Honest Government Ad | US Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court has made an ad, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative. This video was produced by Juice Media. This was originally published on August 2, 2022.
The US Supreme Court has made an ad, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative. This video was produced by Juice Media. This was originally published on August 2, 2022.
No posts
Mr. Flassbeck, former head of UNCTAD, says we’re going into the Japanese scenario, a stagnation with a kind of deflation because we have no purchasing power in the hands of the mass of the consumers. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 31, 2014, with Paul Jay.
On RAI with Paul Jay, Senator Bob Graham explains why he persists in making the case that facts directly connect the Saudi government with 9/11 conspirators – a REPLAY of a 2013 interview by Paul Jay on Reality Asserts Itself.
From fintech to food systems and social media to all domains essential for society and the economy, the State of Big Tech compendium of fifteen essays offers a vision and blueprint for the 99% to break out of privatized status-quoist enclosures.
Reagan was the master of racist “dog whistles,” plausible deniability that allowed Reagan to protect himself. It has allowed the Republican Party for the last four decades to deny who Ronald Reagan was and turn him into a hero. Matt Tyrnauer, director of “The Reagans” on Showtime, joins Paul Jay on theAnalysis.news. This interview was originally published on February 9, 2021.
Mr. Shallal, owner of Busboys and Poets restaurants and candidate for DC mayor, tells Paul Jay that after coming to America as a child, the shocking death of MLK led him to discover how much race permeates everything. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced March 25, 2014.
Mr. Flassbeck, former head of UNCTAD, says current economic policy is heading back to the 1930s, a race to the bottom, they have no solution at all, we will end up again in trade wars or other wars. This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced July 29, 2014, with Paul Jay.
SCOTUS has done the important dirty work of undermining democracy. The founders feared democracy, except for Thomas Paine. The Constitution left undetermined who would decide what it meant, probably to avoid a controversy at ratification. John Marshall seized an opportunity in Marbury v. Madison (1803) to declare the Court powerless to issue a mandamus, because the Constitution denied it that power, he pronounced. By finding the Court powerless in that regard, he assumed a far greater power: the power to decide what the Constitution permits and denies.
Thus, in 1857, Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Court decided that Mr Scott was not a citizen because he was Black, according to the Constitution.
In 1886, a Court Reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, was permitted by the Court to decide whether to report that the equal protection of the laws (the 14th amendment) applied to corporations. The subject of corporate rights was a hot one that no Justice wanted to address by name, so Chief Justice Waite let the Reporter reveal the Court’s view.
In 2000, the Supreme Court took upon itself the management of the presidential election and effectively appointed George W. Bush.
In 2010, the Supreme Court found that contribution vast sums of money to finance a political campaign was the same as free speech.
In their black robes, they have done their black deeds.
If I may be permitted a further comment:
As there is nothing prescribed in the Constitution about who shall be the determiner of the Constitution’s meaning and John Marshall seized the opportunity to make himself that determiner in Marbury, and it stuck by default. Why did congress let that power devolve on SCOTUS? The final determinant of everything is M O N E Y, and who controls that? Why congress and especially, the House. The ruling class, fearful of democracy, definitely did not want the politicians closest to the people deciding what the Constitution meant, and the Representatives did not want it themselves. They seem much to have preferred a collection of lifetime appointees making such far reaching decisions than, themselves, to be held accountable. The truth is that congress could ignore the Supreme Court’s opinions on the Constitution, and there is nothing the Supreme Court could do! If the high court continued to displease congress, it could cut their pay.