Thursday, July 02, 2015

The SCOTUS-9 in the Court of Astrology

A few SCOTUS/astrological-related links:

#1 ~ I recently saved this article from the BBC's website, thought it a nicely done quick run-down on current SCOTUS Justices:
Meet the Supremes: Who are the US Supreme Court justices?
By Taylor Kate Brown, BBC News Magazine.

#2 ~ It'd be a big job to sift through 9 natal charts looking for similarities, I'm not feeling enthusiastic enough for that, but found an astrologer at Ohio Astrology blog who has already done some work in that direction. Included in the linked post is a handy list of justices' Sun and Moon signs, with observations on any chart similarities or peculiarities:
If you want to be a supreme court justice what sign should you be?

#3 ~ Infographic has an illustration showing Sun signs of the SCOTUS 9 ~
Supreme Court Justices by Name & Zodiac Sign

#4 ~ My own brief scribble about Chief Justice Roberts is below, extracted from THIS 2008 post, written when I was still naive about the US brand of politics and justice...can you tell?

US Chief Justice John Roberts has Sun and Mercury in Aquarius, with Aquarius' modern ruler Uranus conjunct Jupiter in Cancer. Jupiter is traditionally connected with law, and government. Incidentally, with his natal Moon almost certainly in Pisces, Sun in humanitarian Aquarius, and that conjunction in sensitive Cancer , I'd say Chief Justice Roberts is a compassionate man, it's good to see such a person occupying that lofty position.(27 Jan. 1955, Buffalo, New York)


Thanks to commenter Bob (see below) for information on date/time of SCOTUS inaugural meeting. Here's a chart, for reference, based on that data: 2 February 1790 at 1:14 PM, in New York City.


mike said...

SCOTUS decisions can often provide angst to the lay person, but to the legal professionals, too. The system is based on a litigant's complaint of harm and the arguments for and against. The appropriateness of the litigant, the validity of the complaint, the establishment of harm, and the thoroughness of the arguments all intertwine through the justices' subjective-objective interpretation, assessment by jurisprudence, and decision.

The Citizens United decision, while disappointing to me, matriculated through this process. The litigant, complaint, injury, and arguments are interesting to read. There has been much misunderstanding of the SCOTUS decision in this case:
"The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions, i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements. This ruling was frequently characterized as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns, or as removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign. However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns, nor did it concern campaign contribution limits. The Citizens United decision did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates, and it did not address whether the government could regulate contributions to groups that make independent expenditures. The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited."
The entire Wiki page is helpful toward understanding the decision, though collusion of politics and ideology was levied internally against justices.

Per the astrology, as with any human endeavor, the SCOTUS judicial system and process will never be perfection and can only reflect the collective astrology of the justices, for better or worse. I'd say that it's an interplay between each of their natal charts, their individual experiences, their synastry as a team, perhaps the natal chart of the birth of SCOTUS (1789?), and the transiting planets affect on each justice and the team.

Maybe as we evolve with artificial intelligence, the emotional and intellectual partisan of humans will be eliminated. A "Star Trek" episode had two warring planets with the combat played-out by computers. The casualties for each planet were calculated, then citizens were randomly selected by the computer for termination. The evolution of humans may require our finding methods to eliminate the astrological implications provided by birth.

Twilight said...

mike ~ What irks me about the Supreme Justices is that they appear not to be able to leave their political leaning out of their decisions - which is what judges are supposed to be able to do, in order to apply the law or interpret any part of the law. Re the artificial intelligence point in your last para - the SCOTUS might be much improved if stocked with AI Justices.

RE Citizens United - what's done is done, and the ruling has been followed by vastly more spending on political campaigning in various guises than ever before.

The Big Picture
Citizens United isn’t an isolated problem. It’s a symptom of a bigger, longstanding threat: for decades the largest corporations have been building power over our political process — power that comes at the expense of citizens.

One of the main instruments of this influence is the legal concept of “corporate personhood,” wherein corporations receive the same Constitutional protections as individuals. Corporations use these protections to claim the “right” to lie to the public, for example, or to influence elections in various ways. Corporations have lobbied for and received these protections for decades, despite our country’s founders intending no such thing. The Citizens United decision is just the latest in a long line of decisions granting Constitutional rights to corporations.

An important note: Citizens United isn’t technically an extension of corporate personhood. The Court majority didn’t say corporations have free speech rights because they’re people, but instead stated non-persons have free speech rights. If your toaster could talk, it would have those rights too.

From here

Re astrology and SCOTUS ~ The only similarity I'd expect to find would be some emphasis, prominence or highlighting by position of Saturn and/or maybe Jupiter.

mike (again) said...

Bernie Sanders will likely be a beneficiary of the Citizens United decision. Unions and labor groups are disturbed about the potential hidden in the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership.

"The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions, i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements."

"With well over 600,000 members, the Communications Workers of America (CWA), an AFL-CIO affiliate, is—by far and away--the largest communications and media labor union in the U.S. So, when outgoing (after a decade at the helm of the union) CWA President Larry Cohen announced over the past few hours that he’s going to work as a volunteer in the Sanders campaign, in large part due to Hillary “Clinton’s equivocation on granting President Barack Obama so-called fast-track authority on his mammoth trade deal,” it’s pretty damn newsworthy. And, I’m sure many of CWA’s members will be reporting upon this story, as well.

Will one person’s public pronunciations affect the CWA’s formal support of any particular candidate in the 2016 presidential election? That remains to be seen. But, Cohen’s announcement, late last night, certainly won’t hurt Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ efforts to obtain the group’s endorsement."

Twilight said...

mike (again) ~ Well, yes - as long as it's law for one, it's law for t'other also, though the level of dosh from corporations is obviously going to be much much higher than from union groups, which have been decreasing in number anyway, over past years. 'Union', like 'socialist' has become a dirty word in the USA. Things will change - but very slowly.

Ideally, I'd say that it should be law for neither, and that election campaigns should be publicly funded, and the time span allowed should be much shorter than at present.

Anonymous said...

"Hey ... Gettin five outa twelve ain't bad!"
- mugsy

sca -rat
ken -rat
tho -rat
kag -rat

bre -tiger
ali -tiger

sot -horse
rbg -rooster
rob -goat


Twilight said...

Anon/kidd ~ Hmm - goin' all oriental on us are ya mugsy? ;-)

It ain't that bad, but as the song goes:

I know you're looking for a ruby
In a mountain of rocks
But there ain't no Coupe de Ville hiding
At the bottom of a Cracker Jack box

Anonymous said...

I said "Hey Boss ... what Chinese sign am I?"
He said "You're my alter-ego ... so pick one"
So I chose Tiger 'cause I'm a Jungle Cat ...
... But I don't see what Church has to do with it.


Bob said...

With thanks to a cyber friend.

John Battalana, died from cancer on May 25, 2015 in Jakarta. He posted as JohnTWB or Blazingstar. His full name was John Thomas Wyder Battalana. His career was in banking. John had a personal library of about 7,000 books and was an avid researcher of historical data.

i_predict Msg 21624
Posted By: blazingstar1776 Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:22 am

"[7] LUNA, 4H = 24-Vi-51: February 2, 1790 @ 13:14:14 LMT + 4:56:04 [=1:00 p.m. LAT]

From the Record: U.S. Supreme Court first convened by ceremony, at 1:00 p.m. LAT, lower Broad Street, New York City. [Source: New York Law Review, March 1940.]"

i_predict, Msg 23936
Posted By: blazingstar1776 , Tue Jan 5, 2010 8:36 pm

"The 1790 supreme court chart @ lower Manhattan (NYC) captures the inaugural ceremony convened at 1:00 p.m. local apparent time, which makes it 13:14:14 hrs LMT +4:56:04. Note the Moon anti-culminating @ 24-Vi-52


And from Politico:

Supreme Court schedules first session, Feb. 1, 1790

By ANDREW GLASS | 2/1/12 4:26 AM EST

On this day in 1790, the Supreme Court was scheduled to meet for the first time in the Royal Exchange Building on New York’s Broad Street. Because three of the newly appointed justices couldn’t make it, the meeting was delayed until Feb. 2. It took 145 years for the court to find a permanent site.

Bob said...

I agree Annie about public funding and shorter campaigns.

To help you understand what the country will be like if Bernie gets elected:

Twilight said...

Anon/kidd ~ Giggles....Hiya Mugsy/Tigger

I'm a Tiger too! ;-)

Twilight said...

Bob ~ Thank you for the information - I've added a chart using the data to the post above - hope I have it accurate enough! I particularly like the Yod linking Mars/Neptune sextile to Saturn at its apex! :-)

LOL! at the two videos. One commenter under the first one had it just about right

Communism. Actually in its purest form it works. Everyone pitching in working together with no elite class. However when you add humans you add good and bad. Thats what goes wrong with the communist and socialist model's. Humans are greedy and power hungry and will try and rule over the masses. But for now don't fall for the "corperations and profits are evil". Without profits there would be little innovations in our world. People don't invent new medical devices, cars, electronics,etc. for the hell of it. The Iphone wasn't invented for shits and was invented to make someone wealthy....husker hammer (commenter "husker hammer")