Could today's SCOTUS ruling become grounds for impeaching those five Justices?

[highplainsdem]

I hope some House members and lawyers are already looking at this possibility.

[proud patriot]

1. I sure hope so !

[tonysam]

2. I doubt there are enough votes in the Senate to remove them.

This decision is less "corporate" than it is to create a one-party country, a Republican Party country.

There will be NO Democratic Party anymore after this.

[scheming daemons]

3. Good luck getting 67 Senators to vote for removal

You think ANY Republican senators will do so?



Keep dreaming...

[tekisui]

4. No. It won't happen.

The better approach is to get Congress to pass laws that exclude corporations as persons.

[Codeine]

5. Nope.

Not a High Crime or a Misdemeanor.

can't impeach them just because we think they made a bad decision.

[tammywammy]

10. +1 n/t

[anonymous171]

16. It's called investigation. Dig up some dirt on them

If we embarrass/scare them enough they will never do something like this again.

[Codeine]

20. Baloney.

This isn't a movie.

[anonymous171]

24. Of course it isn't. That's why it could work. nt

[bemildred]

6. The Congress can impeach pretty much anyone for pretty much anything.

As long as they are government officials.

[ManiacJoe]

8. Not even close....

x(

[bemildred]

13. Well, they impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job? nt

[Codeine]

17. Perjury is a crime.

They had at least a figleaf of legality there.

[bemildred]

25. Anything the Congress says is a crime, is a crime.

The Congress is sovereign.

[ManiacJoe]

31. Uh, no.

You need to go find your old civics text book....

[bemildred]

32. Yeah, actually, they make law. that is what they do. nt

[bemildred]

33. If the Congress impeached and convicted 5 USSC justices,

removing them from office, for any reason, who could reverse that decision?

[Codeine]

15. Wrong.

The Constitution allows for impeaching a SC Justice for High Crimes and Misdemeanors (another phrase is used, but it has been legally interpreted to mean the same thing), not for "pretty much anything."

[bemildred]

22. And that is pretty much anything the Congress says it is.

There is NO judicial review, the Congress is sovereign.

[harkadog]

35. Please brush up on the Constitution

[bemildred]

36. Could you be more specific? nt

[harkadog]

38. Sure

Congress is not sovereign and can't label a crime "anything it says". Three equal branches. At least that's what my copy says.

[bemildred]

40. Could you quote the particular passages that say that?

I don't see that in mine.

[harkadog]

44. No you said Congress was sovereign

Where is that in Constitution? You quote that passage. Articles I, II, and III describe the relationship between the three equal branches but I'm sure you know that and are just playing an internet game. Now go play outside.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Nope.

There have been some very bad decisions before -- Dred Scott, Buckley v. Valeo, Bush v. Gore, to name a few -- and the only recourse is appointing new justices and overturning the case, or enacting legislation that fixes the problem but still complies with the Court's interpretation of the Constitution. A badly-reasoned decision isn't grounds for impeachment of a Justice.

[Hugabear]

9. Ha. You assume that many in Congress would want to impeach them.

I'm sure that many in Congress - in both parties - will have no problem with giant corporations spending billions of dollars to help get them re-elected.

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. Sure beats having to walk among the masses campaigning/begging for $$.

:evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

11. IMPEACH or RECALL . . . ?? Whatever . . .

Keep in mind you have Joe Biden to thank for Clarence Thomas being on the

Court -- !!

[Codeine]

19. No reason to impeach.

No provision for recall.

The SC should be free to make decisions without fear of repurcussions; this is why we got landmark decisions in the Civil Rights era.

[defendandprotect]

23. Nonsense . . . this decision LIMITS the rights of citizens .....no decision

should ever be permitted to do that --

You can always EXPAND citizens' rights, but not NARROW them . . .

[Codeine]

28. And that qualifies as a High Crime or Misdemeanor

how? :shrug: I mean, it's a stupid fucking decision, but that's not a crime.

[defendandprotect]

30. Fascism is crime . . .

wake up!

[anonymous171]

29. That's why there needs to be some kind of investigation

If they have not committed any impeachable offenses, then at least we can air their dirty laundry.

[FarCenter]

12. A majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate vote against allowing corps to give them money?

in great, big, unlimited amounts?

Surely you jest!!!!

[Smarmie Doofus]

27. 2- shay. nt

[FourScore]

41. Actually , the congress and senate should feel quite threatened.

Corporations can easily replace them now with their own hand-picked candidates.

[anonymous171]

14. It is definitely worth looking into. A Congressional Investigation would be nice

[highplainsdem]

21. It would be a way to keep pressure and the media spotlight on them.

And officials have resigned during such investigations...

[defendandprotect]

26. Let's start the investigation with the 2000 decision -- !!!

[highplainsdem]

34. Roberts and Alito stated under oath that they would uphold previous Supreme Court rulings, according

to a comment on this HuffPo blog:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-supreme-courts-non-vi_b_431983.html

They overturned earlier rulings today.

[jillan]

39. Yep - they said that they would not legislate from the bench like those gosh darn libruls.

Seriously - that's all we heard during the bsh administration....having justices that would not legislate from the bench.

[vincna]

37. Unrec'd for being completely asinine - nt

[MilesColtrane]

42. No

[totodeinhere]

43. It will never happen.

They would need Republican votes in the Senate. Hell, they can't even get good health care reform through the Senate and you think they are going to impeach some SC justices? Dream on.

[melm00se]

45. You don' like the decision

so they should be run out of town on a rail huh?

the law and Constitution be damned, right?

[ctaylors6]

46. I think the ACLU's support of Citizen's United

along with similar support would rule out any chance of that. ACLU's brief was completely in line with CU, of course, but still. I think any kind of impeachment talk would a non-starter.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission