There won't be a constitutional amendment. Or a violent revolution

[cali]

or impeachment of the slimeball justices.
Taking these "options one by one:

Does anyone remember the ERA, for pity's sake? Enough said.

Most Americans don't give a flying fuck about yesterday's horrific decision.

Impeachment? When was the last impeachment of a SC Justice? And who in Congress would support it? Dennis? Grayson?

Is there a viable path to ameliorate the damage done yesterday? I don't see it.

Yeah yeah, reality sucks

[DrDan]

1. and isn't the timing strange

just a couple of days after we lose the supermajority. . . this ruling.

No chance to overturn it legislatively now.

[cali]

2. It's been 10 years since a political event made me so sick

and that came out of SCOTUS too.

[HillbillyBob]

12. I know and had warned those I knew prior to that

that that election would be stolen I was met with skepticism and derision.
I quoted bits of the PNAC to them, they laughed me off. "never gonna happen".
I said in 98 that if (*) 'ran' he would 'win' and that we would be at war in Iraq or Iran by 2003. The election would be stolen for (*) and we would be at the mercy of oil corps.

The night of the election my partners little dog insisted on going out for a midinight walk. Our polling place was near our house Jeb Bushes hirelings were down there dumping the boxes with our ballots from that day into truck mounted shredders. WE spoke out , partner got outsourced, we got threatening phone calls (we did not have a working camera, let alone cell phone and were barely online). Eventually after threats we left Fl and moved to the mountains of NC, no jobs, we moved again. I still spoke out (i did not know about DU then either) eventually in 2004 when I was yelling about another stolen election, family still did not believe me, (Teh Stoopid It buurns!) our house was ransacked no warrant, no notice, we were away dealing with partners ill mother in another town. We came home to find our doors standing open, file cabinets out of order, books on the floor dressers riffled. Nothing missing there was even a little cash left in a dresser drawer for our next months rent, a jar with about 200$ in quarters. Our neighbors said there were several black Crown Victorias with gov tags and men in dark suits in and out of our house and they were afraid(the woman next door moved away the next week , she had two small children.

[tonysam]

34. This IS Bush v. Gore II.

This is nothing but a brazen partisan political decision to help the GOP get back into and retain power. Whether it succeeds remains to be seen.

Democrats still have the votes in this country, but if Democratic politicians' message is drowned out because of money, it probably won't even matter.

[sabbat hunter]

8. unless you pass an amendment

congress cannot overturn a SCOTUS decision.

[DrDan]

10. explains robert's huge smile yesterday - no chance in hell of this being overturned now

[tonysam]

33. It's about the midterms and beyond

The GOP is destined to make a spectacular comeback now that they will be able to raise all kinds of obscene money. The party has been hurting the last two election cycles, after all.

[onenote]

38. sure it sucks, but if you think there was a chance of overturning it legislatively

before Brown was elected, I want some of what you're smoking.

[DrDan]

43. well - we did buy a few blue-dog votes before this past Tuesday

even that will not work today

[HillbillyBob]

3. Some of us are not able to mount even a logical argument against

the corpses, let alone get up from the puter or vidiotgames to piss on time getting out and marching or mounting a revolution. Ha!
Can't even hope for it. I am so angry at what I see as lackadaisical response to what I have been saying about seeing yesterdays scotus in the future years ago.
The best I could mount now is to hit em with my cane. In a way I'm relieved that I have a few more years at best, hopefully dementia will set in before I have to see much more.

We saw the economy coming to a grinding halt for us little folks so we moved to a place we could grow food and hope to be able to try to help in the coming years, my health is failing pretty rapidly, I doubt I ll be around long enough to see the results or too much of it anyway.

[JohnnyLib2]

4. Yup.

Rec.

[City Lights]

5. Sadly, I agree.

:-(

[H2O Man]

6. I agree.

Recommended.

The Beatles aren't going to get back together again either. Not to record in the studio, or for a roof-top concert. We have to recognize and accept reality sometimes. Once we do that, we have the option of taking an inventory of what tools we have, what options are open to us, and only then can we move ahead.

[KharmaTrain]

7. The Corporates Will Bring On Their Own Collapse...

Think about it...let's pretend this country become the total corporate kleptocracy. They buy all the offices and ramrod all their pet projects...then what? The middle class no longer exists to buy their soap, tax cuts eliminate most the money to the contractors and the gambling casinos on Wall Street go bust. Then where do they turn? On each other. All the money in the world doesn't mean a thing if it has no real value and we got a quick taste last year when the bank imploded as to how quick their money vanished...without a tax base, the only money they'll be able to get is borrowed from other countries...and pits one corporate against another.

The ultimate weapon to defeat the corporates is a motivated and educated electorate. They can spend all their money, but if the voters reject the high rollers and their puppets, it all goes to waste. The real game here is to make it too expensive for them to buy elections and work to empower our own big guns...the unions and organizations like MoveOn to promote, fund and elect more Progressives who can add some fresh air to the stale beltway.

[TheKentuckian]

41. They turn to China, India, and the rest of the world that'll take more time than we have

Don't even begin to believe that the hobbled unions and our few special interests can muster more than bringing a spoon to a gunfight in a resource war.

It isn't possible to "make it too expensive for them" because the wealth disparity is far too great.

If you believe we can beat them at their own game by their rules and on their terms then your time would be better spent bending over and planting a white flag in your ass.

If we act quickly we can starve the beast by creating another crash with massive defaults and minimal spending. The real problem is people feel invested in the system and won't bring it down even to save themselves, who cares about freedom and the freedom of future generations when the credit score is at stake?

[elocs]

9. Yes, reality does suck and it's not very popular here at DU

where so many seem to believe if they keep screaming loudly enough that what they wish for will magically happen. I can see how they would believe that since it's worked so well in the past.

Revolution, violent or otherwise, won't happen because when the rubber meets the road most Americans are just too comfortable with their lives the way they are and believe better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

[shirlden]

13. We are all just lobster in the pot

Maybe not all. Some of us are aware that we are being boiled. Who is better off???????
Think I will join the dingbats and pretend all is well.

[elocs]

15. Right. Are you better of knowing you are being boiled, or is ignorance bliss?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. The last time a Supreme Court Justice was impeached?

Never.

It could have happened to Abe Fortas, but he resigned.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

17. It's a pretty high bar....

Somebody would have to prove that one or more of the Justices was being paid to rule that way. And even then, it's not clear to me if their ruling would be vacated or if the Court would have to deliver a new ruling (I'm thinking it's the latter).

[onenote]

39. actually, one justice was impeached, but then acquitted by the Senate

Samuel Chase in 1804. And his acquittal is the precedent that makes it very very hard to imagine a SCOTUS justice being impeached for actions taken on the bench.

[Tailormyst]

14. No one around me even cares

I posted about the Supreme court ruling on FB and either no one understood or no one cared. Yet if I posted " down 13 pounds so far" ( I'm trying to lose weight) I would have 30 replies in minutes. Only one person in my life really gets the implications and his only response was " so same shit different day, now they can just do it in the light of day".

Depressing.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

18. Except it ISN'T the "same shit different day"

quoting Joe Conason here-
http://www.salon.com/news/tea_parties/index.html?story=...

For establishment Republicans like columnist George Will and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the court's decision is simply an overdue recognition of the First Amendment right to free speech. (Or what in fact is more aptly described as "paid speech.") But to understand its actual impact, listen to Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, who drew this pithy comparison: Under the old dispensation, which prohibited direct corporate expenditures on elections for nearly a century, Exxon Mobil could spend only what its political action committee raised from executives and employees. In 2008, said Waldman, that was roughly $1 million. Under the new order, the world's biggest oil company can spend as much as its management cares to siphon from its earnings -- which in 2008 amounted to $45 billion. ...

All the ultra-wingers and tea partyers who agitate constantly over U.S. sovereignty should recall again how little loyalty the multinational corporations and banks have displayed toward the United States in their drive for profit. Now, in effect, the Supreme Court's "conservatives" have opened up the American electoral process to a new, potentially limitless source of foreign influence.
*****************************************************************************

This is the best, simplest explanation I have read so far of the difference in what can occur in the future. We thought we had it bad? We ain't seen nothing! For all the times the word "Fascism" has been thrown around lightly and inappropriately - it's now ok to deploy that word correctly, because it is HERE, it is NOW

[Tailormyst]

22. I agree- it is a whole new day

I was relating how my fiance responded. Shit at least he did respond. Even the local nightly news skipped it.

[Vidar]

16. Our corporate masters will eventually self-destruct, taking most of us with them.

[OnionPatch]

19. Our only hope, sad to say

is if one of the conservative justices passes away and is replaced by a sane justice and the case is heard again or one similar. And I am NOT wishing anyone dead here (not out loud anyway.) Not long ago, I would have taken it as a given that Obama would appoint a more liberal judge, but after watching his actions these last few months, I'm not so sure we'd end up with anything better. :shrug:

[cali]

20. two words: Sonia Sotomayor. On this I have no doubts. Obama

would pick someone decent to replace on of the conservatives.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[janet118]

23. Unfortunately, the next judges to retire will probably be liberals . . .

Stevens and Bader Ginsberg - the conservatives picked "young" nominees. Maybe Kennedy will retire first - he is a piece of work who votes whatever way the wind blows. Then we might have a majority for a short time, but I have a feeling any Obama nomination would be obstructed in the hopes that one of the liberals would leave before he/she could be sworn in. There's also the problem that whomever retires - liberal, conservative or radical fascist - the nominee to replace him/her would have to go through a hellish nomination process.

[MadBadger]

30. Do you know who Sonia Sotomayor is? If not, look, her up.

[OnionPatch]

44. Yes.

I do. But does that mean there's no possibility that Obama might decide to be a little more "bi-partisan" next time and appoint someone to the right of her? All I'm saying is these days, I'm feeling just a little less sure of what he'll do. Geez. :yoiks:

[janet118]

24. What about the statutory changes Barney Frank talked about on Rachel's show?

Rachel Watch - see video on Supreme Court decision

According to Frank, his House committee on finance has jurisdiction over corporate law and the power to regulate the behavior of corporations. He claims that they can impose restrictions on corporations by statutes, not specifically targeting campaign contributions, but that would have the effect of placing constraints on how corporations might influence the electoral process.

There is also a series of legislative bills that Alan Grayson is presenting that would have the same effects.

I would also like see some legislation allotting more funding for public television so they don't have to rely on for-profit corporate sponsorship and requiring the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the influence of wealthy candidates and groups in the electronic media.

[dgibby]

26. What would stop the SC from overruling that legislation? n/t

[janet118]

27. I'm not sure, but . . .

Frank claims his committee will work with the SEC and the Obama administration to come up with legislation that will be lawful. If nothing else, it would hamper a corporate takeover until the SC could get around to declaring the legislation unconstitutional. Any port in a storm . . . and this is a hurricane. Also, passing a Fairness Doctrine and allotting more public funds to public broadcasting while limiting contributions to individuals and non-profit foundations would also help mitigate the immediate effects of the ruling.

Time is of the essence. It must be done now, before the entire legislative branch is owned by corporations.

Any other suggestions? I agree that a Constitutional Amendment or impeachment are far-fetched, but we shouldn't just accept this outrage because our attempts to fight against it might eventually be thwarted.

[dgibby]

29. I'm so numb, I can't even think. n/t

[janet118]

45. I understand . . . me, too. n/t

[chowder66]

36. Glad someone posted this...

It's an option that is being overlooked. I don't know how far they can get with it but at least it is a possible path. I was going to post this but decided to dig around to see if anyone else brought this up. Lo' and behold, I found your post. Thanks.

[Enrique]

25. lots of people talk about what won't happen

just about everything that has happened has been delcared impossible by someone.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. So, everything is going to get always always always worse and worse and worse for ever and ever?

Won't things BREAK somehow, at some point in time? Won't the infinitely powerful find themselves exercising infinite power over rubble eventually?

[rhett o rick]

31. yeah and real reality really sucks. nt

[treestar]

32. Corporations don't just fund Republicans

In fact haven't we heard on DU they own the Democrats already? I read that on DU long before this decision.

From the RW point of view, this could seem just as bad, since they believe the media is run by the libruls, and that Hollywood is against their values, etc.

Ultimately the voter can make up their own minds. A lot of them could be influenced by the fact that ads can be shown in the last 60 days before the election, but it could go both ways.

And for those who already thought the corps own all politicians and the Dems are no different from the Repukes, they can hardly complain, what difference does the ruling make?

[tonysam]

35. Oh, sure. This IS about the GOP and its funding

For cryin' out loud, the Republican Party has historically been a party of the economic elites and big business. It still is. Just because the Democratic Party in recent years has been infested with some neoliberal rot doesn't make my central argument untrue.

The GOP has been on the ropes in recent years, and this decision will allow it to make a huge comeback.

The radical right does NOT want an opposition party, meaning the Democratic Party, except as a token opposition.

Of course the voter can make up his or her mind, but the problem is is with politicians being able to run if they are strapped for cash.

[treestar]

37. They can get cash from other than corporations, though

I'm trying to envision their ads too. Though I guess looking at the Brown ones would give us a clue.

IMO people are getting immune to ads. They are everywhere and so pervasive that none of them stick out.

[TheKentuckian]

42. You're missing the point that it doesn't matter who is bought if they are bought

You've got to see beyond party on this or you're cold as ice. Nor is this just an issue of which politician but which initiatives and policies. The voter cannot make up their own mind if they have the facts either diluted or completely drowned out.

Take of the damn partisan hat for half a moment and look at the problem it's self.
There can be no balance against resources of this scope. Look how much they've managed to muddy the waters on climate change, now misinformation will be on hyper-steroids.

They will literally be able to shape perception to the point that the truth is nearly impossible to see.

[winyanstaz]

40. Obama could appoint a ton of liberal judges.....and congress could pass them...

but that wont happen because what is happening is what is planned to happen and has been the plan all along.