What can be done about this USSC decision?

[LaydeeBug]

I read that Donna Edwards is proposing a Constitutional Amendment, and although it sounds fantastic, considering the obstacles, is a little "ponies"!. I read that Grayson is proposing legislation as well, but is there ANYTHING we can do? I just get the feeling we are about the be screwn.

[DJ13]

1. Until real solutions are presented Congress should immediately pass

a bill that requires complete disclosure of the originator of any funds spent by outside groups running independent campaign ads.

I said "originator of any funds" as most corporations will try to hide their spending by setting up a third party organization as a means of distancing them from the positions and the politicians they're promoting, and full disclosure would force them to put their names on the ads no matter what front group they create.

[laylah]

2. If only...

I have lost most hope. This Congress, OUR Dems, plucked defeat out of victory. I am scared, angry, and tired!

[kratos12]

3. I have a thought

A single payor movement, that targets corporations to support single payor as a way of eliminating health insurance overhead might bring alot of corpo dollars into the fight on the single payor side.

It would also result in at least a partial realignment of the traditional right wing/corpo alliance.

[iamtechus]

4. A waste of time

Corporations would never support single payer because they would lose control over their employees' healthcare, ie, please the boss or he'll fire you and thereby terminate your coverage (and that of your spouse and the kids).

By being the provider of healthcare insurance a corporation can hold its employees in a kind of virtual servitude. Corporations should have nothing to do with healthcare or healthcare insurance.

[NoNothing]

5. There is one thing

Congress could pass an ordinary bill increasing the size of the Court, allowing Obama to appoint enough additional "friendly" judges to overturn the decision.

It would be bad politics maybe, but ironically is one of the most achievable solutions.

[lmrgreen]

6. Constitutional Amendment not as difficult as we might think

For all those who think a constitutional amendment will just
take to long or be too hard to ratify here is some hope: 

"In Oregon v Mitchell (400 U.S. 112), a sharply divided
Supreme Court ruled that the Congress had the power to lower
the voting age to 18 for national elections, but not for state
and local elections. The case was decided on December 1, 1970.
Within months, on March 23, 1971, the Congress passed the text
of the 26th Amendment, specifically setting a national voting
age, in both state and national elections, to 18. In just 100
days, on July 1, 1971, the amendment was ratified."
(http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html)Several
amendments have been ratified by the states within one year of
Congress passing them. 

The amendment was driven by a populist movement; I know I was
part of it here in Oregon. When we are truly motivated and
organized, we can get things done relatively quickly in this
country. The Supreme Court ruling may be the moment in time
that the right-wing corporatists "jumped the shark"
- people on both sides and from the middle are angry. A
similar state of affairs existed in the seventies when we saw
our brothers and sons being sent off (drafted) to a war we
didn't support. Most of these young men were 18 and had no
right to vote - that's one of the things that spurred us on to
lower the voting age. 

We have a moment in time where we can give up before we even
try or we can choose to fight back with everything we have,
never losing sight victory. We still have some weapons in our
arsenal - we may have lost the battle, but we can still win
the war. 

[KharmaTrain]

7. Wait A Few Years...

Scalia and Kennedy are in their 70's...and methinks Fat Tony is a walking cardiac. As long as there's a Democratic President, the next pick on the court will be another liberal/progressive/moderate (I could be very happy with another Sotomeyer on the court). Then have someone bring suit and back to the court...revise or outright reverse.

No way a Constitutional Ammendment will happen with this Senate and sending it through the states could be hung up for years (remember ERA??).

It's working to take back the court and the entire judiciary...purge the raygun and booosh lackeys. Of course this means making sure a Democrat remains in the White House...

[harkadog]

8. The oldest members of the court were all appointed by Democrats

except the oldest, Stevens, and he is the most "liberal".

[KharmaTrain]

10. And???

I suspect Judge Stevens will retire (hopefully in good health) during this term and Judge Ginsburg continues to have health problem. Point is that keeping a Democrat in the White House is the easiest and quickest rememdy to over-turning this abomination and put curbs on the corportists on the court.

BTW...Judge Stevens was selected by Ford...not quite a Democrat.

[harkadog]

11. Did you see the word "except" in my post?

That word would mean he was not appointed by a Democrat. Yes keeping the WH Democratic would eventually solve the problem but it won't be as quick as people think.

[KharmaTrain]

12. No It Won't...

We see that with the attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it also can be said that the rushpublicans oligarchy doesn't want to repeal it as it's an issue that keeps the fundies hopping on the busses on election day and fills up party coffers. But it's probably the most realistic possibility...moreso than trying to ammend the Constitution or impeach existing justices.

Cheers...

[Unvanguard]

9. I would try a less broad restriction on corporate independent expenditures, and try the shareholder

argument again.