Comments about ‘Kathleen Parker: Obnoxious attempt to intimidate Supreme Court’

Conservatives have been railing against the court ever since Brown v Board of Education (1954). That's okay, but it's not okay for the other side to do it too?

Irrespective of how we may want the Chief Justice (or any Justice) to vote on an issue, I do not think that what Ms. Parker describes here is intimidation. It is the normal course of politics on a hot button issue.

I think all of our Justices, both liberal and conservative, are more than adequate to the task of ignoring such things and doing their job.

Roland Kayser is right on this. I might tend to agree with Kathleen Parker on this except that this is the most blatantly political court in the last 160 years, maybe even more so than the era of the Dred Scott decision. Conservatives hate activist judges, or so they say, but their tune has changed with this court.

Kathleen Parker is one of those conservatives that I'd love to be able to sit down and have a conversation with..but not about this. This is pure silly. I'm guessing she was trying to get an early start on the holiday weekend and banged out the first thing that came to her mind as she was having a conversation with her husband, and listening to her favorite piece of music at the same time.

Esquire, I don't think that the court is necessarily the problem. I think the problem here are the other two branches of government supporting the more conservative or liberal candidate, depending on the affiliation of each party. However, this is just judicial lobbying and this kind almost never works...ever! The true lobbying happens during the selection process of the judges. That is where one can see the greatest effect, as shown by the conservative control of the appeals court and the Supreme Court.

So the pot calls the kettle black.

For most of my life I have thought the Supreme Court to be the champion of the people. This notion was based largely on the belief that the members of the court were released from their party and economic influences by their life time status without the need for reelection.

Justice Roberts destroyed that belief in me by his pronouncement the corporations are people.

Obamacare is not what the American people wanted and which President Obama seemed to promise. However, judging from the reaction of the republicans and conservatives, it must have some merit.

It would be hard to believe that republicans and conservatives would denigrate their own policies and procedures just to put down President Obama.

Shock and horror! A President is lobbying the Supreme Court about a decision he cares about! It's the end of the Republic.

On other news, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama hold differing views about the economy.

@ Arm of Orion, with all due respect, I think the Court is the problem. They are political. They have done things I never saw or studied before, such as introducing new issues to a dispute between parties. no, this Court is quite unlike any which have come before. They are more of a legislative and public policy body than they should be.

Esquire you are correct that the court is doing things that has rarely been done before however who put them there? They certainly did not officially apply for the job. They didn't step in and take power and they certainly were not elected (nor should they be btw). So who put them in? The president and the congress. These people were deliberately selected by the executive and legislative branch for the fact that they toe the party line. Rather than proper governance and selecting the best people the presidents selected the most conservative/liberal people. The fault lies mostly on the shoulders of the other two branches of government. That is not to say that the judicial branch isn't a problem and they certainly should carry some of the blame.

Corporations are staffed w/peple like you and me who work and who contribute to the success or failure of the corporation. To imply it is a business filled w/unfeeling blocks of wood hardly describes the system that hires human employees in lieu of wooden robots. Further more, Prez Obama on several occasions publicaly demeaned the appointed Justices of the Supreme Court with his childish tantrums.

Roland Kayser makes the weakest of arguments - someone else did it so we can do it too. This is one of the problems I have with Democrats. They seem to seek out examples of the poor behavior and use that as the standard for their own behavior.

It doesn't even have to be the entire Republican party - a single Republican can control a huge group ovine-behaving Democrats. If a single Republican says something stupid, then it is justification for the President to say something just as stupid and for their entire Democratic party to adopt stupidity in their national platform.

Why can't Democrats establish their own standards of behavior? How long are they going to remain in slavery by allowing Republican behavior to control their own thinking and behavior? Do Democrats even know what they stand for until a Republican takes a position?

Joan Watson.

I agree with everything you say.

However, when a corporation speaks, it speaks with it’s dollars, not necessarily the philosophy of any one in the corporation. And strange as it may seem, dollars from the corporation can drown out all the voices of it’s employees, it’s owners, it’s customers, and all the rest of the people in it’s vicinity.

Our Constitution and our government is about people. Not business, not corporations, not religions. It we would continue as free people, we must maintain the control of government by real human being people acting as individuals.

If we allow the control of our government to go to Corporations and other made up groups, rights and freedoms for people as individuals will be lost.

Corporations do not have the same goals, purposes, morals, and rules of conduct as humans.

Take away the rights and freedoms of real people and the world will truly become a no holds bared law of the jungle world, with survival only of the very fittest.

@ Arm of Orion, every justice in history was selected the same way. It's more than that.

Ms. Parker when you say, "it's politics at its filthiest" you have described this Administration very, very well and in every thing they do. As a non-partisan it is sickening to me to see the depths to which a President who ran as change agent to bring the country and the partisan's together be so brazen, cynical and purely partisan with no effort at all to "reach across the aisle". Those on here who have commented in support of this administration and suggest the court is more political and that is the problem can keep their blinders on if they choose, but as one who voted for Mr. Obama in the last election mine have been removed along time ago by his blatant pandering to the most extreme of his political base instead of making any effort to achieve consensus for the good of the country.

Like conservatives don't intimidate the Court? Oh right... they hold dinners and invite them as guests at anti-healthcare meetings. Yeah that ain't corrupt at all...

Ms Watson, Employees of corporations have absolutely no ability to affect the official views of those corporations, because employees shed all of their rights (almost) when they report for work. In other words, democracy stops the gate of the corporation. This is one of the things wrong with capitalism

I heard worse criticism of case decisions in law school. Obama's criticisms are on point and accurate. Boo hoo that the far-right justices on the court have to hear the truth about their decisions.

I will worry about the President pushing for his view when the Justices stop compromising their ethics with the conflicts of interest by at least three of the judges.

Re: ". . . democracy stops the gate of the corporation. This is one of the things wrong with capitalism."

Of course, with every nation deranged enough to adopt marxism as its ruling economic philosophy, democracy quickly becomes a commodity expelled from the entire nation, not just corporate boardrooms.

And, BTW, corporations are much more democratic than government. Disaffected shareholders remain free to opt out of the corporation's policies, moving capital to other, more friendly venues.

Try that with Big Government, and you end up in jail.