• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On July - 4 - 2014
  • Beatlex : Hi,goodbye people,Happy 4th

  • AdLib : Thanks!

  • Miles Long : You as well…

  • AdLib : Miles, looks like it’s time to wrap Vox for the night! Have a great 4th weekend!

  • AdLib : Night Funk, hope you can get some sleep! Have a great weekend with the family!

  • Miles Long : Good night…

  • funksands : Have a great night everyone! Hope to “talk” to you soon.

  • funksands : Well I better toddle off too. Trying to get my kiddo to sleep isn’t going to be easy tonight. Big set of fireworks for our city go off about 4 blocks south of us. Nice view, but very very loud.

  • AdLib : Had our roof caught on fire once by a kid shooting off bottle rockets.

  • funksands : Ah

  • Miles Long : Chicago…North side.

  • AdLib : Night Murph! Have a great weekend!

  • funksands : Miles where you at again?>

  • Miles Long : Sounds like Iraq here…

  • funksands : Assholes across the street setting off fireworks right downtown. grrrr

  • funksands : Or something like that….

  • funksands : Night Murph. Happy US birthday to you. I love this country just as much as I ever have and people like you make me optimistic that we’ll make it better again.

  • funksands : Altio and Roberts have another 30 years on the bench, they’re in no hurry.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Well, my friends, a night of conspiracy-minde dness has worn me to a nub…so I am slinking off into the noisy night- gun fire all around….and some firecrackers.

  • AdLib : And risking so much over EOs seems like an unwise move when they have been so successful in their gradual reshaping of our nation.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Funk…and given the House and the Court I suggest that they are going to go as far as they have been told to go.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Funk- the redefining of personhood has provided a path for more far ranging changes….

  • funksands : Murph, as far as they’re allowed to go.

  • AdLib : Miles – The pattern that the Roberts court has established is prudence at chipping away, a little bit here and there, to shape our nation into what they want it to be. Even the latest Hobby Lobby ruling, they went out of their way to say how narrow they intended it to be. This is not a court that takes huge steps, it wants to use a thousand cuts to bleed our democracy.

  • funksands : Murph, I do think Ad is right about one thing. This is not a “power grab” or some sort of soft coup. This is simply the continued chipping away at the public authority to control corporate behavior

  • MurphTheSurf3 : To what lengths are the billionaires who own the GOP willing to go? That is a root question.

  • Miles Long : I doubt it would happen, Ad.

  • AdLib : What we’re discussing here is, what if the SCOTUS declared that they can violate a cornerstone of our legal system? It would be a Constitutional Crisis and some, mostly Repubs would support them while Obama and Dems would oppose them. I don’t see it happening though.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad…I hope you are correct but frankly the last two rulings have me wondering if there are any limits. I wonder if the power brokers have gotten to Roberts and he is now theirs like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are.

  • funksands : Ad, I’m not so sure. I think they’d be afraid to. Oh they’ll complain, they’ll even threaten impeachment if they ever get the House back, but ultimately they’ll “do” nothing.

  • AdLib : Funk – If that happened and I don’t think it would, that the SCOTUS 5 break the law regarding the necessity of being an injured party to sue, part of the bedrock of judicial law, then yes, I think Obama and many Dems would refuse to accept their ruling.

  • Miles Long : Funk, That won’t happen. But POTUS can make the House’ actions untenable, especially since he doens’t need to hold back in service of reelection.

  • funksands : Miles, the SCourt is subject to impeachment, just like the President. The House would have to bring it for a vote though.

  • AdLib : Murph – This is all pretend stuff, no way do I expect Roberts to endanger his court’s power by making such a big power grab so it won’t happen. But in this scenario, no, I wouldn’t advise the President to send any national guard into any unfriendly state. We would just see more of what we’re seeing now with the ACA, SYG, etc., the red states would abide by the SCOTUS and the blue states wouldn’t. More division and a Constitutional Crisis…it would be crazy. But that’s not going to happen.

  • funksands : By the way, totally off-topic: «link»

  • Miles Long : Please, let’s not discount that POTUS is a Constitutional Scholar. He knows more than the SC, and has the bully pulpit from which to effect change. To believe that the SC or the House can act with impunity is foolish.

  • funksands : Ad, that’s the point. If no harm actually needs to be shown, but rather standing is granted “just because”.

  • funksands : According to the Heritage Foundation, there is no harm in Executive Orders (under Bush)

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- so, the fed calls out the troops to quell those states standing with SCOTUS…? Imagine where that leads us.

  • AdLib : Funk – I’m not a lawyer so bear with me but…what specific harm can Congress claim? If an EO helps immigrants, what specific harm does that do to House members?

  • funksands : That’s how crazy this has become, where I can imagine the Court doing anything “just because” they have 5 votes to do it.

  • AdLib : Funk – The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. States and cities already ignore some federal laws, like marijuana criminalization. The SCOTUS has no military or police force it controls. If it lost credibility, it may have red states and cities following it but blue states and cities not doing so. It would be a massive Constitutional Crisis but I don’t see the SCOTUS getting universal support for illegal actions.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad, Funk and Miles…I spoke with a friend, an attorney and professor of Constitutional History….He believes that Scalia, Alito and Thomas have a pact to set the Constitution on its proper path- the one they have defined. Roberts decision on ACA was an aberration for which he paid and now they are going for broke….

  • funksands : Ad, true. Bad wording. Why not give standing because of the great harm the President is inflicting on Congress by bypassing their authority?

  • AdLib : Take care PPO!

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Taaa Taaa PPO

  • funksands : Thanks Pink!

  • AdLib : Funk – You can’t sue someone because of potential harm, you can only sue someone because they have caused harm. So that’s not really a path for the Repubs.

  • pinkpantheroz : Cheerio, everybody Up Over. I’m off to do some shopping. Enjoy the reast of the 4th.

  • funksands : Ad, that’s pre-supposing that the other branches and the law enforcement arm of the executive branch won’t support the court because of that very fear.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- I wonder what their end game is, but it is clear to me they are working with a plan in mind.

  • Miles Long : ” The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[11] Secretary of State James Madison, who won Marbury v. Madison, but lost Judicial review. Others, however, disagreed, claiming that each branch could determine for itself the constitutionalit y of its actions.”

  • AdLib : Murph – No argument that the SCOTUS 5 have shown disrespect to the nation but if they make a huge step over the line and are portrayed as acting illegally? What do court decisions matter if people won’t follow them?

  • funksands : Ad, I agree with your take that the plan is to chip away with little hammers, and not shock the hell out of everyone. Do it slowly enough and creeping normalcy takes care of the problem of legitimacy

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad Lib…your response is precisely what I fear and then everything devolves to the states….a perfect storm for the anti=federalists .

  • Miles Long : Murph, just take a look at this under the section of Judicial Review: «link»

  • funksands : Murph, exactly. Why not award them standing due to the potential for great harm the plantiff faces?

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Nite Glenn….meaty discussion tonight..

  • AdLib : Funk – Then what will happen is that people, communities, cities and states will begin to ignore SCOTUS rulings…and that would be devastating to the SCOTUS as an institution…an d an enormous loss of power.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- The court awards standing to the House…just because, as Funk just said, and what is to be done?

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- and what were the last two decisions by this court? Respect?

  • funksands : Night Glenn!

  • AdLib : Night glenn, have a great 4th weekend!

  • funksands : I for one am extremely fearful of the court’s increasing tendency to rule “just because”. This puts them at no more credibility than a banana republic court

  • MurphTheSurf3 : The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 (FDR’s court packing plan- as his enemies called it) was blocked by his own party when the Senate judiciary committee delayed it. The central provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months. In the meantime, the SCOTUS appears to have caved on a New Deal case signalling a more cooperative stance with FDR. In the meantime, inside communication with the Court seem to indicate that the court would strike down such a law….

  • glenn : Funk–or a chip off the old block(head).

  • AdLib : Murph – I read about Roberts, after the slew of anti-democratic decisions they made, he grew concerned that the SCOTUS might lose enough public respect that their rulings would start to be ignored. Respect matters, that’s all the SCOTUS has, if they make a ruling and no one respects it, no one follows it and they become moot. They need to retain a degree of respect from the American public, Roberts knows this and his ruling on the ACA and refusal to take Prop 8 reflects this.

  • glenn : Well, folks, it’s time for me to call it a night. A very interesting conversation tonight, and I’ve learned a lot, as usual. Thank you all for your astute comments and information. Have a great weekend.

  • funksands : Glenn, yeah, he’s a piece of work

  • AdLib : Murph – There is no precedent of the SCOTUS trying to take a case when the plaintiff has no standing so I don’t think that is likely to happen. Their game seems to chop away at things, not set off a nuke, I don’t think Roberts would do so on this.

  • funksands : 70% of the public doesn’t even know which party is in control of which house of Congress. Their knowledge of the SCourt is even more limited

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- respect? why should the court care? there is no leverage….

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Miles- I would be very interested in that podcast- and more so in its transcript.

  • AdLib : Murph – And the reverse would be true, Dems would attack Repub Senators for supporting a judicial coup. The charges would fly both ways but in the end, the SCOTUS is the least sympathetic of all the branches and they aren’t very respected by the public at this point. They would be the most at risk at losing their power and authority.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- as you know I have very little respect for what the public knows and while Obama’s reelection and the Senate holding in 2012 for the Dems are the cause of some hope….I fear that the big game here is extra-electoral and that we are indeed looking at a coup.

  • glenn : Funk–that’s a pretty scary scenario regarding Scalia’s son.

  • Miles Long : Murph, Thom Hartmen ran it down on his show. He went over the SC’s powers according to the Constitution and proved the point that they have breached their powers. I can try to check the podcast if he has one, otherwise I have to check the Constitution myself.

  • glenn : G’night Harleigh. Have a good weekend!

  • AdLib : Night Harleigh, wear your bulletproof pjs!

  • funksands : Night Harleigh. Stay safe down there.

  • glenn : Murph, et al–Here’s the other thing I don’t understand. Where is the so-called liberal media in all of this? Why isn’t this being discussed on every news program? Do you think we’ll see any of this on the Sunday shows this week?

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Nite Harleigh

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Funk…and Thomas’ wife is a lobbyist for the ultra right

  • AdLib : Murph – Exactly, a crisis but don’t think that public sympathies will be more with the SCOTUS, who the public doesn’t connect with at all and Obama who is more generally liked and could be seen as fighting a court that has been dominating the nation with oppressive decisions…and now violating the law to do so. Having standing to sue is a law and they would be breaking the law to take on such a case. I think the SCOTUS has the most to lose in such a situation and I don’t see Roberts wanting to be at the helm of that Titanic.

  • Harleigh : well I’m off to bed to the sounds of gunfire. happy 4th everybody,

  • funksands : Did you all know that Scalia’s son is making a living suing every government agency that tries to implement any aspect of the Dodd-Frank law? He’s almost single-handedly holding up the writing and implementation of the 75% of the law that isn’t implemented yet.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Miles-+– what powers has SCOTUS breached… in your estimation.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad– can you imagine how the GOP majority in the Senate would react to Dem senators who did not vote to convict…more cries for impeachment…th eirs!

  • Miles Long : BTW, everybody. The SC has already exceeded the powers granted them in the Constitution. THAT could well be used to denature their influence if they venture much further to the Right.

  • funksands : Hi everyone!

  • glenn : Da Funk is in the house! Hey Funk!

  • AdLib : Hey Funk!

  • funksands : Hi Harleigh

  • funksands : Glenn, they don’t care anymore. To so nakedly do a favor for 1 corporation shows it.

  • Miles Long : Glenn, you’re absolutely right. But there’s still a line they will not cross.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- I agree a conviction is not likely but a serious trial is…..IF the president refuses to abide by a SCOTUS ruling and then the Senate finds itself voting with a President who refuses to obey a Supreme Court decision….cris is!

  • Harleigh : hey funky!

  • glenn : Miles–the present court may have lost credibility, but I really don’t think they care. After all, they are the supreme law of the land, which is exactly what we’ve been wrestling with tonight. THEY get to make the rules, it seems, and it also seems they are remaking them in the conservative image for quite some time now.

  • AdLib : PPO – Got it! Let me think about how that could be done.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- yes, you made a point “What they can’t do though is assert power over any other branch.” This has been done as you say by 3rd party suit prior to this but now….I think a move of a very different order is about to be made. I believe that there is sub rosa communication between Boehner and some on Scotus is happening….

  • funksands : Happy 4th of JuChristmas everyone

  • Miles Long : And he’s skating over the line as of this last week.

  • AdLib : Murph – The Senate would need a 2/3 vote to remove the President and no way would the Repubs ever be able to get that. So the scenario would indeed be a Constitutional Crisis but it would be a standstill between Obama refusing to abide by an unconstitutional action by the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS insisting that he does. In the end, Obama wins because the court has no other recourse.

  • Miles Long : Roberts has such a huge ego that to irrepairably destroy his legacy is something he will avoid at all costs.

  • Miles Long : The Roberts Court has lost all credibility on both sides of the political divide to cross over into too partisan territory.

  • Miles Long : Okay, the House has to show standing for whatever grievance they bring up as the reason for starting impeachment proceedings. Even this partisan majority on the SC would have to adhere to the line on that issue. If it’s a matter of Executive Orders, there’s too many past rulings that they couldn’t hook POTUS on that.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad-+- I believe that several judges in the majority are deeply corrupt. I believe that they have set out to remake the Constitution into an instrument of conservative control and I don’t think they give a damn for the principals of law you cite and no one can s top them.

  • AdLib : Hey Miles!

  • AdLib : Murph – But the steel mills sued Truman, not The House and the mills had standing of course.

  • glenn : Hi Miles!

  • glenn : Murph–then if we are caught in this constitutional loop, we have to amend the constitution, right? And, to do that, doesn’t Congress have to write the amendment? Do both the Senate and the House write the amendment? And, then, if my memory of our system serves me correctly, then that amendment has to be ratified by 2/3 of the states, is that right?

  • pinkpantheroz : Hiya Miles-hurry up with the Reading- Long!

  • AdLib : Murph – Again, you are talking about decisions and I do agree with you about the terrible way that they make decisions…whic h are of course terrible. However, it is a hard and fast rule that a court can’t allow a party that has not been injured by another party, the ability to sue them. This was clearly on display with the refusal of the SCOTUS to take on the Prop 8 case that was being pressed by an organization that couldn’t prove any harm Prop 8’s halting had done to them. So if this very conservative Catholic court was forced to refuse a gay marriage case, they’ll have to refuse Boehner’s threatened case…or they will have gone into no-man’s land.

  • Miles Long : {Reading the conversation}

  • Miles Long : I see…

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Hello Miles…we are in the midst of a heavy discussion re. the Supreme Court.

  • pinkpantheroz : Ad, I mean that so many good comments here about SCOTUS and the like are worthy of an article in the MSM, showing what we fear and opening the debate out to beyond the Planeteers. Maybe it’s a dumb idea, but unless these types of discussions air more widely, if thay aren’t already, then we’re doomed to hear only the other side’s fulminous brayings on the subject.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Glen If the House Impeaches, and the Senate tries and does not find Obama to guilty and the SCOTUS ruling stands….you are correct….we are caught in loop, a terrible constitutional crisis loop.

  • Miles Long : {evening all}

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad SCOTUS has ruled on presidential power before…see Truman and the Steel Mills for example…many other examples.

  • glenn : Murph–Doesn’t that impeachment going to the Senate then compliate your scenario of the President not obeying a court order? That is, if the Senate votes NOT to impeach, how does that affect your scenario?

  • AdLib : glenn – The SCOTUS has made very powerful decisions that have changed society, Roe v. Wade for example. So by declaring things constitutional or unconstitutional , they can make huge impacts on society (as Corporations are People and Money is Speech have as well). What they can’t do though is assert power over any other branch. Congress has a very specific recourse to take against the President if they believe he has violated the Constitution or committed crimes. The SCOTUS has no authority in this area, only Congress. So in this alleged power struggle, The House either needs to impeach Obama or stop whining about suing. And if the SCOTUS tries to work with the House on that, they’ve crossed the line.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Glenn- the constitution says….wait for it…impeachment that begins in the House and then proceeds to the Senate.

  • glenn : Murph–so what recourse do we the people have against a court like this?

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad…and Glenn and PPO and well everyone looking in on this coversation…IF the SCOTUS takes A House Suit – awarding Standing to the House apart from the Senate- to review whether Obama is acting Constitutionally re. EO’s and a 5-4 decision says he is not, then Obama is really stuck. If he accepts the ruling, he is the lamest duck in history. If he does not, then he will be impeached and the chances of a conviction go up- and in any case he is clearly in far more trouble with the charge that he has violated an order of SCOTUS.

  • AdLib : PPO – What do you mean about editing the comments for MSM?

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad Lib-+– distinguishing the process from the decisions is not easily done….in the most recent decision regarding union fees for those who do not belong to unions but benefit from their representation in contract talks….it is clear that rules regarding precedent, prior actions in the federal system, and the order of presentation before the court were over-ridden by Roberts representing the majority. Ad- this court has chosen a very dangerous, and I think unconstitutional pathway and they are good at what they are doing.

  • AdLib : glenn and Murph – I don’t know if we are close to a judicial coup. Taking Boehner’s case despite it being outside of legal acceptance to do so would be doing so and I don’t think they would. As I said though, if they did try to declare power over the nation in ways outside of their Constitutional authority, what can they do if The President just says, “No, you’re acting unconstitutional ly”? All they have is the respect from the other two branches and the American people, without that, their decisions are just words. I don’t think they’re that stupid, the ruling on the ACA seemed to display that Roberts knows they better not cross that line or they become powerless.

  • glenn : Ad–I think it really boils down to Roberts. He took a beating over the ACA decision, and I think he is trying to “make amends”. But, I agree, the court has embarked on a slippery slope, when their ruling(s) only apply to a specific portion of a law. That, to me, is legislating, which is not the court’s province. All the court is supposed to do is judge whether or not a law is constitutional; not add or subtract things from that law. I am not as astute about this as you and Murph, but that is my understanding of the purpose and concept of the SCOTUS. However, since it is the SCOTUS, which is the supreme law of the land, I don’t know how we navigate this slippery slope, and what recourse the American people have.

  • pinkpantheroz : Ad, any chance of this thread, with the comments of ‘ordinary’ people, being edited into a comment for MSM?

  • MurphTheSurf3 : PPO- it is how I am reading it. At least three of these justices are in the virtual employ of the Koch Klub and since the SCOTUS is exempted from the judicial ethic codes (yep!) that is ok as well…

  • Harleigh : The greatest danger faced by our country in the last 75 years is the repub party and baggers.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Glenn- dangerously close, a judicial coup.

  • AdLib : Murph – Not the same thing, process vs. decisions.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad-+- your response to Glenn takes you down my roadway.

  • pinkpantheroz : Murph, isn’t that just what we have right now?

  • glenn : Murph–how close to being a renegade SCOTUS do you think the present court is?

  • AdLib : glenn – It’s the slippery slope thing, these idiot justices thought they could chip away at the ACA and separation of church and state in tiny increments but instead, their ruling has shattered that separating wall wide open and a deluge is coming. It will be fascinating to see how they struggle against this flood of suits they’ve foolishly created.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- I have long regard the greatest danger faced by our country IS a renegade SCOTUS….

  • Harleigh : Roberts is to the SC what Bonher is to the House.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad-+– I have read the arguments in several of those cases and the majority rode right over the minority in violating rules of procedure, evidence, and deliberation.

  • AdLib : Night KT, I was blown away by the amount of posts on the Music Thread last week, congrats to you and cheers to all who contributed. Looking forward to this weekend’s thread!

  • AdLib : Murph – You misunderstand, I’m not talking about decisions, I’m talking about process. There are hard and fast rules about the process of accepting cases. Those are not altered by different courts, they are absolute judicial rules. If the SCOTUS was to say, for instance, that Congress could sue The President for something even though he hasn’t done anything to harm them, they would be acting outside of the structure of our legal system. This is far different than coming up with twisted justifications for overturning previous court decisions, they are entitled to make any decision on any case…but they are not entitled to re-define what is legally acceptable for a case to be filed.

  • glenn : G’night KT. Do you want some of my son’s-in-law famous ribs for your late supper? They are so tender, fall off the bone, and of course, delicious. I’m sending some your way. Have a great weekend.

  • Harleigh : nite kt

  • pinkpantheroz : g’night KT sleep the sleep of the just.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Night Sabreen and KT

  • Harleigh : he does ad, just before he applies a handful of hair grease.

  • glenn : Ad–that is what really gets me about the SCOTUS ruling. I don’t pretend to understand the whole thing, but wasn’t this ruling a very “narrow” ruling, in that it only pertained to birth control? And, specifically, four kinds of birth control that the right “believes” are abortificants? If this isn’t a war against women only, I don’t know what is.

  • KillgoreTrout : Well good people, I have to go make a late night supper for myself. Have a great weekend, all, and hope to see you on the music thread tomorrow. Last weekend we had over 450 posts. Wow! I think that’s a Planet record. (no pun intended)

  • AdLib : Scalia may believe he sees the devil staring back at him in the mirror every morning when he brushes his teeth.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad-+- everytime a SCOTUS overturns a previous SCOTUS we have a demonstration that what is and is not constitutional is a matter of interpretation. Every SCOTUS is activist when seen in that light….Conside r these decisions…Dred Scott in 1857, upholding the obnoxious Fugitive Slave Act. Supreme Court in 2000 declared G.W. Bush president although Al Gore got 543,895 more votes. Citizens United (2010), the court reaffirmed earlier declarations that money is speech. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the court upheld Southern apartheid, declaring separate black and white facilities constitutional. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). The court declared that corporations were people and entitled to constitutional rights even though the preamble of the Constitution starts with “we the people.”Lochner v. New York (1905), reversed a legislative limit of a 10-hour work day and 60-hour work week for bakers. the Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the right of Big Tobacco to advertise cigarettes, a product that kills 500,000 Americans yearly. Supreme Court in 1895 struck down a congressional income tax law. in Schenck (1919) ruled that harmless leaflets were a “clear and present danger” to national security under the 1917 Espionage Act. Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923), the court invalidated a minimum wage for women workers in the District of Columbia. That’s 10-+-lots more…

  • AdLib : Sure seems to me that the SCOTUS and Repubs are energizing and activating the Dem base. Demonizing contraception? Really? In the 21st Century??? We thought the battle was about abortion and now we’ve regressed to this? Just how many women does the GOP think they are going to get voting for them this year and in 2016? When 90% of women take or have taken contraception? This should be a real women’s rights election (along with Latino rights).

  • KillgoreTrout : I think Scalia was actually referring to president Obama. Dog whistles, you know!

  • KillgoreTrout : Harleigh, probably not, in Scalia’s eyes.

  • Harleigh : like santa and jebus and the boys

  • Harleigh : Is the devil white? LMAO

  • KillgoreTrout : It’s downright sinister that the MSM didn’t make a much bigger deal out of Scalia’s remarks about THE DEVIL!

  • Harleigh : Wait.. I see them. thx ad

  • AdLib : Harleigh, the brownies are on the coffee table, near the potato salad.

  • AdLib : KT – And what about Scientology refusing to have insurance cover mental health? And on and on. It’s hard to believe the depth of the stupidity of the SCOTUS Five.

  • glenn : Night Sabreen.

  • Harleigh : uh if you got brownies why didn’t we get any??

  • KillgoreTrout : Sweet dreams Sabreen. Enjoy your weekend! ;)

  • AdLib : Night Sabreen, have a wonderful picnic tomorrow!

  • Harleigh : nite sabreen

  • KillgoreTrout : Exactly Ad. That’s the beauty of the 1st amendment. What you suggest WILL happen. It’s only a matter of time. Despite popular belief, America is NOT a Christian nation.

  • glenn : Harleigh–LOL

  • Sabreen60 : Well folks, I’m tired. Went shopping, made 5lbs of potato salad and brownies for a family picnic tomorrow. So I’ll say good night and wish all of you the best.

  • AdLib : So what’s going to happen when a Muslim company takes a case to the SCOTUS insisting it doesn’t have to obey federal laws regarding women, Jews, gays, etc.? Doesn’t this all fall apart for them when it isn’t their religion they’re trying to elevate above the law?

  • KillgoreTrout : The GOP doesn’t really like Romney. They may use him as a fund raiser, but they really don’t want to see him run again.

  • glenn : PPO–yes, it really was an article on either Salon or Slate–can’t remember which one.

  • Harleigh : yes glenn I read that! Un frickin believable. a crook cult elder from a cult founded by a convicted con. Maybe the klowns at C street are right and jebus lives in a pyramid in the moon that… is… bigger than the fuckin moon!!!BWAHAHAHA ya just can’t make this shit up.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : KT- it is a question of the chicken and the egg

  • MurphTheSurf3 : AD…SABREEN…. makes the case very well….

  • KillgoreTrout : The problem with Scalia, Murph, is that he IS an old school Catholic.

  • pinkpantheroz : glenn, say it’s so! Ol’ Mr 47%? Great. I suppose with Crash McCain as his VP? Brilliant! ( for Dems, anyway!)

  • glenn : Ad–so, the romney run is just a “trial balloon”? In a way, I hope you’re right, and in a way, I would really love to see romney lose once again.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : KT- oh yes, there are a number of Old School Catholics but they are a minority in the church overall with power often based in their money

  • KillgoreTrout : Well PPO, Francis IS the most progressive Pope there has ever been, in my opinion. Then again, I’m no scholar of the CC.

  • AdLib : glenn – That’s just pundit chatter to stimulate their viewers, Romney would never run again and could never win a primary again. He’s a loser and the GOP knows it.

  • pinkpantheroz : KT, That’s the trouble! Way too many ‘Old school’ Catholics with way too much power, dictating to the more liberal-minded RCs. Hopefully Francis will soften attitudes and rulings.

  • Harleigh : O’conner left a hole in the court when she left early. I have no idea what or when Ginsberg will do something.

  • glenn : Harleigh–speaki ng of a palin/bachmann ticket, did anyone else see where mittthesnitromne y is being considered again as a candidate?

  • Sabreen60 : Well it certainly seems to me that this conservative Court does whatever they damn well please. I remember President Obama at one of the State of the Union speaking against Citizens United and was bound to happen. Well he looks like a prophet now. Gingsburg hadn’t gotten the words on paper before companies were saying that they want to discriminate against gays for religious reasons. And what the gutting the Voting Rights Act. The very next day, states were enacting voting suppression laws. I also don’t understand how Scalia and Thomas can flout their Tea Party affiliations with no consequences. Suppose the liberal judges were hanging out with Code Pink!

  • AdLib : Harleigh – What the SCOTUS Five seem to be oblivious to is that, if the President can over reach his authority and can be thwarted, another branch such as the SCOTUS can also over reach and be thwarted. Last I heard, the President is Commander in Chief of the military…what can those five old men do if the President says, “You’re violating the Constitution and over reaching your authority and power with taking that case, I won’t abide by your unconstitutional decision.” I sure don’t want to ever see such a thing happen but if they were to violate accepted legal practices in order to exert undo power over the Executive Branch, they would need to be stopped themselves.

  • KillgoreTrout : Murph, you don’t know some of the Catholics I know. Very “old school.”

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- it has happened already…..

  • KillgoreTrout : Ad, maybe Hazmat suits! Don’t want them to be infected by the GOP virus!

  • MurphTheSurf3 : KT John XXIII summoned the leaders of the RC Church…they met for years in dozens of sessions….that continued into the reign of Paul VI…the documents created were to set the pace for the church of the 21st century. John Paul II derailed it all. As to American Catholics…when 93 percent regard birth control as acceptable and moral….or when 56 percent regard homosexual life as a natural orientation…or when premarital sex is commonly accepted even by priests who now see most of their couples for pre-marrage cana counseling in committed live-in relationships… I would say that times have changed.

  • Harleigh : agreed adlib. The court and the churches are about to cross that line.

  • AdLib : Harleigh – Great idea! I’ll corner the market in waterproof ponchos that everyone in the MSM and politics will need to wear as Repub heads explode on election day.

  • AdLib : Murph – I would say though that if they corrupt and contradict the process of what validates a case or plaintiffs, any decision is defective and should be ignored. They are not czars, if they break the conventions in order to seize power from the Executive branch, they will have overstepped their Constitutional authority then and their decisions must be ignored. Yes, it would be a Constitutional Crisis but no branch should be allowed to seize power they aren’t entitled to.

  • pinkpantheroz : Harleigh made a good point earlier about the GOP’s spin that electing a Kennedy would be the US equivalent of Northern Irelands Chant: ‘Home Rule is Rome Rule’ That very nearly worked. Yet, here we now have the spectre of ‘SCOTUS Rule is Rome Rule!” And No-one, not even RCs want that for a secular country.

  • Harleigh : LOL thanks sabreen, everyone gets a Palin-Bachmann yard sigh also too!

  • KillgoreTrout : If you say so Murph. I do know that many, many Americans still see Papal decree as indisputable law.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : KT- The Second Vatican Council

  • KillgoreTrout : I didn’t know they had a constitution of their own. By what authority?

  • Sabreen60 : Harleigh, As they say: Nothing beats a failure but a try – go for it. If FOX makes money anybody can.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : KT- the documents of Vatican II- in particular the Constitution on the Church.

  • Harleigh : Pink you got it!

  • KillgoreTrout : Murph, what paper?

  • pinkpantheroz : Harleigh, I want the Aussie franchise. I’ll clean up here as well!

  • MurphTheSurf3 : KT- The exalted position of the Bishop of Rome has changed dozens of times across the 2 millenia…..you are reflection the teaching of the later 19th and 20th century through Vatican II when (at least on paper) the Church was to return to a more collaborative/Co uncilor form of government….wh ich may be where Francis is heading…

  • Harleigh : I need everybody’s help here so I can become a Billionaire. My plan is to buy up ALL of the popcorn futures for the 2016 elections. Then get everybody to support a Palin-Bachmann fer jebus ticket only through the nomination process! glory! Their campaign motto will be ‘Come git yer screech on!’ The popcorn will be sold with 8 bags in a reusable bowl that has an attached cover to guard against pieces of sploded haids from sullying their popcorn. After they get crushed in the general election this product will not be marketed to baggers! Brilliant!?

  • pinkpantheroz : Scotus signature tune: «link»

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- Scotus can indeed contradict the canons of law….they have done it before. NOTE- that the justices who disagreed with the Hobby Lobby decision were making it clear that the decision appeared to be a very significant problem when it came down to the issue of separation of church and state, and in the free practice of faith……there is a history of crazy majorities doing crazy things and who is to stop them?

  • glenn : BRB

  • AdLib : Murph – I agree but they did take the time to assign ages and terms to the President and Congress, they could have done the same for the third branch of government.

  • KillgoreTrout : Murph, the Pope is the all powerful head of the church. He is seen as literally the voice of god. I think you are describing Cafeteria Catholicism.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- you are looking at this from your 20th and 21st century perspective. The framers knew the document was unfinished and a work in progress – in this they were borrowing very heavily from the British tradition.

  • AdLib : Murph – Even the SCOTUS can’t contradict the canons of the law. They can and have made horrible decisions but the mechanics of a case being legitimate…if they were so radical as to allow a party without standing to sue The President, there would be a severe Constitutional Crisis and I for one would support the President in refusing to accept any decision that was illegally made.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : KT- that is what Popes have said- like the one about being infallible per a teaching by a pope saying he was infallible and therefore the teaching on infallibility was infallible. Most Catholics in the Pew do not accept that level of authority. I am Episcopalian and do not regard the Bishops as the last word but that is what official church doctrine says. The issue with all churches is this- whose church is it?

  • Harleigh : Pink… #37 at TWICE the price of #1. I do insurance for a living. Be afraid.

  • AdLib : Murph – Yes, I recall that and it is probably a mixed bag that we don’t have Constitutional Conventions every decade. I can only imagine what might have passed when Reagan and Bush were presidents.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad LIb and ALL who are telling me what the Law, Precedence says….BUT the SCOTUS really IS the Law and it cannot be controlled…..a very foolish instrument of nearly unlimited power.

  • KillgoreTrout : Murph, if one is truly Catholic, they are bound to follow the Pope’s decrees.

  • pinkpantheroz : Harleigh, you’re right. #37, eh? The Mighty U S of A! Riiight

  • Sabreen60 : Murph, You’re right. But their are Catholic zealots and it appears those sitting on the Court are religious zealots.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : KT- lots of folks loved JP II too and his teachings were not accepted by most Catholics.

  • AdLib : Harleigh, the penne is mightier than the sword!

  • KillgoreTrout : True Murph, but the POPE does not support BC. There’s the rub.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- I have done a lot of study re. the historical context of the Constitution of 1789 (as it was commonly referred to). It was fully expected that there would be a convention in 1799 and every 10 years or so thereafter to adjust the structure. 10 years for the census. Coincidence.

  • AdLib : Murph – The Constitution is very clear about what recourse Congress has if they believe the President has committed high crimes or misdemeanors, they can only impeach him. And Establishment Repubs don’t want that, they remember how it turned the public against them and onto Clinton’s side.

  • Sabreen60 : AdLib, Boehner couldn’t even answer the question put to him about the reason for the suit.

  • KillgoreTrout : Harleigh, now THAT would be skullcap. Airy too! ;)

  • MurphTheSurf3 : CATHOLIC….befo re we go too far down that road…recall that a large majority of Catholics support Birth Control use and its ready availability as an insurance benefit…..the Catholics on the court are conservatives (it can be argued that 3 or 4 are really reactionary) and they bring that to all aspects of their lives, including their faith life.

  • KillgoreTrout : What really gets me is the SC found the ACA to be constitutional, then the Felonious Five decided in favor of Hobby Lobby! WTF?

  • Harleigh : Kilgore I left the episcopal church 53 years ago and never looked back… I am now kind of a Pastafarian. I don’t wear a colander though.

  • AdLib : Murph – Still, it is a basic aspect of law that only an aggrieved party that has standing can sue another. Congress is not an injured party, they have no legal standing to sue the President for EOs.

  • AdLib : Murph – If only Jay and Washington had provided more specifics about the SCOTUS, that is one area where they fell a bit short and we’re now stuck with this perversion of justice and desecration of The Constitution.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- I know the law and practice in this matter of the suit but all of that presumes a Supreme Court that will not take a direct motion and given this Supreme Court I do not think we can count on that.

  • KillgoreTrout : Well Harleigh, you know that whole “religious test,” thingy is silly right? (sarcasm off now)

  • Sabreen60 : And don’t forget the 5 took an axe to labor as well.

  • glenn : Ad–I hope you’re right about 2016. I hope that the shutting down of the government, this nonsense about suing the President, and all of the other treasonous shit the gop is throwing down, results in a backlash to end all backlashes.

  • Harleigh : all 5 are catholic and doing exactly what everybody thought that the Kennedys would do in the WH. Ironic huh?

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- I have read that SCOTUS was imagined by the Framers to be a court that RARELY met, that had a very narrow range of responsibility, and would be composed of men of the caliber of G. Washington- remarkably non-partisan. Read the Constitution and it is clear that the entire concept of SCOTUS was remarkably unclear. Washington with John Jay designed the entire federal judiciary and did so with an understanding that only senior jurists would be named and given life span in the day that would have meant a stay of 10 or so years.

  • KillgoreTrout : Absolutely Ad. It’s definitely some form of psychosis.

  • AdLib : Murph – The courts won’t be able to rule on Executive Orders, Congress would need to pass a law allowing them standing to sue him for his EOs and Obama would have to sign such a bill into law. Won’t happen. And any lawsuit would take many years to run its course, well after Obama’s term is over.

  • glenn : Murph–I just cannot wrap my mind about all of the mis-informed people in the US nowadays–and that includes the stupid-ass republican/tp representatives. I can’t figure out if they really believe they won’t gain the Presidency for many years, and they want to limit the president at every turn, or if they really are that stupid, that they think this President and only this President has used executive orders. And the people who believe this shit, and think that PBO has trampled all over the constitution. I am really pissed off about the Hobby Lobby ruling.

  • Harleigh : Pink the ONLY way you could compare US HC is if we had medicare for all like the rest of the world. That’s why we are #37.

  • AdLib : KT – That validates my proposition about Scalia. If he believes that he is making judgments in a fight against The Devil…how is that not schizophrenic?

  • Sabreen60 : All five of the conservatives are Roman Catholics, I believe. So naturally they are against female contraceptives. Of course there was no mention of vasectomies.

  • AdLib : glenn – I wouldn’t go as far as being doomed, we’ll have 2 years of our Congress being a hateful and pathetic joke but in 2016, I predict a Dem President and Senate will be in place.

  • KillgoreTrout : Back in a few!

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Glenn…and if the courts limit the ability of the president to use Executive Orders…..all he will be able to do is veto.

  • AdLib : Murph – Why do you think the Framers didn’t apply a time limit to SCOTUS judges? Did they just assume judges would step down after a while without needing to be told to do so?

  • KillgoreTrout : Scalia actually said he thinks the DEVIL is running rampant in America today! THE DEVIL! 8O

  • pinkpantheroz : BRB

  • glenn : Ad–if the repubs take over the Senate, we really are doomed!

  • KillgoreTrout : Ad, I was thinking more like 10 years.

  • AdLib : Harleigh, Scalia certainly seems to be a borderline sociopath, he happily passes or blocks laws that are intended to make society suffer. What else would one call that (other than being a Republlican)?

  • Harleigh : I coined that one especially for Breitfart.

  • pinkpantheroz : glenn, being a guy, I can’t swear to this, but the Aussie Government subsidises low income folk with medications. Birth control is included in this, but none of our Health Insurers cover it at all. So it seems to be a problem unique to the US

  • MurphTheSurf3 : ad lib My point exactly….for the Framers the idea of 30 plus years on the high court would have been anathema

  • KillgoreTrout : Yeah, Harleigh. He should ask Treyvon Martin if racism is gone. Oh that’s right, he can’t! Some half white asshole killed him because he was guilty of being black in the wrong neighborhood!

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Harleigh- A karmattack….oh my! choking on my pie.

  • AdLib : Why do we need the same justices in place until they are ancient? That doesn’t sound like a democracy. My amendment would limit a Justice to around 15 years then out. Why not?

  • Sabreen60 : Harleigh, #ScaliaLaw trended on Twitter for a whole day. It was fabulous!

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Harleigh -+— Karmattack-+– really!-+- gagging on my pie.

  • glenn : KT–I never understood the staying home bit, either. It’s like my grandmother used to say–they’re just cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

  • Harleigh : I love how Scalia declared there was no more racism or discrimination. I hope that fat old whoop has a massive karmattack like Breitbart did.

  • AdLib : glenn – If Dems keep the majority in the Senate, they’ll either get the Repubs to allow a vote or change the rules to let a simple majority approve a judge. However, if the Repubs controlled the Senate, I can’t see them allowing a vote.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Watching this discussion I am reminded how dysfunctional our federal judiciary is (joining the legislative) precisely because there is no process that moves members in either along as they age or limits the time they serve overall…this was never the intention of the Framers who despised lifetime appointments in Commons and Lords.

  • KillgoreTrout : Not a bad idea PPO!

  • glenn : PPO–I don’t think birth control being expensive is the issue. The issue is that cons don’t want insurance to pay for birth control. They think that just gives women the “right” to be “sluts”. I don’t know about today’s modern women, but I always thought birth control was needed because both men and women had sex–I’ll never understand the right’s stance that women don’t have sex with men, or that women aren’t supposed to enjoy sex, or that sex is only for procreation.

  • pinkpantheroz : KT, agree. Even a mandatory retirement age would be OK, say 72? Would get rid of a lot of RWNJs up there in their alternative universe.

  • Sabreen60 : KT, I absolutely agree. The lifetime appointment is ludicrous, IMO.

  • KillgoreTrout : Only the good die young!

  • AdLib : PPO – You never know, sometimes the meanest people live long and sometimes their hatred messes them up. Keeping my fingers crossed on the latter.

  • Sabreen60 : Murph, I commented on your post. Was the poll you referenced that Quninnipiac Poll?

  • KillgoreTrout : I think we should have a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of the SC justices. Life long appointments are not good.

  • Harleigh : Maybe if the repub do take over I can still become a General in the GINA Police. Gots to keep an eye on 150 million ginas. LMAO

  • glenn : Ad–Even if one of the felonious five retires, do you seriously think the gop will let PBO appoint a new justice? Or will they fight him tooth and nail? Or lying all the way?

  • AdLib : Sabreen – Yes, saw it and was it ever a bull’s eye!

  • pinkpantheroz : Ad, with our luck, the bastards will probably cling to power until Hell’s tempersture drops considerably.

  • KillgoreTrout : glenn, I never understood staying home, even if they were “miffed,” at the prez. Do they really think that does themselves any favors?

  • Sabreen60 : Did anyone see the opinion from the three female justices on the Court. «link»

  • AdLib : glenn – It is hard to say, we’re mostly stuck with hoping for one of the Felonious Five to have a serious health issue that takes them off the court. With two of them at 74 years old, that could be soon or not so soon.

  • glenn : KT–I agree. The emoprogs better not try to teach Dems a lesson. Better we teach the stupids (otherwise known as the republican/tea party.

  • Harleigh : I would certainly hope so adlib….VOTE DEM.

  • KillgoreTrout : Ad, well, it certainly should! IF they’ve been paying attention.

  • AdLib : KT – I wonder if all the extremism of the right and the inroads they have been making against women’s rights, immigrants and erasing the separation of Church and State might not rally Dems more in November.

  • glenn : Ad–what do you think the chances are of getting a new SCOTUS? Personally, I don’t see it coming any time soon, and that really worries me.

  • pinkpantheroz : glenn, you’re so right. From my Catholic (lapsed!) perspective, I have no problems with birth control being available for those who want it. Can anyone explain why it is so expensive in the US, compared with us poor banana republics?!

  • AdLib : Hey Sabreen! Happy 4th!

  • AdLib : Harleigh – I know there have been bad SCOTUSes in the past but this one is so activist and extremist, once it ends and a new reasonable court is in place, the nation will breathe a sigh of relief.

  • KillgoreTrout : Hey Sabreen! Happy 4th to you.

  • glenn : Hey Sabreen!

  • Harleigh : hi sabreena!

  • KillgoreTrout : glenn, so much hinges on the elections this year. We can’t stress this enough. Dems better get off their asses and into the voting booths this year. I don’t care if the emoprogs little feelings may be hurt or not.

  • Sabreen60 : Hi Folks. Happy 4th to everyone!

  • AdLib : Kennedy and Scalia are both 76, how about getting them off the bench!

  • glenn : PPO–“there are none so blind as those who will not see.” I am long past the point of needing birth control, but that doesn’t mean I want to deny it to other women.

  • Harleigh : adlib she sure did! SCOTUS is really broken. It sounds like the theocrats run them now too.

  • pinkpantheroz : The way I see it, the Koch Bros couldn’t buy the Presidency, so they bought the SCOTUS instead.

  • glenn : Ad and KT–I couldn’t understand the push for Ginsberg to retire, either. What good does that do? And, KT, I think/fear you’re right. The GOPers are not going to let PBO appoint a fair justice to SCOTUS. Not liberal, fair.

  • KillgoreTrout : I’ve been watching The West Wing a lot. I never watched it when it was on network TV. A truly great show. Educational as well.

  • AdLib : Why aren’t people urging Scalia to retire? He’s the senile one!

  • AdLib : Harleigh – Sounds like great fun! She really hooked you up!

  • pinkpantheroz : glenn, I just can’t get my head around how SCOTUS has become so one-eyed conservative, and that one eye is so blinkered.

  • KillgoreTrout : glenn, I hope she doesn’t. The president will have a hell of a time getting anybody he appoints past the GOPers.

  • AdLib : glenn – I understand the politics of it but I think it’s messed up for people to be pushing Ginsberg towards retiring.

  • Harleigh : Guys with this new modern laptop and skullcandy headphones my daughter at her cable company gave me her logon for like hundreds of channels and all the premium ones too with on demand. I been watching stuff since 6;30 last night! LOL

  • glenn : Everyone–think we’ll ever get some sane justices on the SCOTUS? Will Ginsberg retire?

  • KillgoreTrout : PPO, scary for the GOPTPers! ;) They don’t like the truth.

  • pinkpantheroz : Yes, KT! Scary, isn’t it?

  • AdLib : PPO – Really pleased about all the great articles this week, absolutely!

  • KillgoreTrout : PPO, it seems the Planet has picked up some pretty good writers.

  • pinkpantheroz : Ad, everybody, isn’t it great we have had some great new articles this week?

  • KillgoreTrout : Hey Murph!

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Harleigh and KT….Hey there!

  • KillgoreTrout : Hey Harleigh!

  • glenn : Harleigh–always room for one more.

  • KillgoreTrout : Well, my middle name is James!

  • AdLib : Welcome, Harleigh! Happy 4th!

  • KillgoreTrout : Thanks Ad, same to you.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad LIb Yes- daylight events are better but night events provoke all kinds of worries.

  • AdLib : For a moment, you became James Taylor, KT!

  • glenn : KT–same old, same old.

  • Harleigh : Is there still room for 1 more?

  • AdLib : KT!

  • KillgoreTrout : Not much glenn, and you?

  • AdLib : Happy 4th, JT!

  • glenn : Hey KT–what’s new?

  • KillgoreTrout : Happy Independence Day, Planet peeps!

  • AdLib : Murph – that’s a big trade off, all the social events that become worrisome to attend…just to allow some gun fanatics the right to always carry weapons.

  • glenn : Thanks, Ad.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- open carry, concealed carry, liquor, and hot tempers on a hot night in an environment where it is hard to get away in the midst of a milling crowd. The only place I would go to see Fireworks would be in St Louis but that is a long, long drive.

  • AdLib : Got it, Glenn. I’ll write smaller.

  • glenn : I’m here Ad. Trying to get the letters on my screen smaller.

  • AdLib : Happy 4th and 5th to you too, glenn!

  • AdLib : Murph – That would weigh heavily on my mind in states where guns could be carried to such celebrations.

  • glenn : Happy 4th and 5th to all!

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Ad- Fireworks….no. Nothing is close and off late there are just too many guns at events of this kind.

  • AdLib : You there glenn?

  • AdLib : You see any fireworks, Murph?

  • AdLib : Well PPO, lots of draft beer here!

  • pinkpantheroz : Grabbing a cuppa before all hell breaks loose here. BRB

  • AdLib : So do neocons get other people to watch fireworks for them?

  • pinkpantheroz : ( with Stirring Sousa Marches in the background) Whizz, Bang, Pop right back!

  • AdLib : Hey Murph! And a Ka-POW! to you on this 4th!

  • AdLib : Haven’t heard yet, PPO.

  • MurphTheSurf3 : Boom…Sissss… ..Pop! Fireworks…PPOV style.

  • pinkpantheroz : Thanks, Ad. Did many planeteers get clobbered by Andrew, do you know?

  • AdLib : PPO – You’re still allowed to eat barbecue today.

  • AdLib : Hey PPO! Happy 4th and 5th!

  • pinkpantheroz : Happy 5th, Everybody! (at least it’s that here now!)

  • AdLib : Don’t forget to say “Hi!” or “Happy 4th!” when you arrive!

  • AdLib : Vox Populi, our live chat about the week’s events begins tonight at 7 pm PDT. Watch the fireworks before, during and after Vox! Hope to see you then!

Categories: Vox Populi Archives

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features