supreme Court upheld most of President Barack Obama’s health care law Thursday, ruling that Congress did not overstep its power by requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance

.

Second Great Victory of Obama in the U. S. Supreme Court in less than a week. People in INTRADE.COM were betting 75% that it was going to be overturned and lost their money. The first Great Obama Victory was the emasculation or castration of SB 1070.

POLITICO.COM
Health care ruling: Individual mandate upheld by Supreme Court
By JENNIFER HABERKORN
June 28, 2012


Health care ruling: Individual mandate upheld by Supreme Court

Some excerpts :

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court’s four liberal justices in the ruling, which says Congress had the authority to impose the law’s individual mandate under Congress’s taxing power.

*****************

Still, the rest of the ruling is a surprise victory for the Obama administration, which faced a tough grilling from the court — including from Roberts — during the oral arguments in March. It guarantees that most of the two-year-old law will stay in place, avoiding the massive disruption to the health care industry that would have resulted if the mandate had been struck down.

"Simply put, Congress may tax and spend," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "This grant gives the federal government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate."

"The federal government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid or otherwise control,” Roberts wrote.

********************

In the ruling, Roberts wrote that the court rejected the idea that the mandate regulates people under existing commercial activity. But the court ruled that Congress can impose mandate under the taxing power.

"It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce,” Roberts wrote.

"The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a 'fairly possible' one,” Roberts wrote. "The government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the constitution. Granting the act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read."

*****************

But Thursday’s ruling now settles the big constitutional question once and for all: Congress can require people to have health coverage.

The court’s decision allows the law’s more popular provisions to survive, like guaranteed coverage for people with pre-existing conditions starting in 2014 — the same year the mandate is scheduled to take effect.

************************

VIDEO : Lawrence O'Donnell - See Rush Limbaugh : "Yesterday, Mitt Romney blew it, Yesterday was a warning, a red flag for the Romney Team - That Romney response in a debate would have been a big win for Obama", "The Romney Team was not ready for prime time in this Illegal Immigration decision"

.

Mitt Romney is very awkward and clumsy and he can not find his way on this Immigration Issue :

The Last Word - Mitt Romney's immigration muddle

Mitt blathering and bloviating and not answering any question - He thinks that the public is Idiots - Obama Winner, Jan Brewer Loser

Super Racist Rush Limbaugh says : "Mitt Romney blew it   

Mitt Romney tied in many knots about Immigration and says only Blather and Bloviating Garbabe and nothing concrete

Excellent Explanation of how the Brutal Racist lost in their effort to force the U. S. Supreme Court into a "Day that will live in Infamy" - The U. S. Supreme Court dodged the trap and escaped unscathed

Published on Jun 27, 2012 by Licentiathe8th

June 26, 2012

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell gives details on the Arizona immigration law and how Mitt Romney supported it. Former DNC communications director Karen Finney and The Guardian's Ana Marie Cox weigh in.

The Last Word - Mitt Romney's immigration muddle

*************************

"The Economist" : If Romney wins the presidency, then Republicans would control the White House, the House of Representatives and most probably the Senate, and there would be a conservative U. S. Supreme Court for decades to come

.
A President Romney could quite possibly guarantee a conservative court for decades to come. The thought of such an eventuality might really get those Democrats scampering to the polls.

The Economist 
Waiting for Robbo 
Even if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, there could be a silver lining for the president
June 16th 2012


Waiting for Robbo


Some excerpts :

Yet for all that, it is possible that the Supreme Court, by throwing a spanner into the works, may actually help Mr Obama as much as hurt him. For a start, the Republicans would suddenly find that they have a mess of their own making to sort out. If the Supreme Court does indeed strike down the Affordable Care Act, many popular provisions would fall with it: the one allowing parents to keep their children on their insurance policies until they are 26, for instance, and the abolition of lifetime ceilings on what the sick can claim. Both of those are already in force, and a ban on insurance companies refusing to insure the unwell is due to come in from 2014. Generous subsidies will help not just those who lack insurance, but also some of those who have it and find it hard to afford. And Mr Obama’s cost-control mechanisms, imperfect though they are, have a fiscally useful role to play in bringing down the costs of government-provided insurance for the poor and the elderly.

Even if only the “mandate” requiring everyone to buy health insurance is struck down as unconstitutional, the consequences of that could cause other parts of the bill to unravel, and would certainly lead to big increases in insurance premiums. One big insurance company has already said it would endeavour to keep some of the popular provisions intact: but it might not be able to. The Republicans have long said that they want to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, but they have been remarkably coy about what they would replace it with. If you break it, as Colin Powell remarked in another context, you own it.

So the danger to the Republicans of a backlash should not be discounted. And there is another, greater threat to them. Should Obamacare be struck down or crippled, the Roberts court will be seen by many as politically slanted. Arguably that has happened already, thanks to its recision of gun control in Washington, DC and Chicago in 2008 and 2010, and to its decision in 2010 to scrap limits on corporate (and trade-union) donations to political-action groups. And judgments on other highly political cases, on positive discrimination and on immigration, are expected before the election. Like the gun-control and campaign-finance rulings, these are likely to be “partisan” 5-4 decisions. A poll on June 7th found that 76% of people think that Supreme Court justices are sometimes swayed by their political or personal views, and that only 44% approve of the court’s performance. It used to be by far the most popular branch of government.

The power of four

Therein lies a potential silver lining for Mr Obama. If his rival were to win the presidency, Republicans would control the White House, the House of Representatives, most probably the Senate (the swings that would see Mitt Romney home would flip the Senate as well), and, in the eyes of a great many people, the Supreme Court, too. That is a remarkable concentration of power, and it would come after a ruling that would be the most serious affront to an elected Congress by the court since the 1930s. (The decisions the Supreme Court handed down then, overturning key provisions of the New Deal in 1935 and 1936, were a big help to Franklin Roosevelt in his own re-election battle.) Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal justice, turns 80 next year, and three more of the nine justices are in their 70s. A President Romney could quite possibly guarantee a conservative court for decades to come. The thought of such an eventuality might really get those Democrats scampering to the polls.

***********************

SB 1070 : What the Majority Opinion in the U. S. Supreme Court accomplished is a grave juridical precedent of limitations and prohibitions for the States and more power for the Federal Government - Victory for the Obama Administration

.

The proponents of "State Rights" since the American Civil War should not be happy uncorking champagne to celebrate the verdict. Only an ignorant like Governor Jan Brewer can be elated with the bone that the Supreme Court threw to her.

SCOTUS Blog
Opinion recap: Immigration and judicial styles
Analysis
Monday, June 25th, 2012


By Lyle Denniston, Reporter

Lyle Denniston has been covering the Supreme Court for fifty-fouryears. In that time, he has covered one-quarter of all of the Justices ever to sit, and he has reported on the entire careers on the bench of ten of the Justices. He has been a journalist of the law for sixty-four years, beginning that career at the Otoe County Courthouse in Nebraska City, Nebraska, in the fall of 1948. He is not an attorney.

Opinion recap: Immigration and judicial styles


Some excerpts :

The outcome thus was declared in the opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.  In sum, that opinion barred Arizona from enforcing three provisions of its controversial anti-immigrant law, S.B. 1070, and put off a constitutional reckoning on a fourth provision.  But beyond those bare conclusions, the Kennedy opinion was a strong victory for the notion that immigration policy, under the Constitution and federal laws, is for the federal government, not for the individual states, including those on the borders most affected by illegal entry.

Here is what the Kennedy opinion accomplished:

First, as an overall proposition, the Court reaffirmed that the national government is the “single sovereign” in charge of “a comprehensive and unified system to keep track of aliens within the nation’s borders.”  (That was directly contradictory to an argument by Justice Scalia, for himself alone, that states have the same power as the national government does to use their borders as barriers to entry of unwanted individuals.)

Second, the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting virtually any provision that seeks to establish a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to sign in officially as non-citizens.  That broader conclusion is what nullified the specific Arizona provision (Section 3) making it a crime to be in Arizona without legal immigration papers.

Third, the ruling concluded that states may not set up their own regime to close off jobs within their borders to undocumented immigrants. That broad declaration led to rejection of a specific Arizona provision (Section 5(C)) that made it a crime for a non-citizen illegally in the state to apply for a job, or work at one.

Fourth, the decision forbids states to set up their own policies that would lead to deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, unless the federal government explicitly asks for such help.  The wide conclusion undermined a specific Arizona provision (Section 6) that directs state police to arrest — without a warrant — anyone believed to have committed any crime that would lead to deportation.

Those four parts of the Kennedy opinion could have an immediate impact on the validity of other states’ laws that imitate or go beyond Arizona’s attempt to carry out a program of “attrition through enforcement,” as Arizona labeled its objective of making life so uncomfortable for undocumented immigrants that they would opt to leave the state.  Some other states’ laws, like Alabama’s, go beyond what Arizona has done, and some of those, too, might be vulnerable because of some of the sweeping statements Justice Kennedy made about the breadth of federal control of immigration policy.

*****************

SCOTUS Blog : Andrew Pincus has argued twenty-three cases before the Supreme Court. He is a former Assistant to the Solicitor General (1984-1988) : "A win for the government and for the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on SB 1070" - Tuesday, June 26th, 2012

.

The Supreme Court's decision on SB 1070 opens the door to future challenges.  The Court’s opinion thus leaves for the future many of the arguments that the government and its amici advanced.

SCOTUS Blog
Online Symposium: A win for the government and for the SG
Tuesday, June 26th, 2012


By Andrew Pincus

Andrew Pincus, a Partner at Mayer Brown, has argued twenty-three cases before the Supreme Court. He is a former Assistant to the Solicitor General (1984-1988).

Online Symposium: A win for the government and for the SG


Some excerpts :

First, this is a big win for the United States.

**********************

Although the Court did not invalidate the fourth part of the law, which requires police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested (if there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual is unlawfully present within the United States), it flagged some significant problems that undoubtedly will be the subject of future litigation. The Arizona courts received a pretty clear message that this provision must be narrowly construed:  officers may not detain individuals solely to verify their immigration status, and detention may not be prolonged to complete the immigration inquiry.  Also, the Court pointed to the Arizona law’s specific statement that it may not be applied in a discriminatory manner or in a way that otherwise violates the Constitution – which opens the door to future challenges.  The Court’s opinion thus leaves for the future many of the arguments that the government and its amici advanced.

*******************

But Verrilli brought home an important victory for his client.  We can’t tell whether it was the briefs, or the argument, or some combination of the two (and we won’t know for many decades, until the current Justices’ papers are opened to the public – and maybe not even then). What we do know is that it was the legal principles on which Verrilli focused that convinced five members of the Court in a very hard-fought, high-profile case.  And that is a pretty effective day’s work for any Supreme Court advocate.

****************

Daily Beast : Arizona Democrats call for beefed-up voter registration - Latino leaders say enforcement of the SB 1070 will cause civil-rights abuses - While Arizona has “SB 1070 fatigue,” Randy Parraz said, the Latino electorate has “no fatigue for justice.”

.
My own comment :

Mitt Romney is the most Racist, Bigoted, Ethnicist and Nativist Candidate since Barry Goldwater in 1964. Romney and the Republican Party represent Racism and Right Wing Hatred. Like when Republican U. S. Senator Rand Paul says that Restaurants should have the right to reject people on the basis of Skin Color.

A vote for Romney is a vote for the Enemies of Civil Rights and in favor of Injustice.

The Daily Beast
Obama Piles On Arizona After Supreme Court Immigration Ruling
By Terry Greene Sterling
Jun 26, 2012


Obama Piles On Arizona After Supreme Court Immigration Ruling

Some excerpts :

“If they think this is the heart, the law will soon need a heart transplant,” said Randy Parraz, the Latino leader who was key in the recall-election defeat of state Sen. Russell Pearce, the law’s sponsor.

Parraz said the law had an unintended silver lining, galvanizing the Latino electorate into action. And while Arizona has “SB 1070 fatigue,”  he said, the Latino electorate has “no fatigue for justice.”  He predicted the downfall of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other hardliners in the 2012 election.

************************

VIDEO : Massive Crowd at Tent City Protest! --- You can see for yourself the big size of this demonstration and the Enthusiasm of the People - Candle Light Vigil for Civil Righs against a prison of inhuman conditions and against the "Racial Profiling" of SB 1070

.


Published on Jun 24, 2012 by SantiagoJJJr


Thousands of Unitarian Universalist supporters and community members held a peaceful vigil at the site of one of Arizona's longest standing embarassments and epicenter of human rights violations calling for it to be shut down, Sheriff Arpaio's "tent city.

Massive Crowd at Tent City Protest!






*******************

POLITICO.COM "Mitt's no policy problem" : About Balancing the Budget : "Vague, general or downright evasive policy prescriptions on some of the most important issues facing the country are becoming the rule for Romney."

.
My comment about this excellent article :

Mitt Romney hides all the specifics and details about his Budget Plans, once in the White House. He distrusts the public and has the idea that if he tells his plans, he won't be elected. Romney lives in a world of Platitudes and Generalities about managing the Budget, eliminating many agencies and services for the Poor and the Middle Class.

His economic ideas seem to me to be the same "Trickle Down Economics" that caused the Great Failure of the past George W. Bush Administration, a proven recipe for Failure and Depression.

POLITICO.COM
Mitt's no policy problem
By JONATHAN MARTIN and ALEXANDER BURNS
June 24, 2012


Mitt's no policy problem


Some excerpts :

Romney is remarkably candid, almost as though he’s reading the stage directions, about why he won’t offer up details: he thinks it will undermine his chances to win.

*******************

It’s a lesson the former Massachusetts governor said he took from his first, painful foray into electoral politics in 1994.

“One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,” Romney told the Weekly Standard this spring.

That’s not to say Romney doesn’t have plans: he suggested at an April fundraiser overheard by reporters that the departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development might be eliminated or merged with other agencies, and even said he’d pay for proposed tax cuts by eliminating the second home mortgage deduction.

But as he enters the heat of this year’s campaign, Romney is testing just how far he can go in not telling voters what policies he’d pursue in the White House.

*************************

But Republicans not affiliated with Romney’s campaign aren’t so sure about that level of detail, and worry that Romney thinks running out the clock is sufficient to win.

************************

For Democrats, Romney’s refusal is a both a source of frustration and a target to shoot at. It’s hard to make the contest a “choice” campaign when the challenger is so determined to minimize his own issue profile in the race.

Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo urged Obama to challenge Romney aggressively to “give me your plan” for the country. Right now, Cuomo said, Romney’s “playing the Nixon game. Nixon said, ‘I have a plan but you won’t know it until you elect me as president.’ ”

“His whole case is, ‘Trust me, I made myself rich,’ ” Cuomo said of Romney.

************************

On multiple major issue areas, Romney has left holes in the public record about what he’d do as president:

************************

Balancing the budget

It’s on the matter of how he’d get the country’s fiscal house in order that Romney has been so candid about why he won’t be specific. In the Weekly Standard interview this spring, he said he’d eliminate entire agencies – but then declined to say which ones.

“I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies,” he told reporter Stephen Hayes. But, noting what the Kennedy race taught him, Romney added: “I’m not going to give you a list right now.”

**********************

If not the Rosetta Stone to his presidential intentions, Romney’s remarks at a Florida fundraiser in April made clear that he’s just not saying publicly what his ideas are about how exactly he’d balance the budget.

“Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later,” Romney told the donors.

And the Education Department? “I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I’m not going to get rid of it entirely.”

***********************

The Republican Party will resurrect in next years with better guys that understand that being so confrontational and aggressive is not good for the nation. Being Conservative or Republican is compatible with a good intellect and intelligence

.

A coup at the Republican Convention is possible but very difficult, because Mitt Romney and friends have billions in dollars to give the fight.

Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich may be Intelligent, Shrewd, Smart and Clever Politicians, but they are underfunded.

I am sure that the Republican Party has many men that are much better than Mitt Romney in every sense except money.

Republicans should understand in the next years that treating Minorities as Garbage to be thrown out is not conductive to the Greatness of an Empire.

Young and better Republicans should also understand that Plutocracy is also harmful for American Greatness and Power, and that this is a deleterious sickness and poison for Liberty and Freedom.

It is sad to see Republican Congress People sick with Lies, Hypocrisy, Cynicism, Shameless Behavior. They can only be represented as a party by Narcissus Mitt Romney, identical and equal to their perversion.

For example : for many years the most prominent people in the Republican Party preached Health Care with an Individual Mandate : an Obligation to buy health insurance.

But since a Great Man and a Great President, Mr Obama, has achieved a great Historical Feat, then they oppose it, and a U. S. Supreme Court that is poisoned with "Conservative Judicial Activism" may sink it.

These Congress Republicans are just envious of the Greatness of President Obama. They remind me of Great Philosopher Seneca who lived in the times of Emperor Nero in Rome, at the time when Christians were martyred for their faith.

Seneca said : "The envious are like the little lap dogs of Roman Matrons : They bark to Julius Caesar or to Emperor Augustus when they enter a Roman House" ....

Vicente Duque


***************

Romney's Excellent Credentials as a Racist : In the 2008 campaign, he accused Rudy Giuliani of making New York a “sanctuary city” and Mike Huckabee of supporting “in-state benefits for illegal immigrants.” One of his ads called John McCain a champion of “amnesty for illegals.”

.

New York Times, "The (Sort of) New Mitt", by Gail Collins, June 22, 2012, Excerpts :

Romney explained last year his strategy for winning Hispanics over : "It is to tell them “what they know in their heart, which is they or their ancestors did not come here for a handout.” 

Hard to get more appealing than that.

This was Primary Mitt, who had a long history of whacking his Republican opponents with soft-on-illegal-immigrants charge.

Last year, Romney tried the same tactics on Rick Perry : “I got to be honest with you. I don’t see how it is that a state like Texas — you go to the University of Texas, if you’re an illegal alien, you get an in-state tuition discount,” he complained during one of the debates.

Perry suggested that when it came to undocumented students who had been brought to the country as children, Romney had no heart. Also, he tried to get some mileage out of the fact that Mitt had once employed illegal immigrants to tend his yard. But it was, you know, Rick Perry, so, of course, nothing worked.

*******************

My Own Comment and Opinion :

Romney is a constant Liar, Hypocrite and Cynic. He is the worst possible demagogue trying to rule America and impose all types of gifts, tax cuts, deregulations and benefits for the 1% while dispossessing the 99% of Government services and loading them with more taxes and obligations.

This guy has an authoritarian personality, his brain areas of a Bully, "Brutal Barber" and "Fake Cop" are managing this robot of Narcissism, Selfishness, Egocentrism, Self-Adoration, Egolatry, Idolatry of his own Ego.

Mitt Romney never has done anything for a good cause.... And his religion founded by Scoundrels, Swindlers, Liars and Abusers of Women like "Prophet" Joseph Smith explain a lot about his personality and ideas.

Romney is the "Trojan Horse" of the rich 1% to fool and dominate the other 99%. The "Welfare Queens" will be the 1% receiving all possible money gifts from Romney.

Mitt Romney, the Jingoist, Warmonger, Super Patriot and Aggressive against many other nations is also a Super Coward that evaded the draft for Vietnam while being in demonstrations to send other brave youngsters to that horrible Hell, the tomb of many excellent and worthy Americans.

Who wants to vote for this despicable man ??

******************

My source :

New York Times
The (Sort of) New Mitt
by Gail Collins
June 22, 2012


The (Sort of) New Mitt


************************

VIDEO, Lawrence O'Donnell : The Last Word - What happened to 'self-deportation'? - Mitt Romney before NALEO ( National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. - Karen Finney and Ari Melber from "The Nation"

-

Mitt Romney continues fumbling on Immigration ::

Published on Jun 22, 2012 by Licentiathe8th

June 21, 2012

A key phrase is missing from Mitt Romney's speech on immigration today. Former DNC communications director Karen Finney and The Nation's Ari Melber join MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell to discuss Romney's choice of words.

The Last Word - What happened to 'self-deportation'?

*********************

Famous American Novelist Steve Erickson attacks Mitt Romney as a Trojan Horse : "calculatedly vacuous campaign", Romney has no new ideas, but those of Bush. - Romney is an "opportunist that voters will find unpersuasive if not contemptible"

.

"Frustrated enough, voters will take a leap of faith, but not blind faith." [ with Trojan Horse Mitt Romney ] - "Who can predict what surprises would come out if the Republican candidate wins the White House?."

Californian Novelist Steve Erickson (born 1950), Novels : Our Ecstatic Days (2005); Zeroville (2007); These Dreams of You (2012). Erickson has contributed to The New York Times Magazine, Esquire, Rolling Stone and Los Angeles.

Currently he is a teacher with the MFA Writing Program at the California Institute of the Arts (CalArts) and is the editor of the national literary magazine Black Clock. He has written about film for Los Angeles magazine since 2001.

Steve Erickson is also an essayist and film critic. He is the recipient of the American Academy of Arts and Letters's Award in Literature and a fellowship from the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation. And is considered an important representative of the Avantpop movement.

The American Prospect
Romney, 2012's Trojan Horse
By Steve Erickson
June 21, 2012

Romney, 2012's Trojan Horse

Some excerpts :

Mitt Romney is running as the Trojan Horse candidate of 2012, the big empty gift to America who will be wheeled into the gates of Election Night only for the bottom to pop out the next morning and whatever lurks inside to reveal itself. Watching his small disaster of an interview on Face the Nation this past weekend, we can only conclude he believes he will win the presidency by answering and offering nothing in the most calculatedly vacuous campaign since Richard Nixon’s in 1968. The difference is that in 1968 the American public knew Nixon all too well and, compared with the specifics of Nixon that people had understood for years, a vague Nixon was considered a step in the right direction. The more vague he got, the more people talked about a “New Nixon,” and whatever the New Nixon might possibly be could only be better than the old one.

*************

Even as Obama is held responsible for not sufficiently turning around the country’s financial circumstances, Obama’s predecessor is held responsible for creating them, which wouldn’t matter if Romney had an inkling let alone an idea that sounded new. The prospective Republican nominee appears to be under the impression that the fewer ideas he can get away with—new or otherwise—the better; thus he strikes bold stances that are silly or scary on issues of less concern like Russia while taking no stance whatsoever on what are considered more pressing matters at hand like the economy or immigration. This is the Romney predicament, that the Trojan Horse Romney may be the best Romney that Mitt Romney has, any or all other existing Romneys incapacitated by either an unforgiving base or an opportunism that voters will find unpersuasive if not contemptible.

**************

Pyrrhic Victory : The U. S. Supreme Court decision on SB 1070 will cause a Great Movement of Civil Rights - It is not true that "Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita" ... Rome spoke and the trial is finished

.

The activists of Civil Rights will be boosted by some Big Rockets of the Economy : Agriculture, Landscaping, Gardening, Tourism, Hotels, Restaurants, Poultry Processing, Service Industries and others that need manpower and labor.

There are many Civil Rights lawsuits now being prepared against SB 1070 in anticipation of a decision that favors Arizona and the interests of Governor Jan Brewer and the Nativists.

Many Amicus Briefs of important officials of past U. S. Administrations, of many City Councils and County Commissioners can't be thrown to the garbage can overnight.

This could be the restart of more Boycotts against Arizona, Alabama and Georgia, the new starters of this Nativist "Know Nothing" Tide.

And this will have a great impact on the Presidential Race, this would be the alarm clock that will wake up Latinos and all other Minorities to go to the Voting Booth to vote for President Obama.

I predict that very few if any new states will fall in the Human and Economic Trap in which Arizona, Alabama and Georgia have fallen. This Pyrrhic Victory will be the Prelude to many defeats in the future for the "Bad Guys" of "You Know What"....

Vicente Duque

*****************

VIDEO : Ed Schultz and Bob Shrum - Romney is like Republican Presidential Candidate of 1948 Thomas Dewey - Platitudes without details, specifics or concrete plans. "Romney is the little man in the wedding cake"

Empty Speeches, Platitudes, Foolish remarks that everybody agrees, Zero details or specifics, and painting enemies like the Devil, Demonizing the incumbent president while telling a lot of lies.

Thomas Dewey had more campaign money than Harry Truman.

Bob Shrum : Romney's plan is to cut all the moneys that can help the 99%, and give more tax cuts and gifts to the 1%. To turn the USA into a Plutocracy.

That is why Romney is the candidate of Ambiguity, Vagueness, Undedidedness, Lack of Clarity, Obscurity, No Answers, No details, No specifics, No Concrete Plans or Ideas. He can't tell what he is going to do.

When attacking the President Romney is Lies, Lies, Lies, Hypocrisy and Cynicism every day.

Bob Shrum : "Mitt Romney is the little man in the wedding cake".

Published on Jun 19, 2012 by Licentiathe8th

June 19, 2012

Mitt Romney keeps saying he has a plan, but he keeps refusing to give us answers on some of the most critical issues facing this country. It seems like he's simply following in the footsteps of another famous politician: Republican candidate Thomas Dewey. Dewey was famous for making sweeping statements that sounded really good, but he never got specific. Democratic strategist Bob Shrum explains why Dewey's approach worked and why Romney is using it now.

The Ed Show - Romney does the 'Dewey'

*********************

Think Progress : Josh Israel : The 7 Major Issues Mitt Romney Won’t Take A Position On : Here are seven major issues on which Romney has refused to take a stand: - Mitt is the Master of No Answers, No Stands, No Positions, Vagueness, Ambiguity, Obscurity

.

Mitt Romney does not define clearly his positions and constantly talks Blather. - Mitt is the master of talking stupid campaign lines without defining his positions. It is possible that he has not thought the issues, has no idea and has no stands.

If you add the many lies that Mitt Romney says everyday then we can consider this as lack of respect for the Public. Mitt believes that People are basically stupid.

Mitt Romney thinks like this ; "if I told people what I'd do they wouldn't vote for me" and he also thinks that spelling out his positions will be politically damaging.

One guy comments this : "Mitt Romney thinks Americans are all idiots. If he wins, he would prove that belief".

Think Progress
The 7 Major Issues Mitt Romney Won’t Take A Position On
Jun 18, 2012


By Josh Israel

Josh Israel is a senior investigative reporter for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Previously, he was a reporter and oversaw money-in-politics reporting at the Center for Public Integrity, was chief researcher for Nick Kotz’s acclaimed 2005 book Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Laws that Changed America, and was president of the Virginia Partisans Gay & Lesbian Democratic Club. A New England-native, Josh received a B.A. in politics from Brandeis University and was graduated from the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia, in 2004. He has appeared on CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox News, and many radio shows across the country.

The 7 Major Issues Mitt Romney Won’t Take A Position On



**************************

Business Week : ObamaMigra Favored 2-to-1 by Likely Voters : Sixty-four percent of likely voters surveyed after Obama’s June 15 announcement said they agreed with the policy, while 30 percent said they disagreed

.
Independents backed the decision by better than a two-to-one margin. Republicans are losing this Political Poker Power Game.

Bloomberg News
Obama Immigration Policy Favored 2-to-1 by Likely Voters
By Lisa Lerer
June 19, 2012


Obama Immigration Policy Favored 2-to-1 by Likely Voters


Some excerpts :

President Barack Obama is winning the opening round in the battle over immigration, according to a Bloomberg poll released today, putting Republicans on the defensive with his decision to end the deportations of some illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children,

Sixty-four percent of likely voters surveyed after Obama’s June 15 announcement said they agreed with the policy, while 30 percent said they disagreed. Independents backed the decision by better than a two-to-one margin.

The results underscore the challenge facing Mitt Romney and Republicans as they try to woo Hispanic voters, who are the nation’s largest ethnic minority and made up 9 percent of the 2008 electorate, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of exit polls. Obama won the Hispanic vote 67 to 31 percent over Republican John McCain in 2008, according to exit polls.

********************

I think that there will be a big turnout of Latinos in November. They could vote 75% or Higher for Obama and increase the turnout in more than 2 million additional votes, specially in Swing States like Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and why not to flip Arizona

.
And to advance the date when Texas will become a Swing State

But it depends on everyone of us to make propaganda, visit and persuade friends, canvassing, door to door salesmanship for the Democratic Party.

And registration of New Voters and Youngsters - Right Now !

Even if you are not Latino the possibility exists that you are a Black Guy, Asian, Native American Indian, Mixed Race, etc ... and you can be easily confused as a Latino by Brutal and Ignorant Policemen that are going to bother you with Racial Profiling, or even worse you end up in jail for forgetting to carry your "Papers Please" ....

I have published some articles on Riots, Segregations, Harassments, Persecutions and Violence against some White People in the past : against the Irish in Philadelphia and New York. Riots and hangings of Italians in New Orleans and Louisiana, and others.

I hope that their descendants remember how their ancestors were mistreated by brutal Nativists, Know-Nothing Ignorants, Racists, Ku Klux Klan, or White Supremacists.

Now that the Republican Party has become and Agency of Racism, Hatred, Prejudice, Bigotry, and Fanaticism. These Historical facts are important for voter decisions.

I will be publishing more articles about the Historical suffering of many White Europeans and others that were rejected, persecuted, harassed, murdered or hanged for being White Immigrants. Even if you consider that this is past History, it is good to remember in these troubled times of hatred and lies of Mitt Romney and the Republicans.

****************

VIDEO : Lawrence O'Donnell : "If Romney destroys ObamaCare his first day in the White House, then move to Massachusetts to enjoy RomneyCare which is identical" - Mitt NO ANSWERS : ambiguity, vagueness, lack of clarity on his economic ideas

.

Mitt Romney gives no answer to the most obvious questions. He has no ideas on important issues and his campaign staff does not prepare this candidate.

Mitt Romney evades and dodges many questions and does not tell where he gets revenues to fill the holes caused by his many Tax Deductions for the Rich.

Romney Strategy is this : don't clarify, don't give specifics. - Mitt's big contempt for the intelligence of the Public, because he does not explain or clarify, no specifics but lots of blather and bloviation. Mitt only talks platitudes and campaign lies.

The Last Word No answers from Romney on immigration

Published on Jun 19, 2012 by Licentiathe8th

June 18, 2012

After Mitt Romney's campaign staff figures out with an answer on immigration, they can work on Romney's answer on the budget. CBS' Bob Schieffer stumped Mitt Romney once again when he asked a very basic question about taxes. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell discusses with The Nation's Ari Melber and former DNC Communications Director Karen Finney.

The Last Word No answers from Romney on immigration 

*******************