AG Schimel argues Walker illegal campaign coordination legal now, retroactively, to US Supreme Court.

Nothing says political elite than seeing Scott Walker order his Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel to declare his past illegal activity legal. And that's after his march-in-lockstep legislature passed a law allowing campaign coordination with issue advocacy groups, which at the time was illegal.

According to the WSJ story, elites can get off breaking our laws by just changing it later; “Walker and the Republican-controlled legislature have since changed the law making the alleged activity legal.”

Attorney General Brad Schimel asked the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to reject a review of a halted criminal investigation into Gov. Scott Walker’s recall campaign, Schimel’s filing argues the court should reject the appeal because Walker and the Republican-controlled Legislature have since changed the law making the alleged activity legal and prohibiting the use of secret “John Doe” proceedings in investigating campaign finance violations.

Yes, Schimel offered that argument up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Wow.  Skip the legalities, right? And how does prohibiting John Doe investigations of campaign violations help his argument? But the following reason was a head spinner: 

“The people of Wisconsin thus made as clear as they possibly could that they wish to put this unfortunate chapter behind them,” Schimel wrote.

The “people?” Oh, he means those highly partisan representatives controlling all branches of government. Got it:

Walker’s 2012 recall campaign violated election laws regulating coordination between campaigns and so-called issue advocacy groups that have backed Republicans and conservative Supreme Court justices. 

Supreme Court pours more Campaign Cash into elections, contradict yesterdays voters who declared "Money is not free speech."

Americans seem bewildered by the conservative activist Supreme Court’s decision on Citizen’s United. Few people believe the founding fathers tried to give corporations the same rights as people. 

Just as outrageous is the idea that corporations would then have free speech rights in the form of money.

Constitutional Amendment: Wisconsinites overwhelmingly approved county wide referendums supporting an amendment to the constitution... 

“declaring that only human beings, not corporations, unions, nonprofits or similar associations are endowed with constitutional rights.”

And that…

“Money is not free speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”

Edgerton, Waunakee, DeForest, Belleville and Windsor all supported the above constitutional amendment.

                                                                                                                                                                                            

But if today is any indication, the Robert’s court and the conservative majority have a different view of the founding fathers intentions, and the dystopian future they’re helping to create. The latest case focused on contributions, rather than spending.

Voting 5-4 along ideological lines, the Supreme Court struck down decades-old limits on the total money donors can give to federal candidates and parties, issuing its biggest campaign-finance ruling since the 2010 Citizens United decision … the caps violated the speech rights of Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican official seeking to give candidates, parties and political committees more than the $123,200 maximum.

The court stopped short of undercutting a 1976 ruling that allows caps on contributions to individual candidates.  Justice Thomas (said) in a separate opinion that he would have gone further and overturned the 1976 ruling.

 The overall limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s lead opinion … it will give more freedom to wealthy donors looking to use their money to make a political impact. Taken together with Citizens United, the decision “eviscerates our nation’s campaign-finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent. 

Americans Concerned about Romney Influence on Supreme Court.

I'm impressed! Americans have figured out how important the presidency is when it comes to who's on the U.S. Supreme Court:

Poll: Americans Fear Romney Would Further Shift Supreme Court Toward Big Business

Survey finds high court is a significant factor for voters … A newly released Hart Research Associates poll found that the Supreme Court is a significant factor for voters in the upcoming election. 

It found that 63 percent of all voters, and more than half of independent voters and presidential “swing” voters, say the issue of who will serve on the Supreme Court is an important consideration in their vote this year … a full 54 percent worry that Romney will nominate justices who will consistently favor corporations over ordinary Americans.

In contrast, voters believe that Obama is more likely to choose justices who “will protect the rights of average people, not just the wealthy and powerful.” And they believe President Obama is much more likely to appoint justices who “would uphold the progress we have made on civil rights and women’s rights.” The voters surveyed were also concerned about Romney’s opposition to Supreme Court decisions favoring women’s rights, including Roe v. Wade … Indeed, 59 percent of all voters, and 62 percent of swing voters, say Romney’s belief that women have no constitutional right to have an abortion gives them less confidence in Romney.

After Montana Campaign Law Struck, Can we Finally say, "This is a radically activist conservative Supreme Court?

Here's Ed Schultz with Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer on the activist Supreme Court's reversal of their 100 year old law. This really is the end of democracy as we know it, and the beginning of a new "Investment State."



I don't usually include pundit comments, but this time E.J. Dionne added a few things I've been saying here for years. This is authoritarian conservative elitism on steroids:

Conservatives Going After Justice Elena Kagan.

We all know how bad and biased Justice Clarence Thomas is. Still, no one has suggest he be removed from the court immediately. But the heavy breathing conservative barbarians aren't quite as tolerant, as demonstrated by their fantastically over the top attack on Justice Elena Kagan. Untethered from reality, right wing propaganda has perfected the art of fear mongering in this piece from Newmax:

Stop the Supreme Court's Control over the Legislative Branch.

I'm completely on board with Thom Hartmann when it comes to his interpretation of the constitution and the power of the Supreme Court. In short, the Supreme court does not have the power to overturn laws made by congress. They may be an equal branch, but they are also controlled by the rules set by congress. Currently, 9 unelected justices, with lifetime jobs that do not answer to the public, can overrule the will of the people. The founders gave the most power to the legislative branch, where the people have the ability to vote out politicians that pass laws they don't like.

That was my summation. If you can point your nearest conservative to this video, do it, where Thom Hartmann explains in detail how the constitution deals with the co-equal branches of government.

Scalia's advice to our health care problem cruel and sick.

And you thought the presidential debate crowd that cheered the death of a poor and needy person who couldn't afford health care was cruel, check out the ultimate inhumanity pouring from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The Daily Show came up with the audio:



When Scalia was presented with the reality that our society felt obligated to help even those who needed medical help, but didn't have insurance, he had this response:

Scalia: "Well don't obligate yourself." 

I'll bet most Americans probably never thought society would take this kind of ugly turn. The movie "Road Warrior" doesn't seem as fictional or impossible anymore.

We've got a Supreme Court filled with Tea Party Justices, folks. They protected us from government mandated broccoli.

Wow, Chris Hayes said everything I've been saying here for days about the rhetoric used by the Supreme Court Justices, and how it mimics the brainless ranting of tea party extremists.

I've been in a funk for the last few days, just barely cranking stuff out here, after feeling stunned by the arguments used by the highest court in the land. I'm still in disbelief.

Thankfully, this ten minute piece is on the cathartic side. Edited slightly, you will feel better knowing you weren't the only one shocked by the four vocal conservative activist justices cluelessness.

Yeah Justice Scalia, the Affordable Care Act is 2,800 pages long. Big Joke?

Tea Party Justice Antonin Scalia spouted loony right wing rhetoric about how many pages were in the Affordable Care Act the other day, on top of claiming the government will soon require people to buy broccoli if "Obamacare" stays in place. This is a Supreme Court Justice, remember?

Even more pathetic? After he got a few laughs from fellow conservative partisans over his reference to the 2,800 pages (real funny stuff), it jazzed him up, and encouraged him to pile on even more. Is this an adult professional, or an arrogant irresponsible elitist a little too comfortable in his position?

I predict this court will throw out the entire law, legislating from the bench essentially, as a form of penalty and message to the congress; behave or else. Jefferson warned of the potential power of the judiciary; "The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."

Conservative Activist Supreme Court Justices detached from the reality of health care...

This is just one of the many heart wrenching story that will fall to the wayside, be forgotten, and soon fade with the possible passing of Violet, a 4 year old girl.  Violet health care needs have been compared to cell phones, buying a car, broccoli and health club memberships. And that's from our professional supreme court justices, not Michelle Bachmann, dumb Ron Johnson or Paul Ryan:

Public admits U.S. Supreme Court politicized, want to try Affordable Care Act.

The one big target of the Bush administration was the judicial system, where they successfully politicized the courts. That has basically poisoned the public’s trust of that branch of government. 

 Bloomberg News: Three-quarters of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court will be influenced by politics when it rules on the constitutionality of a health-care law signed by President Barack Obama two years ago.

The sentiment crosses party lines and is especially held by independents, 80 percent of whom say the court will not base its ruling solely on legal merits, according to a Bloomberg National Poll. More Republicans than Democrats, by 74 percent to 67 percent, say politics will play a role in the court’s health- care decision.

The poll also sought opinions of the health-care law. 37 percent of respondents said it should be repealed, the same percentage as the first time Bloomberg asked the question in July 2010. 11 percent said it should be left alone. Just under half, 46 percent, said the law “may need small modifications, but we should see how it works.”

That's 57 percent who support "Obamacares." Republicans have easily set the agenda for the 2012 presidential election so far, with this near perfect talking point list of issues:

Health care ranked fourth on a list of issues that respondents named as the most important facing the country, behind unemployment, the federal deficit and gas prices.