Daily Kos: Should charges of treason be filed against 5 SCOTUS judges?

[highplainsdem]

I asked DUers earlier this evening if the ruling might be grounds for impeachment, and most people replying didn't think so.

Then I found what Josh Gerstein had written for Politco about the SCOTUS ruling's effect in allowing more foreign influence in elections, and Justice Kennedy's majority opinion making it clear they were aware of that possibility.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7541555

I wondered if that might be considered treason.


Which is something Pen at Daily Kos is also wondering...


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/22/04751/1449

Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 09:53:30 PM PST
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "......citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the ." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

As of today, foreign governments can seriously injure the United States of America by throwing huge amounts of money into the political system. The Constitution gives free speech to AMERICANS. The SCOTUS just gave free speech to communist China. To Iran. To Russia. To any government that can control a multinational corporation.

Five Supreme Court Judges need to stand trial and if found guily, pay the consequences for this greivous act. That's the law of the land, unless they decide to overturn THAT part of the Constituion too.

[highplainsdem]

1. There's also a poll with that DKos diary asking "Was the SCOTUS ruling treason?" 111 votes so far,

with 43 Yes votes, 38 "Oh hell yeah! Line those bastards against the wall" votes, and only 30 No votes.

[aquart]

4. Got a link?

I'm heavily in favor of that bastard-lined wall.

[Vidar]

13. Link is the same as for the main story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/22/04751/1449

[TicketyBoo]

2. According to Barney Frank

on MSNBC this evening, Congress will be addressing this situation with new legislation to limit what corporations can do.

My suggestion would be to outlaw political TV advertising. Maybe campaign spending wouldn't be so outrageous. What could be done with all that wasted money if it weren't frittered away on political television commercials?

[Tippy]

3. Barney Frank, you gotta Love him It made me feel better just listening

To what he had to say.

[aquart]

5. I favor a six-month election period. Period.

Nothing before the six months. Not a damned announcement, NOTHING. Then six months to get it all in. I don't want endless campaigns.

Me, the more razzle dazzle mailings and TV commercials I see for a candidate, the more suspicious I get. I don't think anyone should spend more to get a job than they will earn from the job.

[flor-de-jasmim]

6. Even a shorter election period wouldn't solve the problem by itself.

[Hissyspit]

7. Keith Olbermann Tonight:

"Russ Feingold told me today there might yet be ways to work around this, to restrict corporate governance, and how corporations make and spend their money. I pointed out that any such legislation, even if it somehow sneaked past the last U.S. Senate not funded by a generous gift from the Chubb Group would eventually wind up in front of a Supreme Court, and whether or not John Roberts is still at its head would be irrelevant.

The next nine men and women on the Supreme Court will get there not because of their judgement nor even their politics. They will get there because they were appointed by purchased presidents and confirmed by purchased Senators.

This is what John Roberts did today. This is a Supreme Court-sanctioned murder of what little actual Democracy is left in this Democracy. It is government of the people by the corporations for the corporations. It is the Dark Ages. It is our Dred Scott. I would suggest a revolution but a revolution against the corporations? The corporations that make all the guns and the bullets?"

Those five right-wing justices knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

[bobburgster]

8. Filibuster?

We won't see any legislation worth anything.

[TheKentuckian]

9. A Micheal Corleone reponse sounds about right, at the moment.

:argh: :grr: :grr: :scared: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[shadowknows69]

14. "Here is my offer Senator.....Nothing."

[struggle4progress]

10. Could we stop with this treason nonsense? Treason is explicitly defined in the constitution.

The SCOTUS conservatives are intellectually dishonest ideological extremists who are damaging our democracy and the reputation of the court through their rightwing activism, but that's not treason: that's just politics as usual from the wingnuts. Now that I have gotten that off my chest, let me add that simply calling these scumbucket mofos names is a total waste of time and that a more intelligent approach is needed

[Thothmes]

11. You are correct.

However a lot of folks calling it treason have never taken the time to actually read the Consititutional requirements for a charge of treason.

[Davis_X_Machina]

12. Use the word when it doesn't apply....

...and it will be meaningless when you need it.

[jacksonian]

15. funny, that concept doesn't seem to apply

when it's RW propoganda we're talking about.

[Davis_X_Machina]

17. So we don't lie as well as they do, that's the problem? n/t

[jacksonian]

18. no, we don't rig the game as well as they can

without media wind at their backs Repug political speech couldn't get dog catchers elected.

What happens is only our lies get outed. We have to lie 200% better to get the same impact, and the truth counts less. Media house rules.

[highplainsdem]

16. .

[Fire Walk With Me]

19. Not until it becomes crystal-clear who each and every one of their friends are.