Another idea to overturn this decision: Court Reporter "Headnote Veto"!??

[cascadiance]

Anyone know the politics of Frank D. Wagner, who is the current court reporter who reports the decisions of the Supreme Court?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_D._Wagner

Basically the majority of the court through the decision of this case, has implicitly given court reporters the right to author law in an "activist" fashion, since the whole case was based on a court reporter's opinion of the landmark Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific case. That means that the court reporter could NOW interpret that THEY have the right to interpret that they have the right to *create* law through what they write in head notes.

Perhaps if Frank Wagner could be persuaded to write in the head note for this case that:

1) The Supreme Court just has given the authority to court reporters to create law through their own opinions offered in case head notes, based on what they sanctioned through "corporate personhood" based on previous head note of that case.

2) This court reporter interprets the court's decision that corporations or other non-natural persons DO NOT have the rights of natural persons or what has been called "corporate personhood".

If the Supreme Court or others were to challenge this head note, then they would in effect challenge the whole basis for the decision of this case! Lots of luck for them in trying to "correct" this without sounding like they are partisan, and opening themselves up to potential impeachment for rendering partisan decisions not based on our laws or their own decisions.

[Vincardog]

1. The Supreme Court is not subject to impeachment.

[cascadiance]

2. WRONG!

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

[TornadoTN]

3. They can be, but it would be impossible with our current government

Not enough votes, too eager to play along to get along, too much cronyism, etc. etc. etc. etc.

[Ken Burch]

4. Earl Warren would've been interested to hear that

Given that the whole South was trying to impeach him for Brown V. Board and for the school prayer thing:

These signs were up all over the place:

[AndyA]

5. Section 1 of Article III states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices

"during good behavior." If guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, they can be impeached.

[Vincardog]

6. Do you think Obama's DOJ is going to investigate them?

[cascadiance]

7. You can't just disagree with them, you need to prove actual wrongdoing...

Now if they facilitated a coverup of crimes by the Bush administration, by showing that the justices were made aware of the crimes, but they chose not to hear the case (like in Sibel Edmonds' case), or perhaps even the bias introduced by Alito going hunting with Cheney on a decision that Cheney had an interest in, or in the 2000 election when many of them with family ties to the Bush campaign didn't recuse themselves from that decision to give the presidency to George Bush, perhaps there can be a case made.

Now, if the court says that a court clerk's headnotes can be used for law in this instance, but then can turn around and say that it can't be in another instance (if this court clerk chose like the last one to introduce statements not supporting the court's decision), that shows bias, and perhaps arguably (especially if money ties to corporate America can be shown) can show that they are not consistent with their opinions and are rendering them in a biased fashion. That perhaps could be grounds for impeachment.