Why Is Ex-Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Pissed Off?

Why Is Ex-Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Pissed Off?

Articles, Blog , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 100 Comments


John Paul Stevens was a supreme court
justice for 35 years he’s no longer on the court he retired
he is over 90 years old buddies supremely pissed well there is any so matt is be the decision
the Supreme Court has made in cases like citizens united and
recently McCartin any came out and talked about that in the context of a
new book that he’s got coming out you talk to the New York Times for small
he wrote about citizens united and remember he was a dissenting opinion
and citizens united there are four justices who dissented
and he wrote that opinion for those four justices he said this is
united was quote s giant step in the wrong direction and he went on further to explain that
actually citizens united was a minor case they did not have to be about this major
decision to allow even for their money being basically poured
into our you know campaigns any said court
essentially five justices were unhappy with the limited nature the
case before us so they change the case to give themselves an opportunity to
change the law now see that’s really interesting
because it’s not just a technical issue that we’re talking about their wartime out there is that those five
just some the Supreme Court who allowed this unlimited spending in
our politics wanted to do that they were activist judges who couldn’t
wait for an opportunity to go ahead and make sure that they
could turn on that faucet so more corporate money more wealthy donor money could pour into
our politicians and buy them more effectively in fact this case was not a very good
case to do that he got at one point it came up in 2009 the descent makes a good point about how
was not the right case they decide on this issue that the majority had to agree and send
it back down and then it came back up in 2010 and then at that point I like a hotbed
it up let’s just say get all the Boston for the money for the little I’m what a
buyer and justice kennedy with that comical disastrous decision that the millions of dollars spent on those
campaigns not only would not corrupt politicians
but wouldn’t even give the appearance of corruption with about 96 percent of
Americans seeing that appearance of corruption.
some chance he was wrong about that now recently and other John Paul Stevens
of the court things got even worse undercut should
wear they lifted some of the very few caps that were left in the unlimited spending the people
could do and more importantly corporations can do in buying our politicians about that
case Stephen said the voter is less important the man who
provides money to the candidate it so really wrong now the New York
Times explains that he has a solution to this what is it I was very interesting is
that happens to be the same solution that we have quote he call for a constitutional
amendment to address what he said was the grave threat to american democracy caused by the
torrent have money in politics so here’s a guy who spent about thirty five years on the
Supreme Court any saying you gotta go above the
supreme court’s head you got to do an amendment for those of
you that are still waiting out there well maybe the publishers will do the
right thing I new or maybe the supreme court will
change years ago I was on the supreme court for 35 years saying don’t wait for it to change you’ve got
to pass an amendment so we couldn’t agree more obviously
we’ve got Wolfpack Wolfpack dot com that says the same exact thing show
Justice John Paul Stevens who was the guy who wrote the dissenting
opinion in Citizens United now well what would
you do amendment say and New York Times explains that as well
the new amendment would allow Congress and the states impose reasonable limits on the amount of money
the candidates for public office or their supporters may spend in
election campaigns because you cannot spend unlimited money and not how the politicians be corrupted
of course are going to get corrupted is I just us saying that its people who
are on the supreme court saying that he saying go above our heads go above
our heads you got to do an amendment now luckily the founding fathers put an
opportunity in there in the constitution to do an amendment
where you don’t have to go through washington it’s called article 5 convention I like
that let’s do that from now on all right article 5 and that says that you can do
it through the staging call for convention for specific amendment like the one that Justice Stevens
proposes and make sure that that goes in the constitution so that even the Supreme Court can’t
mess with it and that we clean up elections time to act wabash back dot com

100 thoughts on “Why Is Ex-Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Pissed Off?

  • Christopher Hovde Post author

    First time in a long time that TYT made ANY sense.

  • l0gically Post author

    Fascinating…I'm thinking the same thing probably happened with the United States vs Miller and Smith vs Maryland cases, where the so-called "third party doctrine" was established. These are rulings that never should have seen the light of day.

  • Corey Micallef Post author

    I reckon you should invite him on to talk about this, it's not what you usually do, but you might get more attention to wolf pac

  • FredC1968 Post author

    They're only activist judges when you don't agree with them.

  • peter tuann Post author

    yup, conservatives can be activists too, so much for Roberts & Alito being "umpires"

  • Henry A. Post author

    What's insane are the people who disagree w/ this solely based on how liberals feel. When in fact, there are many right wing pundits and politicians who feel the same way. Sadly, proponents of more money in politics will use the left vs the right to continue destroying our democratic process. 

  • hawkesworth1712 Post author

    When a corrupt government is protected by a corrupt judiciary people start to think about having another teaparty.

  • Coffeeisnecessarynow Post author

    If Shutterfly does more with Dell, imagine how much more they can do with Cenk!

  • Roland Weeds Post author

    FUCK YEAH!

  • Giuseppe Post author

    Read Thomas Piketty's book! He shows that inequality is the tendency of capitalism everywhere! Even where there is public financing.

  • TheLookingOne Post author

    Until then…
    In each upcoming election,
    FIND THE LEAST BOUGHT BASTARD AND VOTE THEM IN.

  • JohnnyBloomington Post author

    He also said legalize Marijuana!

  • SciTechSuperFreak Post author

    I dont trust PACs and therefore I dont trust Wolf-PAC. You cannot feed the problem and expect it to undermine and resolve itself. PACs are part of the problem. It is like putting the fox in charge of the hen-house. Sorry Cenk. You dont get my money to be a king-maker. Corporations are not People. Money is not Speech. MoveToAmend.org

  • Helios5868 Post author

    What's funny, this is one of the justices that said that money is speech in Buckley v. Valeo. The way you would get money out of politics would be to amend the idea that money is 1st amendment speech out of Buckley, which he helped put in. 

    He's not wrong, but he is a hypocrite.

  • ZennTempleRiffs Post author

    Great to hear! We are all pulling for you guys in America to fix your democracy. I am fighting my own battle in Canada to stop us becoming like you are now. America has such a massive effect on global economy and geo-politics that this affects the entire world if corporations control your government. Good luck and keep up the fight!

  • Alan Louis Post author

    if americans are so stupid they vote on people based on the flashy advertisements and colourful banners instead of voting on their policies then they get what they deserve. 

  • MykTheOccultist Post author

    Citizens United, that name is so full of shit. Kind of like Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, or Mayors Against Illegal Guns. All misleading and full of shit.

  • Bryan Miguel Post author

    They dont pay the taxes they should for sales in  the U.S..  So they should not be afforded protection by the First Amendment or any of them for that matter.

  • rollofnickles Post author

    As I watch this video the ratings are  
    673 thumbs UP
                                                             
    5 thumbs DOWN

    The Roberts Court watches TYT

  • charlidog2 Post author

    Cenk, contact him and get some money and a famous face. Contact Bill Maher too, his weekly exposure would be invaluable. Same with Stewart and Colbert. This is the most important issue out there, our only chance to stop being slaves and start being citizens again. I can't thank you enough for your efforts. 

  • Kevin Wilson Post author

    off topic but, why is this channel named "The young Turks" they did horrible thing, worse than what the Ottomans did and where one of the dominos that caused WW1.

  • vanteesomeone Post author

    Scalia and Kennedy, you are old. Please die.

    Thanks.

  • PaddyCollector Post author

    The amendment which stevens proposes is not very good.  allow local politicians to set campaign spending limits?  What a crock. 

  • Hermann Kateri Post author

    Magistrate's Orders

  • Jig Saw Post author

    This just in, old man is pissed off more at 5

  • Christopher Sudlik Post author

    Does wolf-pac have bumper stickers, window clings, etc? I would totally buy some to help spread the word.

  • Roha Waha Post author

    It is obvious to everyone that the Obama is using NSA intelligence to blackmail the Supreme Court and Congress, they are also knocking out Presidential Candidates.
    This administration is quite evil and will you anything to destroy anyone to bring America down to socialist third world status.

  • 803brando Post author

    tyt should make wolf-pac shirts and put them in the tyt store.

  • Peter McLoughlin Post author

    The five on the supreme court have dealt maybe a lethal blow that may very well destroy our democracy and maybe sink our country.

  • SirGrips Post author

    The Supreme Court could rule it unconstitutional. What is the plan if that happens? TBH if the Supreme Court does that the Secret Service should assassinate the members who did. I am sorry, I see no other way.

  • mblack713 Post author

    That's the great thing about the US constitution.  Nothing's set in stone; laws could be changed, and things could be added to the constitution.  It's up to us humans to figure everything out for ourselves.  The world around us changes, and we evolve, so it's good to have something like the constitution that reflects all that, and Go Wolf-pac!

  • catothewiser Post author

    The problem is government has too much power – when they have that power people will try to bribe them.  Remove the power – solve the problem.  You guys think you can legislate this problem away.  NEVER. 

  • Apollo Sun Post author

    The Supreme Court has been corrupted, so we just need to go above the Supreme Court's head and pass a constitutional amendment

  • A Gorilla Post author

    hmm. "history repeats itself". it's interesting to think that we (general population) always somehow believe that "THIS is a time like NEVER before, the TIME IS NOW!", and while that may be true, the powerful always maintain grip, they always find away, but it's never complete dominance… always a dance on the fulcrum.

    will we ever become truly free of the powerful? maybe, maybe not. Yin and Yang holds true in so many facets of reality… Try DMT.

  • Grimblenork Post author

    People, even if you have never read a book freely before, I IMPLORE you to consider buying this book.  Knowing this information will help the layman give clear opinions on these issues much easier, and clearly there's a dire need for that if we want to do something about this amendment!  

  • glassplotful Post author

    1) A large portion of campaign donations come from educational institutions. Obama's biggest donor was the University of California, for example, a public university system. By limiting campaign donations you are limiting corporate as well as non-corporate spending.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638

    2) Virtually every government action or inaction can appear to be influenced by a corporation, by virtue of the fact that there is at least one corporation that benefits from every bill passed by Congress. Remember, just because the big-bad corporation benefits from a bill does not in any way imply that the big-bad corporation 'bought out' politicians to pass the bill.

    3) Most people can't name even 2 cases of known government corruption. Think about it: when was the last time a high-ranking politician was actually caught accepting money from a corporation in exchange for pushing through their pet bill?

  • Truth Seeker Post author

    cenk, i believe wolf pac can do away with corruption of politicians but u guys need to be louder or something. were heavily out matched by super rich corporations. we live in an era where money's above god, family and each other…..i also want to stop corruption but i need more people. if i get enough followers i will support wolf pac before acting in other ways. peaceful tactics are still available but the govt and the feds have counter measures to stop us from stopping them. im so upset that people cant see it. they are brainwashed into thinking that they cant make a difference. this is because they are made helpless because they have no money. our govt has been corrupted by rich people who dont give a fuck about us. just look at what ''donald sterling'' (the clippers owner) said about minorities. this should be the beginning of our stand as the people who fund the same system that oppresses us……god is real….god is the truth…..peace.

  • Justin Villa Post author

    John Paul Stevens, best Judge ever!

  • Patrick DaMao Post author

    John Paul Steven is awesome

  • Lieutenant BaconWaffles Post author

    Yup….sure we'll all looking forward to unlimited political contributions & no net neutrality.

  • madchuck Post author

    Wolf-Pac dot com.   He's basically saying what Cenk has been saying.

  • Rundstedt1 Post author

    "The really dangerous American fascist… is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information.
    With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power… 
    They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. 
    Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection." – US Vice President Henry Wallace. April 9, 1944 

    "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power." – FDR 

  • blasphimus Post author

    Not going to happen for the same reason everything else that's important doesn't happen. Conservatives won't work with anyone unless they feel they are beaten. They will blame the poor for not working hard enough to have more freedoms for less. Conservatives will certainly band together with liberals once the rich turn against them too.

  • nauseau Post author

    Good news, everyone!

  • Urban Deployment Post author

    We need to also get rid of the irs and income tax all together. That's really getting the money out of politics. That will insure that once they are in office, they dont have a never ending bank account. 

  • Mandy Post author

    Maybe you guys could contact him about Wolf-Pac, see if you could get him on board, and have him promote it?

  • Rocca Flocca Post author

    When you ask yourself whether Obama is worse than Bush overall or after all, or whatever… Look at the Supreme Court. Supreme Court appointees are THE most important thing a president can do, and what Roberts and Alito, along with Scalia and Thomas who were already there, have done to this country in just the time they've been there… well, there's your answer. Obama's done some bad things, but those are much more easily undone than SC appointees, and Obama's have been good, Bush's catastrophic.

  • Lord Azoun Post author

    I almost think its too late they would find someway around it. They been bought and paid for since WW2 this new law they passed for unlimited cash just makes it where they don't have to be so sneaky about it. Down with the NWO

  • jeremy tranor Post author

    Stevens was supposed to be a mainstream conservative and turned out to be one of most liberal judges.

  • Thing Post author

    IF they Amendment says that it's up to Congress and States to impose "reasonable limits" – aren't we still giving the power to the same people who are already benefiting from the corruption? What would they consider reasonable? Would they do anything?

  • ChakatBlackstar Post author

    Change the constitution? Does Cenk honestly believe that's going to happen in a day and age where some citizens put the current iteration up on a pedestal as some sort of infallible god-given document? Even the ones that don't think it's inspired by divinity still seem to act like it's perfect. There hasn't been a major amendment added in 50 years. a few minor ones, but nothing of this proposed magnitude.

  • authenticmind Post author

    Wolf PAC is calling for a half measure in my view.  Why not take all money out of election campaigns?  We the people own broadcasting opportunities in the public media and we also own public access as well as C-SPAN.  We the people are the access to register to apply for office.  We the people can provide access to a website for each public office giving the candidates a place to present his values, ideas and offer him or herself for the people.  There is room for a public option for candidates to present themselves for all of us.  Shouldn't elections be about the ideas, interests and values of the candidate as they reflect the public interest?  Finally, elections should be highly protected and we should allow unlimited access for about a month for people to vote.  It should not be in private places and surely not at a religious venue as it is in some locations.  We should set up locations that are open to the public and owned by the public in reasonably accessed locations (examples: Library, Fire Station, Court Houses, schools).  Certainly we could start to look at the internet for voting.  We bank on line and shop on line; why not vote?.  We could even make a general contribution on our tax returns of $5, $10 or $15 to fund any of this that isn't already able to be provided by existing means and resources.  No private money should be in the elections and PACs supporting candidates should be a thing of the past.

  • Lblugar Post author

    I signed you petition and now you won't stop sending me mails, I will drop my signature if you don't stop asking for donations.

  • Nun Ya Post author

    Why can't wolf pac have a cool name. Like thunderfalconfltiger pac?

  • OolTube02 Post author

    Hmm, in the video of the full show for TYT members this bit was corrupted.  I smell a conspiracy!

  • philosophicalreason Post author

    Kind of ironic,give money to wolf pac to get money out of politics.I want credit damn it,I mentioned article five on these wolf pac vids weeks ago : / .

  • Theodore Zipes Post author

    Allowing politicians  to set limits on donations, is like letting the fox guard the hen house.  What we need are publicly financed elections with a set amount of spending per constituent and a limited time for campaigning.

  • Xenophene01 Post author

    Wolf Pac should talk to that retired Judge

  • rockthestrand Post author

    Find it odd that you guys are so much against guns, yet the picture you use of John Paul Stevens is a photoshop of him holding a gun.

  • VGAPR Garage Post author

    Have shirts made with that symbol and use the money for wolf pack. I'd buy one.

  • oXGenesisXo Post author

    He looks like Jeff Dunham's puppet Walter.

  • Life In Frame Post author

    Article five as a V "peace" symbol is good but we can also use our five fingers and unite them together like a fist. That's compelling too.

  • Rainos62 Post author

    but chaning a case is illegal and that case and decision should be invalidated because they altered the contents of the case 

  • Aaron Harris Post author

    perhaps it would be a good idea to amend the constitution to give voters the power to recall supreme court justices, say once every presidential election cycle. granted, it may be necessary to have a 2/3 majority in order to recall a justice, since we want politics and the supreme court to be as divorced as possible.

  • Level Nine Drow Post author

    That's too bad he's not a justice anymore. 

  • Whoo711 Post author

    Cenk… come on

    Do you REALLY have any evidence that the justices in the majority of CU actually thought, "Yes, let's vote to allow unlimited money in elections, so the wealthy will BUY our political system! hahaha"

    No… I think it was merely a GOOFY, IDEOLOGICAL VIEW about how "unlimited money maximizes speech and individual liberty" that they took too far in their ruling.  I'm not sure they ACTUALLY wanted, say, Walmart to somehow DOMINATE our system; they perhaps thought of this money in politics thing in ABSTRACT terms, rather.

    Plus, weren't they technically referring to NONPROFIT 'CORPORATIONS' like Citizens United when they ORIGINALLY made the ruling, not companies like Walmart, although the ruling BACKFIRED in that regard and DID become so loose that it enabled all sorts of corporations and rich people to flood the system?

    Many YT videos and experts on the ruling will tell you that's probably what was originally meant by the ruling in 2010, NOT that the justices ACTUALLY thought, "We can make the wealthy EVEN MORE POWERFUL in our system and control it just because!  Let's do it."

    Of course, I'm not saying the ruling DOESN'T SUCK, but let's knock it off with the whole "the justices ruled this way to help the rich in general and give big companies more power because they LOVE IT."  It was more likely an ideological, right-wing FLUKE done in the abstract because of misunderstandings of how the system work now or how this ruling WOULD work in practice.

    I'm not so sure, say, Alito or Roberts thought at the time, "If only we could rule the 'right way' in this case and then let Walmart take over our politics.  LET'S DO IT!!"

  • Rad Dudeman Post author

    I do agree money in politics should be regulated and limited, but it is VERY hypocritical of him to criticize his former colleagues and current judges for inserting their own personal beliefs in cases on what's constitutional when they're not relevant to what the framers were thinking, while he himself wants to change the words in the 2nd Amendment for his own agenda-not what facts and context of what the 2nd really is and why the framers drafted it.

  • ifkrng Post author

    go for it !!!!!!

  • TheBangooman Post author

    I lived for most my live in Europe, where money in politics is highly controled and totally ilegal. Guess what? They buy them anyway, they will always find a loophole. Yes, maybe it makes them more careful and not so openly corrupt, which is even worse. They become smart and quiet, and the whole fucking thing slips right under your nose until someone in the party doesn't get his cut and starts speaking, more likely 20 years after everything's said and done.

    If you want to change your society and your law you can trust me, an amendment is not gonna do it. It's gonna have to be the members of said society, with courage and a strong will for freedom and civil rights. We're long past the regulatory corrections. Too much power has been amassed by the elites, they will never step down because a paper says so.

    Still I find admirable what you're trying to do, but I simply know it's not gonna change the balance of power , nor it's gonna change the social contract.

  • Maxwell Saint Post author

    HERE WE GO..CENK IS SUPPORTIVE OF NOT ALLOWING MONEY INTO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, BUT HE IS CLEARLY A "DEMOCRAT" IN A SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN BOUGHT OFF BY CORPORATE BANKING INTERESTS–AS WE ALL KNOW VIA THE ROTHSCHILDS. CENK IS A PAYCHECK MEDIA SCUMBAG TRYING TO PLAY MR KNOW-IT-ALL..BECAUSE KNOW-IT-ALLS TRY AND CO-OPT THE LEFT WITH THIS CORPORATE FUNDED NEWS. SOCIAL MEDIA OR ALTERNATIVE MEDIA? SPARE ME….CENK DOES VERY WELL FOR HIMSELF IN THE WALLET FROM THE SAME BANKERS THAT FUND THE RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS. THERE IS NO LEFT WING IN THIS COUNTRY….THEY ARE ALL SELL OUTS AND PAYCHECK PROPAGANDISTS.

  • Maxwell Saint Post author

    AND CENK THINKS CAPITALISM IS NOT THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM….AND YET, THE OWNERS OF CAPITAL (WHICH IS MONEY) ARE BUYING THE VOTES. LOL BUT WHEN YOU YOU ARE ANTI-CAPITALIST (IN THE LEFT WING TRADITION) YOU GET SHOUTED DOWN BY CENK AND THE OTHER PROFITEERING ASSHOLES THAT CO-HOST THIS SHOW. THIS IS NOT A LEFT-WING SHOW FOR "DEMOCRATS", BUT AN IDIOTS INFOTAINMENT IN THE FEEL-GOOD STYLE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA–SALESMAN OF THE CENTURY. IN FACT, MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT FOOLED..WE LIVE IN A BANKER OLIGARCHY/POLICE STATE AND MANY PEOPLE WON'T SAY THIS BECAUSE THEY FEAR LOSING THEIR JOBS OR BEING RIDICULED BY OTHER FASCISTS IN THE WORKPLACE. AMERICA IS A HYPER-CAPITALIST COUNTRY THAT HAS "PURCHASED" IT'S WAY INTO CO-OPTING LEFT-WING MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS. THIS SHIT HAS TO END.

  • marksuave25 Post author

    So Cenk. All politicians are corrupt, but you want big government, not small government. Contradiction.

  • Maxwell Saint Post author

    AMERICA IS A HYPER-CAPITALIST NATION. READ KARL MARX'S "DAS KAPITAL", AND YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUE MEANING OF THIS HORRIFIC SYSTEM. TYT IS CORPORATE/BANKER THEATER POSING AS A LEFT WING MEDIA ORGANIZATION. EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE YOU WRECK YOURSELF.

  • Maxwell Saint Post author

    WHEN YOU GET SHOUTED DOWN FOR BEING ANTI-CAPITALIST ON A SO-CALLED "DEMOCRATIC" LEFT WING NEWS MEDIA PLATFORM…AKA. THE YOUNG TURKS…YOU KNOW YOUR DEALING WITH A CO-OPTED MEDIA ORGANIZATION.

  • danielgarrison91 Post author

    Politics and money is as old as Gold and Rubies and Diamonds. Who ever holds the most power will always buy there way. As much as I would like to see fair elections and my politician holding more TownHall meetings, then trying to raise cash. And really understanding the Voter and our concerns. Not gonna happen. Unless you start at the Local level and then move up through the County and then Statewide. Maybe then Congress would act. But Washington is a flood of money going into every politicians pocket. And only we can change that but we have to all work together. Democract and Republican and Independent.

  • Paul Hamilton Post author

    Thank you for your efforts to organize on this issue. This is, in my view, the most important issue in politics right now. Of course, I have joined wolf-pac, but I will continue to try to raise awareness about this issue.

  • Boston Badass Hugh Jass Post author

    That commercial with the pigeons… I read that they have five color cones, maybe they aren't really gray but only appear gray to us because we can't perceive their real colors?  Like when a dog sees something that's really red as yellow due to their blue-yellow vision.  

  • ThE DuCk Post author

    That's what you get when you give Supreme Court  Justices that nobody elected so much lifetime power over the American people .. You get  the possibility that enough of them  might be corruptible enough to  sell out the country and destroy our democracy. The current SCOTUS  appears to be working against the people in frightening ways.

  • xadam2dudex Post author

    there should be NO private or corporate contributions to political candidates….. all campaigns should be financed by the government and limited in time to no more than 3 months before a national ( US congress ) election or 4 months for the president…local elections less time

  • captaincarl1 Post author

    Cenk, what do you think about doing a Constitutional Convention rather than the typical amending process?

  • Kelvin G Post author

    I read something about constitutional convention. did Michigan finally trigger it? is this true. i mean it actually happening. and can it be made to be against the people? or is it protected from that? i think it might be a good idea if done right. can u guys talk more bout this? and internet neutrality? gmo? gun control, drones, media control. etc etc etc lol sorry. great show btw

  • Alexander Taujours Post author

    Tyt interviews John Paul Stevens please!

  • John and Jeanna Watson Post author

    John Paul Stevens should join the Wolf Pac!

  • Eddy Alamo Post author

    Remember folks, vote with your MONEY before you vote with ballots. 

  • MadnessInIsolation Post author

    YO TYT! You have the wrong link for the reference of this report. Although, the article on the Atheist reason station is hilarious!

  • jbcomics Post author

    Cenk they will lock people up and shoot people before they ever let an amendment to the constitution like the one you are proposing see even the light of day as far as being heard before a governing body is concerned. Will NEVER HAPPEN. I have another solution. Save up and move to Europe. 

  • DrH5N1 Post author

    About time stupids

  • BrotherWoody1 Post author

    When exactly, Cenk, are "activist judges" your cup of tea? Is Roe v. Wade one of them or Obamacare (Roberts)? How about Kelo or Lawrence vs. Texas? How about Korematsu? It's irrelevant that I happen to agree with JPS on both Citizens United. & the death penalty. Let's face it, Americans rely on "activist judges" to remake the laws they want changed. Much better would be 535 seats on SCOTUS & 9 members of Congress. Perhaps then, we'd finally get a one tiered rule of law along with a totally new justice system, i.e., if we don't conctretize our political system beyond removal. That's why we need that constitutional convention. The states are aggrieved, the people in the states are aggrieved & looking around the world, it seems that all God's children are aggrieved by our regime & its minions.

  • NitsuaNaed Post author

    ……….but when is change going to actually happen? we're still waiting for that story to break………

  • ducks quack, right? Post author

    Am I seeing things? Does da judge have a bullet shooting thingy in his partially robed hand?   I guess da judge IS peed oiff.  Go judge!!

  • Kelli Hillman Post author

    The problem with states doing an Amendment to curb the amount of campaign money is this : the majority of states in the U.S. are run by republicans who want unlimited campaign money! They will not do an Amendment! What is plan B ?

  • Mark Carleton Post author

    Sadly, that decent old man will see worse things before he dies.

  • Par N Post author

    Pissed off ? Prolly cos da ole man has to go ?

  • a Post author

    You make it seem like Stevens' retirement is the reason McCutcheon happened. He was replaced by another liberal judge (Elena Kagan). The case would have turned out the same way whether he was there or not.

  • Matt Rust Post author

    For the love of (fake) god, please start using 'corrupt' as the proper past-tense form of the word y'all are wanting to use. 'Corrupted' is incorrect in all syntax variants you're using. This is coming from a (massive) supporter. 

  • lezlitaz Post author

    when the govt. can label you a threat and kill you with no due process, the game is already over

  • soccerguy325 Post author

    Didn't John Paul Stevens vote in the majority in the Bellotti decision?

  • soccerguy325 Post author

    Didn't John Paul Stevens vote in the majority in the Bellotti decision?

  • Wendy Alexander Post author

    They should have just thrown it out!

  • Jack Jensen Post author

    Let us put a balance back in government that our founding fathers created. That is the People and the State having a vote. Let us repeal the 17th amendment which will give us immediate term limits, slow down corporate america's agenda, and give the government back to we the people. The Declaration of Independence gives us the right to bear arms! The 2nd only says this right will not be infringed, and anyone who wants to do away with the Declaration of Independence insults all who have died defending the United States of America.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *