Could/Should the SCOTUS decision be investigated?

[dmr]

Should they be investigated? Can they be investigated, or are they immune?

This is far more disasterous than Dred Scott, or Coup 2000. This decision, in it's magnitude, has rendered my individual voice, and vote impotent. I can't compete against the non-voting corporate coffers.

Where are the checks and balances for these justices? Was there a payoff? Could the old saying, 'Follow the money' apply here?

How will we ever know?

http://whitehouse.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=1042A0B5-DCDD-4C01-8430-E2CC3B0A2FF4
Whitehouse Reacts to Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Finance
January 21, 2010

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) reacted today to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision opening the door to unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns:

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld reasonable limits on corporate campaign spending. Today, the Court, in a striking display of judicial activism, departed from that long tradition in the Citizens United case. Ruling broadly and ignoring settled precedent, five conservative justices have now rewritten the Constitution to permit corporate election spending to drown out the voices of individual Americans. Today's disastrous decision is a long step towards government of the CEOs, by the CEOs, and for the CEOs. We need to carefully review the consequences of this decision, which threaten to further strengthen corporate interests at the expense of ordinary Americans and, at worst, turn the keys of American democracy over to CEOs."

If there's any time to say and have real meaning, it's time to say: I want my country back.

You can watch Senator Whitehouse's reaction in the Political Video forum here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x425975

[FreakinDJ]

1. You mean the 1 Granting Corporations Personhood

absolutely

1907 decision by a former Railroad Exec.

[dmr]

2. Are you saying

to take away Corporate personhood would nulify today's ruling?

I'm all for that.

But I still would like to know if there were shennanigans going on with those 5 justices.

[Unvanguard]

3. You would have to end a long history of precedent giving corporations First Amendment rights.

That's not new at all, and not even particularly objectionable: individuals have First Amendment rights, and corporations are associations of individuals. (Should the New York Times have First Amendment rights?)

What is objectionable about this decision is the Court's myopic, absolutist understanding of free speech--an understanding that several of the conservative justices would never adhere to in another context--to the point that they cannot appreciate the corrosive effect of agglomerations of wealth on the public debate. Honestly, that logic applies just as much to really wealthy individuals as it does to corporations. It's not a corporate personhood question.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. There has to be something in the law that allows for appeals

on the basis of improper reasoning or improper facts.

[dmr]

10. Exactly! n/t

[Unvanguard]

12. Appeals have to end somewhere. And the Court has done good things in the past.

This is not really a definitive reason to abandon the idea of an independent judiciary.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Uh, there is something in the law that allows for appeals.

It's called "making an appeal." However, that process requires a defined endpoint otherwise it continues on forever with appeals from both sides. In this case the endpoint is the USSC.

[dmr]

9. You explain well, but

I still don't know what the first poster is referring to. I thought he was talking about corporate personhood.

< sigh >

[FreakinDJ]

15. The argument being is a Corporate Entity a Person

That is what the decision states - That Corporations have the SAME Rights under the constitution as a Person. And no it is nothing new, not since 1907, but it was a bad decision then, and should have been overturned long ago

[FreakinDJ]

14. Who goes to Jail - the Person or the Corporation

The Person of Course or the Persons who make up a Corporation, but still the persons none the less - You can't put a "Ficticious Entity into Jail"

[roguevalley]

11. during gore v bush, there were SCREAMING conflicts of interest and

several of them should have recused themselves. they didn't. I believe that there are still conflicts here. they all have money to be made by giving the farm to the corporations.

[iceman66]

4. Of course they SHOULD,

but the chances of that actually happening are slim to none.

Our 'leaders' simply don't have the balls to do that.

[anonymous171]

Impeach the fuckers.

[bemildred]

5. Well, I can definitely support mass impeachment. nt

[rhett o rick]

6. If we lived in a democracy they could but we dont. we are screwed. Have to fight in the streets. nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. I've got it down to five suspects.

[Usrename]

13. SCALIA is the one who should be impeached.

The court does need to be changed before any real progress can be made. The court stands in the way of any real justice. It has only become more radicalized since it decided that it was unconstitutional to count legally cast votes in Bush v Gore. I don't want this court deciding whether or not Bush/Cheney are war criminals.


He had an overnighter with the defendant, while trying the case, and he still refused to recuse himself.

He needs to be impeached because it's good politics. A political impeachment would force him and his right-wing allies to publicly defend his behavior.

A sleepover with the DEFENDANT. During the trial. He refused to recuse himself.

He should be forced to resign over it. It's hideous behavior for ANY judge. And you should hear his excuse for it. He thinks it's the same thing as going to a state function with a defendant.

The guy needs to go. And it's good politics. Let the shrieking heads explode for a while trying to come up with a good story justify a sleepover with the defendant in a case that he is sitting on. I'd love to see them squirm.

Win or lose, it can only be good theater for our side. Impeach Scalia now.


Here are some articles that explain the specific case that is the basis of what I'm ranting about.

Duck-Blind Justice: Justice Scalia's Memorandum in the Cheney Case
Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, The, Fall 2004 by Freedman, Monroe H
123456Next ..A dramatic and controversial case of judicial disqualification is Justice Antonin Scalia's denial of a motion that he recuse himself in Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia? The case relates to the National Energy Policy Development Group ("Energy Group"), created by President Bush to establish a national energy policy, and chaired by Vice President Richard B. Cheney.

The Sierra Club and others allege that unidentified industry representatives participated as de facto members of the Energy Group, and the plaintiffs seek to compel disclosure of the identities of the industry members.2 Cheney, however, has denied that anyone other than government employees participated in the group as members or as de facto members.3 As stated by the Justice Department, representing Cheney, the first issue before the Supreme Court relates to the allegation that the Energy Group had not truthfully reported who its members were.4

The basis for the recusal motion under the federal disqualification statute, § 455(a),5 was that while the case was pending before the Supreme Court, Scalia and Cheney, who are old and close friends, went on a duck-hunting trip together.6 In a twenty-one page Memorandum Opinion, Scalia denied the motion.7 The opinion is both disappointing and disingenuous.

The applicable federal law is clear. The federal disqualification statute expressly applies to Supreme Court justices.8 It requires disqualification whenever a justice's impartiality "might" reasonably be "questioned," and the Supreme Court has interpreted that language broadly to avoid "suspicions and doubts" about the integrity of judges.9


http://findarticles.com/p...75/is_200410/ai_n9466377/





SCALIA'S EXPLANATION FOR RECUSAL REFUSAL IS UNCONVINCING
Professor William G. Ross
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/ross1.php

A Closer Look At The Case From Which Justice Scalia Has Refused To Recuse Himself:
The Momentous Stakes, and the Larger Political Context
By JOHN W. DEAN
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040326.html

Impeachment of Scalia over this would be politically correct.

I would just love to hear Rush and Hannity fumble around trying to come up with a justification for a judge to spend the night with the defendant in a case that he is hearing, while the case is under review.

This is simple stuff, the kind of thing that it would be easy to get folks riled up about. The free-speech argument is a little more complicated and folks are being misled about the implications of it. Sleepovers with defendents, not so easy to side-step if we make the case loudly enough.

[dmr]

16. WOW! On Scalia's explanation

I hadn't heard what Scalia's response was to that trip. What an arrogant SOB.

Too bad there's no one with the political will to take him on.

Must be nice as a member of high places to have friends in high places. Why, you could rule the world!

:grr:

Isn't Wallace Carline an oil executive?

[Usrename]

17. He is basically saying to Hell with the law because

... he can interpret it in any fashion he wants since he is a Supreme.

Beyond arrogance. He really believes he and his pals are above the law and above reproach.

I think it is smart politics to take him on, win or loose, it has to wake people up.

Right?!!!

[Democat]

18. Of course you're right, but Democrats are far too wimpy for that!

If a centrist or left leaning judge did that, he would have been impeached long ago. Democrats just don't have the spine to do what is needed.