Presidents can be investigated. Congress can be investigated. Supreme Court can be investigated.

[blm]

Let them explain themselves and provide evidence of how they reached their conclusion and let them answer inquiries about their ideology and corporate influence on their decision that certainly looks like they were carrying water for fascist agenda.

[MadBadger]

1. Yes, make them prove they arent carrying water for Fascists

I'm sure that's how this country works. You know, Guilty until proven innocent and all.

[glitch]

4. there's this little thing called impropriety, and even the appearance of impropriety.

happens to apply to Supreme Court Justices. But I hope you already knew that.

[mother earth]

2. Un-huh, just like the last president? Just like those crimes/

criminals? Hmmm...I'm thinking accountability is off the table, like it has been right along.

[onehsaquestion]

3. Unlike presidents and congress, they do explain themselves

...and they seem to like doing it. The documents are pretty easy to get a hold of as well.

It doesn't make their decisions right, hence the fact that the dissenting opinion is pretty darn long as well.

Honestly, if you thought they haven't explained themselves, it's time to educate yourself on the Supreme Court. It's too important to remain ignorant about.

[blm]

5. I mean explain after being QUESTIONED as part of an investigation. Especially since when under oath

during their confirmation hearings some of them painted a different picture.

[onehsaquestion]

6. What do you want to ask them about the deicsion that

hasn't been explained in their briefs on the decision?

[blm]

That would come from scrutiny and discovery. BCCI report was really long and detailed, but, there

were still oustanding matters that required more scrutiny and more hearings, even after 5 years of compiling testimony and documents.

No one is asking for 5 years here. For a decision that alters the governing philosophy of this nation from democracy to fascism, though, it certainly deserves all the time it would take.

You want to move on? How has that served us in the past?

[onehsaquestion]

13. I didn't say move on.

I'm just sick of people who like to stomp their feet before educating themselves. Getting your blood pressure up over sound bytes does you no good at all.

What needs to be done is to write legislation that takes the Supreme Court's ruling into account and IT CAN BE DONE.

[blm]

15. You assumed that I didn't understand what was in the briefs, and did so rudely.

In fact, you stomped your feet about it. heheh

Listen, legislation is the likely route, but, some of the fascists on that court need to be outed publically, and investigatory hearings would be a good start.

[onehsaquestion]

18. Outed?

They've outed themselves in their opinions.

The reason I assumed you don't understand what is in the briefs is you said you want them to explain themselves when they've done so pretty darn clearly and you have yet to explain what exactly it is about the decision you want to question them about.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

37. What you're suggesting is flat-out WRONG

We are NOT going to drag sitting justices (either from the SCOTUS or from lower courts) in front of the Congress to be publicly grilled about their rulings. It is a full-frontal assault on the intregrity of the judicial branch, and I'd rather have the occasional abysmal ruling from the bench rather than destroy more than 200 years of judicial independence because some Congressman wants to throw a hissy fit on CSPAN.

[blm]

42. This wrong needs CORRECTION. And there is such a thing as closed hearings.

Your objections CAN be dealt with. How long will democracy last after the consequences of this ruling hit us like a swarm of tsunamis in the next few election cycles?

[Sebastian Doyle]

31. And yet what resulted from that BCCI report?

Most people here - at least the ones who aren't DLC shills - are fully aware of BCCI and its connection to the Bush Crime Family. Unfortunately, we're also aware that the Bush Crime Family not only survived this investigation, they came back and stole a close election in 2000.

Should there be investigations? Absolutely. But only if something actually results from them.

[blm]

41. What happened is Bush expected impeachment after BCCI report's release in Dec'92 so Jackson Stephens

had his boy in Arkansas ready and willing and with a bankrolled primary. GHWBush would run a terrible campaign, Bill would take office and protect Poppy, Stephens, Dubai and Saudi royals, their Chinese deals, and the funding of global terror networks like AQ Khan. BCCI matters were deepsixed throughout the 90s.

[glitch]

7. How rude. nt

[tritsofme]

8. They can be impeached.

And Congress technically controls their budget.

Aside from that, they are a co-equal branch of government that operates independently.

I don't know what more you want.

[blm]

9. As is the Presidency, as is the Congress. They need questioning. The kind that comes from

scrutiny and discovery.

[onehsaquestion]

10. What do you want to question them about?

That isn't explained in their decision?

[blm]

14. Scrutiny and discovery usually shapes the question. Bush WH issued decisions long on

paperwork, yet we know now he lied us into war. Who says that being verbose is equal to being honest and accurate?

[onehsaquestion]

16. Nobody said such a thing.

But you have no clue what their actual opinion was and you seemingly have no desire to even try.

Quick question, do you see the direct link between the Surpreme Court deciding in favor of the NAACP in the 60s and this case? If not, READ.

[onehsaquestion]

11. 183 pages of "explaining themselves"...

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/citizens-opinion.pdf

Granted, a good portion of that is the minority opinion. However, if you really interested in the reasons behind the decision it would be advisable to read the document. It will be much more productive than pointless posturing on a forum.

[blm]

12. FO.

.

[panzerfaust]

47. Justice Stevens, as so often, put it best

"Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech."

[onehsaquestion]

48. Agreed, I'd pay to watch Stevens and Scalia have a few beers and argue.

[Ozymanithrax]

17. The Supreme Court is the law of the land when it comes to the Constitution...

Who will investigate them? Who will put them on the stand and make the testify.

[blm]

19. Co-equal should be....co-equal.

.

[onehsaquestion]

20. What sport...

...did your high school government teacher coach?

[blm]

21. Why are you being so antagonistic on a discussion forum? We're free here to discuss what we would

like to see happen, and what we CAN do to shape what happens next.

Your nose is going to bleed if you get up any higher on that horse you rode in on.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

23. A SCOTUS Justice can be impeached....

but the same standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" applies. Being pissed off about one (or more) of their rulings doesn't cut it. As much as I disagree with their opinion, I would be appalled to have any of the Justices dragged in front of a Congressional Committee. To what end other than public flogging? Other than to intimidate Justices? If the Bush Administration did something like that you'd be screaming FACISM from hell to breakfast.

Legislate where we can, and amend the constitution if that's not sufficient.

[blm]

25. Of course they can be impeached....but, how is that supposed to occur without investigatory

hearings and questioning?

And why should discussing that prospect be met with such derision when you can just disagree about whether or not it would be appropriate in this case?

[onehsaquestion]

26. What specific high crime or misdemeanor do you want to impeach them for?

Not liking their opinion doesn't count.

The person in charge of setting the docket setting the docket doesn't count either.

[Jim Sagle]

32. Fuck off ya fuckin' freeper.

[onehsaquestion]

33. Oh, that one.

Ignorance is bliss.

[panzerfaust]

43. Bribery?

It would be of interest to me to find out if that were a factor.

[onehsaquestion]

28. BTW, the last time what you are suggesting was done, it was by

those behind McCarthyism attempting to do it because they thought the justices were enabing communism.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

[anonymous171]

53. So? I don't care. The Supreme Court needs to be taught a lesson

Hopefully they will think twice before trying this kind of shit again.

[onehsaquestion]

55. Great idea.

Then when the Republicans control congress again, they can hold witch hunts over court decisions related to abortion.

[anonymous171]

56. Congress already has the power to do this. It would not set any precedent

Anyways, witch hunts are fine as long as the right people get fucked over.

[onehsaquestion]

59. Wingnuts come in both colors.

n/m

[anonymous171]

61. What is that supposed to mean? You do know the difference between right and left, right?

[onehsaquestion]

63. Yes, nothing.

It's become nothing more than the color of the jersey one decides to wear. Each side throws ethics out the window at will and then whines like the other when it's turned on them.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

22. LOL!

There are a lot of people who post on this board who were apparently sick on the day they taught civics.

One person suggested that we should have a "Recall Election" on Obama.

Seriously.

[blm]

24. First of all, you know I'm not one them. Second of all, this court ELEVATED this case

and rushed it through...WHY? Why shouldn't they address all the highly unusual actions they took regarding this case? Especially when Roberts VOWED under oath that is exactly what he would NOT do as Chief Justice....hell, they attempted to impeach Clinton for perceived perjury. Roberts' lie deserves a helluva lot more scrutiny than Clinton's..

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

36. You're simply wrong....

Clinton was impeached for actual perjury. Not perceived perjury.

And the confirmation process encourages nominees to state their opinions -- their currently-held opinions -- and Roberts was famously not forthcoming at all in his answers to the questions. For Roberts to act in a manner that is not in keeping with the opinions he expressed during the confirmation process is not a crime. For him to flat-out change his mind on a subject after he's been confirmed is not a crime.

Now if somebody comes up with some kind of proof that Roberts received cash payments from a lobbying group in return for issuing this opinion, then you've got another issue altogether. That's bribery, and that's a bona fide crime. But if you think that brow-beating the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is going to yield anything more than political theater, you're dreaming.

Edit: Changed the word "requires" to "encourages" because the nominee is not "required" to do any such thing.

[blm]

44. actual perjury requires that the lie be of relevance to the CASE...Clinton's lie was not

relevant to the case, and even Lindsey Graham admitted that.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

52. Clinton lied about sex with a former staff member

while being sued for sexual harrassment by another former staff member. It was highly relevant to establishing a pattern of misconduct.

What Clinton did was perjury. What Roberts did was not.

You are barking up a non-existent tree. Roberts is a conservative judge who handed down a conservative opinion. And you're surprised because....why?

I'm not asking you to like it. I'm just saying that the only recourse you have is to pass other legislation. Here's a hint: Corporations are chartered by state governments, and publicly-traded corporation are subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There are other ways to get corporate dollars out of our elections.

And in the meantime, start the process of an constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to regulate campaign finance.

[blm]

54. There is nothing conservative about FASCISM.

And Clinton's affair was CONSENSUAL and initiated by Lewinsky...he did not approach her for sex as was complained in the Jones case.

His lie about his affair was NOT material to the case and even Lindsey Graham admitted that much.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

57. What the hell does Facism have to do with it?!

And typing it in all caps doesn't make your point less vapid. Clinton was under oath. He was asked a question and gave a false answer. It doesn't make any difference if their relationship was consensual or whether it was rape. It was a lie, and Lindsay Graham's opinion on the subject is utterly and completely beside the point.

You cannot impeach a Supreme Court Justice because you don't like his ruling or because, based on your interpretation of the confirmation hearings, you think his ruling runs contrary to the statements he made before the Judiciary Committee. Not for nothing, the only people right now calling for the impeachment of John Roberts are some boneheads over at Firedoglake. Nobody in any position of authority in Washington is talking this way, and that's because they know that it's errant nonsense.

[blm]

62. You'll see...BTW, go to EVERY thread here at DU that calls it FASCISM. Or am I your only target?

and.... consensual sex is NOT relevant to any case regarding harassment. Monica testified that she pushed for it...PERIOD.

Lindsey Graham's admission IS significant as he was one of the House's impeachment managers.

[Ozymanithrax]

39. I am not arguing that they can not be impeached by the Congress and Senate.

From a realistic point of view, who will actually do that.

Several U.S. Congerssmen (Conyers is one)said he wanted to investigate and impeach Bush before 2006. Damned little investigating went on after 2006. Clearly it was possible for them to do it. But what is possible and what happens are two different things.

Are there any Congress critters actually advocating investigating Roberts, Scalia, or anyone else? I havn't heard it.

[anonymous171]

34. Congress. nt

[onehsaquestion]

35. For............

[shadowknows69]

27. Yeah, but the only way to get that done anymore is with torches and pitchforks.

[malaise]

29. Excellent post

The last Chief Justice was a heavy drug users. Reagan knew that and promoted him to Chief Justice.

Recounting Rehnquist's Placidyl story isn't just a bit of journalistic blood sport at the expense of a dead man. His unorthodox drug consumption first made headlines in 1982, when the Washington Post (owned by the same corporation that owns Slate) broke the story, when he entered the hospital to get off the stuff. The Placidyl episode was also news in 1986, when President Ronald Reagan upgraded Rehnquist from associate justice by nominating him as chief. A confidential report on Rehnquist's medical history prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee, which contained more details about his habit, was leaked to the press.

The Rehnquist story deserves a third airing today if only to illustrate the ugly double standards that excuse extreme drug use by the powerful, especially if their connection is a prescribing doctor, and condemns to draconian prison terms the guy who purchases his drugs on the street. Reviewing Rehnquist's tale one more time also demonstrates the reluctance of the Senate—and some members of the press—to grade the mental competency of judges and judicial nominees.

The 1986 medical report on Rehnquist described him as seriously "dependent" on Placidyl from 1977 to 1981. He often consumed three month's worth of the drug in one month before requesting more from Dr. Freeman H. Cary, the attending physician to Congress, who prescribed it. Anonymous sources told the Post that Cary first prescribed Placidyl to Rehnquist in 1971 to help him sleep through his severe back pains, but "Cary reportedly told the FBI that Rehnquist had taken it before."

http://www.slate.com/id/2156978/

--------------
So they owned him. Now the current Chief justice has had more than a few seizures in his lifetime - what drugs does he take?

--------------
Epilepsy is the tendency to have recurrent unprovoked seizures. Roberts had his first seizure in 1993. Yesterday’s seizure was his second – 2 seizures buys the diagnosis of epilepsy. You will note that I qualified my definition as “unprovoked” seizures. This is because anyone can have a seizure, if the brain is stressed sufficiently. Sleep deprivation, certain drugs, alcohol use or withdrawal, high fever, oxygen deprivation, low blood sugar and other metabolic derangements can all trigger seizures even in those without epilepsy.

What causes someone to have a seizure? Well, the list of specific causes is long, and it does depend on the kind of seizure. Primary generalized seizures, those that start all over the brain at once, are caused by some defect in brain function or by the entire brain being subjected to an unfriendly environment (like the things I listed above).

As noted in the news reports, after two seizures the risk of having a third seizure is 60%. This is generally considered high enough to treat with anti-epileptic medication, but such decisions have to be individualized. While 60% of people go on to have a third seizure, 40% do not. Roberts and his doctor may decide that having one seizure every 14 years is better than taking a daily medication to prevent them. Epilepsy medication, while generally safe and effective, does suppress brain activity and can cause some sedation or a sluggishness of thought processes. This is not a good side effect for patients in an intellectually high functioning job – and I think Chief Justice of the Supreme Court qualifies.
---------------------
When will seizure #3 occur?

[blm]

30. Ah yes....I had forgotten about that tidbit.

.

[Ozymanithrax]

40. Thanks, you nailed the point I was trying to make...

What is possible and what happens are two different things. I want to know if anyone in Congress is actaully intending to get off their duff and investigate. From what I see, the Supreme Court did what is in its power to do, to interpret the Constitution. (By the way, they gave themsleves that powr in Marbury Vs. Madison).

I think it was a wrong interpretation, and one that, like the Dred Scott decision, that will have serious repricussions.

[bleever]

38. Perjury.

Both Roberts and Alito were questioned very closely on stare decisis, and declared with their eyes wide their devotion to the principle.

Their participation in the majority decision casts very serious doubt on their testimony.

[blm]

45. exactly....and if they were lying about this so blatanly what else were they lying about?

,

[stellad]

46. This Supreme Court deserves no respect and should be DEFUNDED

Let them buy their own pens and pencils and walk to work

[Cal33]

49. Great! Would you explain how an investigation of the

Supreme Court could be brought about? I never knew this. Thanks.

[azmouse]

50. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

51. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, blm.:thumbsup:

[roamer65]

58. Obama needs to deal with this SC exactly how FDR dealt with the Hughes SC.

Threaten to stack it with more justices and do it.

[laylah]

60. If the rat bastards were not investigated

after they appointed *Dumbass, they never will be. May they all rot in Hell! I am SO disappointed and surprised by Kennedy. I am 59 years old and have little/no hope left.