Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How the Neo Cons destroyed the legal system

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How the Neo Cons destroyed the legal system

    "Former litigator William S. Lerach explores the chasm between the ideals and the reality of the American legal system, one that promises equal access and accountability but often shields the financial elite from civil liability and criminal prosecution. Drawing on his extensive experience with class action lawsuits, Lerach shows how major court decisions have skewed toward defendants"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WucxKDaLv-s

    These are the things conservatives have done to empower the radical left. We esencial have a government that says "let them eat cake". Faced with the obvious injustices of the system those people who were the voice of moderation are no longer motivated to take part in the system. A corrupt upper class breads and indolent population. When the system collapses it creates the Hitlers and Stalins of this world.

    When this country was founded it was assumed that the "masses" could not govern themselves and so a republican system was created. In many ways this was wise but it also created a system that depended on the upper classes being moral. The best attributes of capitalism are now buried under the hideous mask of corrupt cronyism.
    We hunt the hunters

  • #2
    I would say that the opposite was true.

    The last forty years has been the first time in US history where ordinary people could win against major institutions in civil court.

    You certainly wouldn't have stood a chance against Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, or other notables in their day.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      So when will Hillary be indicted for her crimes?

      When will the "affluenza" kid be imprisoned for killing four people and fleeing the country?

      When will Holder go to prison for his crimes?

      When will Obama be impeached for violating the Constitution on too many occassions to even count?

      The rule of justice in America is "How innocent can you afford to be"?


      Comment


      • #4
        I'd agree. The Left is far more likely to "legislate from the bench" than the Right. Both do it, but it's almost rampant on the Left.

        I recall one judge being interviewed on 60 Minutes years ago. He was on the 9th Circuit and very "liberal."
        He stated flat out to Mike Wallace that "I legislate from the bench all the time. The supreme court only overturns about one in ten of my cases on review, so I win nine out of ten times." That is, that only 1 in 10 of his cases goes to the Supreme Court where it gets overturned.
        (not an exact quote but close)

        Here's a article on him:

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-ju...n/article/2702

        He was the most overturned judge on the federal bench losing nearly 100% of the cases that did go to the Supremes. Yet, he knew most of his decisions would stand as case law and he could change the law at will.

        Here's another pro-Left judge decrying the same sort of thing by way of pillorying the Republicans for putting judges on the bench that won't automatically rule in favor of the Left and Leftist causes.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-...b_1910371.html

        Look at the rate of overturned cases:

        http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circu...d-circuit.html

        http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...eversed_appeal

        If you review the cases, it's Leftist causes that get preference and everything else gets kicked to the curb.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          I'd agree. The Left is far more likely to "legislate from the bench" than the Right. Both do it, but it's almost rampant on the Left.

          I recall one judge being interviewed on 60 Minutes years ago. He was on the 9th Circuit and very "liberal."
          He stated flat out to Mike Wallace that "I legislate from the bench all the time. The supreme court only overturns about one in ten of my cases on review, so I win nine out of ten times." That is, that only 1 in 10 of his cases goes to the Supreme Court where it gets overturned.
          (not an exact quote but close)

          Here's a article on him:

          http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-ju...n/article/2702

          He was the most overturned judge on the federal bench losing nearly 100% of the cases that did go to the Supremes. Yet, he knew most of his decisions would stand as case law and he could change the law at will.

          Here's another pro-Left judge decrying the same sort of thing by way of pillorying the Republicans for putting judges on the bench that won't automatically rule in favor of the Left and Leftist causes.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-...b_1910371.html

          Look at the rate of overturned cases:

          http://blogs.findlaw.com/ninth_circu...d-circuit.html

          http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...eversed_appeal

          If you review the cases, it's Leftist causes that get preference and everything else gets kicked to the curb.
          I agree with everything you say accept I believe that most powerful people in our society are of greater concern than social warriors. Many of the actions taken by liberal judges are petty and in the big picture rather irrelevant.

          While I have often said that the dispossessed are no more moral than our corrupt banksters and politicians the lack of moral leadership from the upper classes is of necessity our primary immediate concern. Just as Marxism has crept into our educational system amorality is now the standard of our financial institutions. Perhaps it was worse in age of robber barons and earlier but it is no coincidence that the those that benefited from less government oversight have brought us World Com, Enron, and the housing depression. It is hard to see how the issues that concern ordinary conservatives are more important than financial stability.

          The distraction of issue such as abortion, gay marriage immigration and school prayer keep the lower class conservatives from addressing the "money changers". I have no proof that this is by design but I suspect that it is.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            I agree with everything you say accept I believe that most powerful people in our society are of greater concern than social warriors. Many of the actions taken by liberal judges are petty and in the big picture rather irrelevant.

            While I have often said that the dispossessed are no more moral than our corrupt banksters and politicians the lack of moral leadership from the upper classes is of necessity our primary immediate concern. Just as Marxism has crept into our educational system amorality is now the standard of our financial institutions. Perhaps it was worse in age of robber barons and earlier but it is no coincidence that the those that benefited from less government oversight have brought us World Com, Enron, and the housing depression. It is hard to see how the issues that concern ordinary conservatives are more important than financial stability.

            The distraction of issue such as abortion, gay marriage immigration and school prayer keep the lower class conservatives from addressing the "money changers". I have no proof that this is by design but I suspect that it is.
            The worst robber baron is preferable to a government that can tax and regulate everything without constraint. So, while robber barons might bring us a World Com or an Enron, government without constraint and oversight brings us Chernobyl, public housing for everyone, and the Killing Fields.

            I'd prefer to take my chances with a robber baron to being shackled by a government with absolute power.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              The worst robber baron is preferable to a government that can tax and regulate everything without constraint.
              The hypothetically worst robber baron would be indistinguishable from the worst government - they'd become indistinguishable, as they would possess a monopoly on power. Whether or not they claim to be a state is irrelevant in practice.

              So, while robber barons might bring us a World Com or an Enron, government without constraint and oversight brings us Chernobyl, public housing for everyone, and the Killing Fields.

              I'd prefer to take my chances with a robber baron to being shackled by a government with absolute power.
              It all comes down to power. In our society, the worst company is still beneath the law and the state because they don't possess the same power as the state. We don't yet fear McDonalds forcing us to buy their product on go to jail, or injecting radioactive materials into those who take a job at Burger King.

              But the state will still demand you pay their bills "for your own good", regardless of what you think... and then kill you for refusing to follow along with their mob rule.

              Comment


              • #8
                These are the things conservatives have done to empower the radical left
                Uh no. These are things the neo-cons have done to empower the neo-cons.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  The worst robber baron is preferable to a government that can tax and regulate everything without constraint. So, while robber barons might bring us a World Com or an Enron, government without constraint and oversight brings us Chernobyl, public housing for everyone, and the Killing Fields.

                  I'd prefer to take my chances with a robber baron to being shackled by a government with absolute power.
                  There is a false dichotomy in these type of argument because we can get along without robber barons but point to a civilization without a functional government. It isn't a matter of choosing to have no government it is a question of what kind of government we will have. Once you accept this reality you can then make rational decisions about how the government and the financial institutions should interact.

                  We should look at the examples offered. When we do we can see how a government that was in league with the financial elite create the environment where people choose to replace that government with a radically egalitarian government. There can be little doubt that the abuses of the aristocracy and other financial elites in Russia lead directly to the communist takeover. Chernobyl however is not a good example of the incompetence of that communist government when you consider that the Fukushima plant was ran by a corporation. The example of the killing fields is a better example of the dangers of totalitarian government but it is an even better example of a shift to an extreme egalitarian government in response to previous abuses. Both of these examples illustrate that the best way to prevent a totalitarian state is to have a government in place that is not in league with the financial elite.

                  While I would prefer a libertarian state it is obviously not practical. We can however in the spirit of libertarianism have a state that treats corporations as people. As seen in the video the neo cons have successfully insulated the heads of corporations from personal responsibility. It is true that they were able to do this because the activist courts had alienated a large portion of the population. That alienation however was based on obvious abuses while the abuses of the government working as the defenders of financial institutions are difficult for the average person to see yet alone understand.

                  To achieve the proper balance it is obvious that tort reform will have to be in place before corporation can have their proper standing and be treated as citizens not institutions that are above the law. It is also true that any attempt to hold corporations responsible for their actions will be meet with them using economic violence against the civilization that resists their hegemony. Both the representatives of the masses and the elites often act like wild animals when confronted or frustrated and may strike out in self defeating ways. Making the necessary reforms will not be easy.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                    Uh no. These are things the neo-cons have done to empower the neo-cons.
                    For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      I would say that the opposite was true.

                      The last forty years has been the first time in US history where ordinary people could win against major institutions in civil court.

                      You certainly wouldn't have stood a chance against Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, or other notables in their day.
                      I guess you missed the part where I outlined the time frame for the events in question.
                      We hunt the hunters

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                        Chernobyl however is not a good example of the incompetence of that communist government when you consider that the Fukushima plant was ran by a corporation.
                        Um, wolfhnd you do know that Fukushima was first damaged by an earthquake than finished off by a tsunami don't you? When it wasn't attacked by nature it ran fine.
                        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Tsar View Post
                          Um, wolfhnd you do know that Fukushima was first damaged by an earthquake than finished off by a tsunami don't you? When it wasn't attacked by nature it ran fine.
                          There were many action just as at Chernobyl that could have diminished the extent of the disaster.

                          I would argue that the ability of corporations to inflict harm relative to governments has more to do with size and control than foresight or ethics. To understand the ethical issues raised you have to understand that both corporations and government agencies have made themselves faceless to avoid personal responsibility in much the same way.
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            I guess you missed the part where I outlined the time frame for the events in question.
                            No, I'm looking at your OP, and you didn't mention any time frame.

                            I'm disputing your core concept. There is no historical basis for your claim. The power of the courts and their willingness to be impartial has increased dramatically in my lifetime.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tsar View Post
                              Um, wolfhnd you do know that Fukushima was first damaged by an earthquake than finished off by a tsunami don't you? When it wasn't attacked by nature it ran fine.
                              You miss his point. Corporations are EVIL!

                              But wolf isn't, even though he's using a computer with corporate-built components, powered by electricity sold by a corporation, on a server system owned by a corporation.

                              Apparently you can interact with EVIL, reward EVIL, do nothing about EVIL, and still not be part of EVIL.

                              I think that attitude was pioneered in Germany right after Hitler killed himself.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X