I call for IMPEACHING the Supreme Court Members who voted for this decision

[Cronus Protagonist]

Kick out the fascists once and for all.

[ima_sinnic]

1. where/how do we begin? (nt)

[jgraz]

2. Clarence "Pubic Hair" Thomas

The guy committed perjury during his confirmation hearings. Impeach his ass and throw him in jail.

[ima_sinnic]

5. what begins that process? don't we need some lawyers or something? or Congresspeople?

[Betty Karlson]

73. Any judge voting for this decision is guilty of treason!

By handing corporations personhood, they have made the legislative process in America subject to foreigners. If my memory serves me well, one former vice-president has been impeached for a similar reason. (Somewhere in the early 1800-s)

[onenote]

79. not under the US Constitution

which has a very very narrow and specific definition of treason.

It never fails to amaze me how some people don't see the irony in arguing that proper response to a bad Constitutional decision is to abuse the Constitution further.

[Betty Karlson]

83. Ouch.

That was a stern reproach, sir/ madam.

[onenote]

85. sorry. you just happened to be the one who pushed me over the edge

Others have been making the same claim and I'm not being any more gentle with them, if that matters.

[Dreamer Tatum]

90. That's because the Constitution is malleable under self-righteous indignation nt

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. I wish I knew

I suppose someone in the Senate would introduce articles of impeachment. Maybe that's impossible since they're all on the payola scheme to begin with. I wonder if the people can call for impeachment without any elected officials involved.

[Thothmes]

56. Someone in the House has to introduce the articles of Impeachment

The house then investigates and decides if the charges are sustainable. If the charges are valid, the Senate will conduct a trial. The Senate cannot introduce articles of impeachment.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

64. Calling Dennis Kucinich or anyone else with a conscience and love of country.

[LaydeeBug]

37. they can be impeached. nt

[adamuu]

40. Write to your rep and your senators

Your rep can initiate the impeachment. The hearing would be held in the Senate.

[Thothmes]

54. If the House inpeaches, the Senate conducts the trial.

[LuckyTheDog]

63. Make THIS your Facebook status

"Money is not speech and human beings -- not corporations -- are persons entitled to constitutional rights. If you agree, copy this into your Facebook status and encourage others to do the same."

[FarCenter]

3. Good luck with getting 67 votes in the Senate

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. +1

[Cleita]

22. If we had true Americans in the Senate regardless of whether they are

Republican, Democratic or Independent, true patriotism should give us a hundred votes for this anti-Constitutional decision. Of course we know almost half of them are turncoats anyway. We might as well stick that document, our Constitution, in the Smithsonian in the quaint documents of yesteryear wing.

[Last Stand]

59. The arguments need to be made public regardless.

The press won't let the full implications of this decision be known to the ostriches in the rank and file. Put the debate out there. Go down swinging.

[MercutioATC]

6. Silliness.

SCOTUS Justices CAN be impeached, but only if convicted in a Senate trial and only for the same types of offenses that any other government official could be tried for under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

There's no basis in this case.

[paulsby]

10. which is how it should be

if u could impeach a SCOTUS JUSTICE for a decision u don't like, rule of law and seperation of powers would be meaningless

[MercutioATC]

16. Precisely.

As least SOMEBODY hasn't completely lost their head.
:toast:

[grasswire]

rule of law and separation of powers ARE meaningless since 2000.

Bush v. Gore.

[tomp]

60. scotus is making rule of law and separation of powers meaningless.

absolutely amazing that you don't see that.

[azul]

69. Too late.

Government officials and agencies kidnapping, torturing and murdering people: rule of law?

Roberts' role in the Gore vs Bush Supreme court awarding the presidency in 2000, and then Roberts getting appointed chief justice of the court by Bush: separation of powers?

To say nothing of the NSA dossiers on them all.

Is there not a case to be made that these justices are taking bribes to influence decisions that lead to depriving real people of their constitutional rights? Should not they be held to the highest standard?

[Cleita]

20. What they have done is marry corporations and the government, which is

fascism and flies in the face of the type of government that our Constitution set up as a democratic republic. If I remember correctly we went to war in 1941 to fight Hitler's Nazis, Mussolini's Fascists and Emperor Hirohito's Imperialism. We did it to preserve democracy and to protect our Constitution. If the very judges who have sworn to uphold the Constitution have done the opposite, it seems like treason to me.

[MercutioATC]

21. You're barking up the wrong tree.

The SCOTUS decision is legally sound.

If you have issues with it, then you actually have issues with the legal reality of "corporate personhood". The SCOTUS doesn't write the law, it just interprets it.

Wanna be mad? Be mad at the law.

[Cleita]

23. They certainly did some yoga pretzel moves and back flips to interpret this law. n.t

[MercutioATC]

24. How so?

All this decision does is recognize that corporate entities have the same legal rights as private entities in terms of campaign contributions.

As long as corporate personhood is a legal reality, it's a simple and logical decision.

[Cleita]

28. Let's see they said the corporations had free speech rights under the

First Amendment. Well, shouldn't that go two ways? I dare you to walk into the corporate headquarters of any Fortune 500 corporations and demand to be admitted to the Executive offices because you want to exercise your right to free speech to the CEO, or if you work for let's say Goldman-Sachs can you exercise your free speech to tell your boss what you think of him? You know as well as I do, the minute you enter a company you don't have those rights. I dare anyone to go into a Wal-Mart, set up a podium, and under your rights of free speech tell all the shoppers what scumbags the Wal-Mart Corporation stands for.

[MercutioATC]

77. So YOU don't have free speech because you can't just walk into MY house and talk?

What a silly notion.

[Spazito]

62. Did you read Justice Stephen's dissenting opinion?

It spells out VERY clearly what the 5 Supreme Court Justices did in scathing clarity. If you haven't yet read it, you should.

[joeybee12]

72. Not at all...not at all...

..no precedent for it, no basis in law WHATSOEVER

[Blue Owl]

7. Wouldn't that be nice!

Something has got to be done about this disaster.

[paulsby]

11. it wouldn't be nice

it would destroy seperation of powers, judicial review, and rule of law

[MrCoffee]

15. It would be horrific

The judiciary must be insulated against the political branches. We wouldn't have law otherwise.

[happy_liberal]

8. K&R

:applause:

[paulsby]

9. Are the ACLU fascists?

they wrote an amicus brief..

[MrCoffee]

13. Oh don't start that again!

The other thread was bad enough.

[paulsby]

17. if those that made this decision are

"fascists", then those who advocated it, via legal brief. are too

[MrCoffee]

18. You know very well that the ACLU did not "advocate" this decision

The ACLU explicitly did not address the overturning of Austin in their brief.

[paulsby]

19. the ACLU specifically said

that they believe that limiting corporations/unions from using money for political advertisement etc. is a unconstitutional (on it's FACE) restriction on free expression. they said this way back in re: mccain/feingold too

that was the basis for the scotus rendering this decision. the exact same concept.
i can quote the relevant sections of the ACLU brief if you would like. it's the same rationale.

so, if it's a fascist rationale, then it is for the ACLU too.

hth

[zazen]

30. at least ACLU is consistent; pornographers have right to "speak" with abused women's naked bodies

Doesn't matter if women claim they were coerced into making pornography via battering or threats or because they were drugged and incapable of consent. Once photographed, they became the pornographer's speech, and those women had no standing to get the photos off the market or to claim any damages for harm.

ACLU wrote an amicus brief that helped overturn Indianapolis anti-pornography legislation in the 80s. As Catherine MacKinnon said, "I don't see any of these pro-pornography women lawyers selling their ass out on the street to fulfill their sexual agency."

The problem with the First Amendment in this capitalist country is that there is no affirmative right to speech. I think some rights have been recognized with the airwaves (or used to be). There was the idea that this bandwidth belonged to everybody and no one company should be able to buy it all up to preclude others from the right to speech.

But there appear to be no anti-monopoly laws on speech. We're just supposed to combat lots of speech with more speech. Well, what if the folks with all the money and power buy all of the means of communication so that groups whose oppression is advocated by that "speech" have no effective means of being heard?

[paulsby]

34. MacKinnon'ism

is anti-american and thank god we have a first amendment to protect us from her censorious crap.

she's been more successful in canada, where they have much less free speech (they can criminalize "hate speech" , for example)

there IS an affirmative right to speech, just not a right to access all the nifty and powerful means of distribution, like radio stations, etc.

but in this age of the internet, speech has NEVER been more democratic. there has never been, in the history of mankind, greater access to literally millions of people with your message.

thomas paine, had to deliver his stuff via frigging horse delivery, for pete's sake.

any dipshit nowadays, can set up a website and spew whatever rubbish he wants. and the public is free to read it or not.

[cali]

12. I call for an end to political fantasies being posted on DU!!!!!!!!!!

just about the same likelihood: None.

[Maru Kitteh]

52. +1

[sabrina 1]

25. Good idea, it's been done before. Would love to see

Scalia impeached. Wasn't it he who said that even if proven innocent AFTER a conviction and death sentence, the new information should be disregarded as the conviction, if attained in a 'fair trial' should not be overturned?

[salguine]

29. What justice(s) have been impeached? Enquiring minds want to know.

[sabrina 1]

38. Samuel Chase. But as the comment below states,

the Senate aquitted him.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_Federalist_party_US_Supreme_Court_justice_was_impeached_in_1804

However, it does show it is possible to impeach a SC Justice. But there would have to be a very good case against him.

I think the decision in the above case was fair. Iow, you should not be able to fire a Public figure just for their opinions.

But if a good case could be made that SC Justice has undermined the Constitution, which would be very difficult to make, at least we know it's possible.

Re the Corporate Personhood case, it does seem to violate the Constitution, but I would not want to be the lawyers having to prosecute it.

[Codeine]

31. Only one Justice has been impeached

and it failed. he was cleared and served many more years on the Court.

[knitter4democracy]

26. Nope. Pass a law that says corporations are not people.

They have to go based on the law as it is. Right now, corporations are people legally, so change the law. Then, the SC would have to change the ruling.

[Maru Kitteh]

61. That would be a waste of time because the law would be found unconstitutional.

The court has decided Corps. are people. You can't just pass a law and undo that. This is middle-school level civics here people! No WONDER this country is in so much trouble.

[closeupready]

65. An amendment to the constitution could not, by definition, be unconstitutional.

n/t

[azul]

70. Show us where in the 14th amendment that gives corporations personhood.

The legal status of corporate personhood derives from a SC interpretation. It can be re-interpreted just as well to eliminate it.

[knitter4democracy]

71. No, there is a legal basis for this.

The court decision was based on tort law saying corporations are people dating back to the 1800s, not on anything Constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution saying corporations are people--that's old tort law that's never been questioned or actually legislated. So, the answer here is to pass a law saying that corporations aren't people and cannot act as people legally, and that nullifies this decision.

[cascadiance]

88. That was a COURT REPORTER's decision in a head note NOT SCOTUS's decision!

What this court did is just give court justices the right to author laws with their head notes. I just postulated in another thread that we perhaps should see if we could persuade the current SCOTUS court reporter to use this newly given right to actually write a head note opinion that corporations are NOT persons.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7546220

Doesn't matter what the court actually said, the head note is what counts (according to this latest court decision!). Now if this court doesn't like the court reporter overruling them (if we can get this court reporter to do so), then they pull the rug out from under the whole basis of this case that they've built and would invalidate their own decision.

[Odin2005]

27. Then have them tried for TREASON and SHOT.

[cali]

33. wow. has a freeper taken over your mind?

[ima_sinnic]

42. oh, well, then, hang them for treason--the traditional end for traitors.

[Rebubula]

67. TREASON? SHOOT THEM?

Some folks here have lost their freaking mind.

Wow...kill judges for making a legal decision. So...I guess that you would not have a problem with anti-choicers that would call for the deaths of the SC that passed Roe v Wade.

LOL...the same people that would give a cop killer a pass would execute people that interpret law. Awesome.

[Odin2005]

87. They killed democracy, they are engaged in a direct attack on our republic.

Lincoln contemplated arresting Chief Justice Tawney after the Dred Scott decision.

[elocs]

32. You do understand how the impeachment process works?

Just calling for it doesn't do much, but I suppose it makes you feel better.

[amborin]

35. K&R

[fl00ridaG33k]

36. stupid idea

that would be a waste of time.. lets focus on more important issues that need to be resolved

[sharesunited]

39. Impeach Earl Warren!

I think that was for Brown v. Board of Ed.

[depakid]

48. Actually, in any half ethical government, 5 would have already been impeached

for their ultra vires decision in Bush v. Gore- and if not for that fact alone- then for failure to recuse themselves whent hey had clear conflicts of interest.

[sharesunited]

57. Yes, he was installed into office by friends of his father on the Court.

And Bin Laden took notice.

[newspeak]

66. didn't two of the justices have a conflict of interest deciding the case

They had family members directly tied to the * campaign. Yet, they didn't recuse themselves.

[Codeine]

41. Handing down a decision -

however stupid that decision may be - does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors or violate the Constitutional stricture of 'on good behavior".

No grounds for impeachment, sadly.

[Cronus Protagonist]

43. In 2000 the SCOTUS handed down a decision in a STATE dispute

In clear violation of the Constitution. All of these members of SCOTUS need to be removed for treason because they knew they were violating the USC, and did it anyway, to the extreme peril of the country and the rest of us.

[brentspeak]

44. kick

:kick:

[Kablooie]

45. System is designed so you can't do that.

[Cronus Protagonist]

46. It can be done for treason

And for sure, the felonius five committed treason in 2000. We don't even need to refer to their latest acts.

[Kablooie]

49. Maybe some nice mafia friend could frame one of them for murder. That would do it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

51. I often wonder what kind of things Roberts has in his closet

Quite apart from the obvious homosexual tendencies, I mean. Perhaps something actionable is also there.

[Thothmes]

53. Would you recommend impeaching his if he was infact

homosexual.

[Kaleva]

47. On what grounds?

[Kablooie]

50. Sexual intercourse with a minor.

That would do it, wouldn't it?

[Betty Karlson]

76. treason, for one

giving spending rights in election campaigns to corporations (which are partly foreign and/ or partly led by foreigners) equals treason: handing over the government of your country to those who should not be in control.

Can we at least find ourselves a different president of the Supreme Court? I think Roberts has been stalling this decision until a fifth judge was willing to share his legal opinion. Talk about an activist judge.

[Union Yes]

55. KNR! [phone] nt

[eridani]

58. So what if there is no real legal basis for impeachment?

Wasn't one for Clinton either, but the Repukes did it anyway because they thought it would be a good show. Inpeaching all five would be equally good theater, which might rouse the public to pass a constitutional amendment.

[Betty Karlson]

74. But in this case there is:

TREASON

[Nye Bevan]

80. So your definition of "TREASON" is

arriving at a decision that you disagree with? Or arriving at a decision that many DUers don't like?

I would not have voted with the majority in this case but I can see that there are arguments on both sides (just as the ACLU did). Before this ruling, some corporations (the ones that happened to own newspapers) could engage in unlimited political advocacy, while others could not, and I understand the First Amendment argument for leveling the playing field. Personally I think this argument is outweighed by the other factors in the case, but I would not yell TREASON at anyone who disagrees with me on this.

[Betty Karlson]

84. I'm shouting treason because

foreigners could start to campaign by proxi.

[tonysam]

68. Won't happen.

It's up to the voters to make sure the GOP candidates--which this decision is REALLY about and that's increasing the GOP's stranglehold on federal, state, and local governments--don't get elected, and that Democratic candidates actually care about the people.

But this is a GOP decision first and foremost.

[Marr]

75. The time for these arguments was a few years ago, when Bush's nominees were

allowed to glide through the process in the interest of "keeping our powder dry".

I think we'd be better off getting rid of the Blue Dog con-men who helped the court become so stacked in the first place.

[onenote]

78. knock yourself out

But unless you have super powers, don't hold your breath since the chances of impeaching a scotus justice (let alone five) because they issued a decision a lot of people didn't like is exactly zero.

If the public was outraged enough by the decision to demand impeachment, they'd be outraged enough to demand a constitutional amendment overturning the decision.

And I don't see that happening either.

[anonymous171]

81. First we need an investigation, so that we can pin an impeachable offense on them

[Lorien]

82. Have you called your reps and demanded as much?

Such a statement on DU accomplishes little.

[The Wizard]

86. Sincde Justices are appointed and not elected

it might only take a simple majority in the Senate to convict as opposed to the 2/3 required for convicting an elected President. But I'm not sure on this.

[Zorra]

89. I don't care how we get rid of these traitors. An act of God would be fine with me. n/t