Does it matter if there are 67 votes in the US Senate to impeach any Supreme Court justice?

[ClassWarrior]

Poll question: Does it matter if there are 67 votes in the US Senate to impeach any Supreme Court justice?

If the people's House successfully IMPEACHes any current Extreme Court justice (aka as "accuse" or "charge"), isn't that a victory for progressive values -- even if we don't have enough votes in the Senate to remove him or her from office (aka "convict")?

[FarCenter]

1. No, there will never be a bill of impeachment voted out of the House of Representatives

[ClassWarrior]

2. LOL... That wasn't the question.

NGU.

[anonymous171]

3. All we need is an investigation to air out all their dirty laundry.

That alone should terrify them into compliance.

[reformist]

18. Congress should call them in to explain how they figure that corporations are people.

From what I've been reading, it sounds like this absurd position has no sound legal basis.

[annabanana]

4. Without removal from the bench, impeachment is just theatre.

We want them to be put someplace where they can't do further damage to the Republic, i.e. off the Bench.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Television news is all about theatre. Wouldn't it be worth it to have the opportunity to air...

...the Radical RW's dirty laundry?

NGU.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. I'd say there's a far more substantial basis for an impeachment case against the five SC Repukes

than there was against Bill Clinton for getting his dick sucked. Or lying about getting his dick sucked. Whichever the weak argument was.

[cascadiance]

33. +1

[Unvanguard]

7. Impeachment isn't a victory period, because it's the wrong response. n/t

[reformist]

8. Remember the immortal words of Bill Clinton

when asked how it felt to be impeached, and Bill Cinton responded, "Not bad!"

That was the day I finally came to admire him. Impeachment without possibility of conviction is meaningless.

[Codeine]

9. Clinton left office with a 68% approval rating

and his political enemies looking like dumbasses for impeaching him and failing.

Are we so stupid as to make the same mistake?

[ClassWarrior]

12. The Clinton case was frivolous. Do you think this is frivolous?

NGU.

[Codeine]

14. Legally?

Yes. there simply isn't any real ground for impeachment here.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Let's say moralistically. Will it be seen as the right thing to do?

If so, then it's the right thing to try -- even if it is likely to fail.

NGU.

[Codeine]

22. Impeachment is a legal proceeding.

Without standing, at least some sort of legal fiction like the Clinton perjury, it simply cannot proceed.

[ClassWarrior]

31. You're avoiding the question. Assume the House has IMPEACHED an Extreme Court justice.

The Senate hasn't ruled on the legal standing. Couldn't the fact that Congress has taken a strong stand against corruption be a major win for progressive values?

NGU.

[cascadiance]

35. Do our courts convict people without investigations or indictments?

NO!

Just because we haven't taken those steps doesn't mean we shouldn't.

Republicans were able to launch investigations on far less, and had to resort to prosecuting based on the perjury trap instead of a real crime.

I don't think any of us are asking us to do a "perjury trap" prosecution. These are not the same situations.

When a set of justices unconstitutionally sanction a court clerk's ability to "write law" and veto a court's decision in a head note through their decision, that prompts in my book a need to investigate.

[Sebastian Doyle]

21. In Opie Roberts case, how about the fact that he's completely unqualified for the job?

Of course that should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings, but the DLC wouldn't let that happen. :evilfrown:

[Codeine]

23. Lack of qualifications

are not impeachable.

This is why we vote for Democrats, folks -- it's all about the judiciary.

[Sebastian Doyle]

29. And what about the "Democrats" who voted to confirm that piece of unqualified shit? (and Alito too)

It's not enough to vote for "Democrats". You have to vote for Democrats who VOTE as Democrats and stand on Democratic principles when it counts.

[Codeine]

30. I meant in the executive sense,

so we get fewer Fat Tonies and more Sotomayors.

Your point is, however, well-taken.

[anonymous171]

15. We don't need to impeach. All we need to do is threaten them with impeachment

while we investigate them for impeachable offenses.

[adamuu]

10. It sure put the brakes on Clinton n/t

[rem3006]

11. That only makes us

look bad, very bad. I saw some polls on this decision and 55%-65% of Americans agree with it. "Let's go out and make more enemies" doesn't seem like a strategy that will help us sell our ideas.

With so many Americans owning stock via direct ownership or mutual funds there is a perception that is quite different to what I'm seeing here. A corporation isn't a solitary entity, it's a collection of people (the stock owners) with a shared common interest. If you don't like Exxon Mobil then take a close look at the stocks owned in a mutual fund you have in a 401K. This group of people have the same right to support or oppose a candidate as do the members of a labor union, environmental group, gun control group, either side of the abortion issue, etc. This decision also frees up unions to do more because they were also subject to the ban. Bottom line here is that the majority of our fellow Americans believe the decision to be fair and attacking what they perceive to be fair won't help anything. Best course of action is to give till it hurts to the causes you believe in and let others do the same. The war of ideas continues.

[reformist]

13. But 76% of people favor limits on corporate political spending.

Public opinion is all over the place on this.

[peace frog]

16. 'If the people's House successfully impeaches..'

That's a big IF. I expect Pelosi to announce any day now that impeachment is off the table. Done.

[ClassWarrior]

17. ROFLMAO... That wasn't the question.

NGU.

[peace frog]

43. Taking impeachment off the table

is definitely the answer. Just ask Nancy. :evilgrin:

[vincna]

20. Unrec'd because impeachment is a terrible idea

Who would want the Supreme Court intimidated by whatever political party happened to be in power at the time? Their objectivity would be undermined and many potentially correct decisions might not be made if future justices had to worry about impeachment because of their rulings.

Investigate their personal conduct and air the dirty laundry to bring them around to our way of thinking - an atrocious idea and I'm disappointed that it's being seriously discussed here. This is the United States, not the Soviet Union.

[Codeine]

24. DU is in full Hysteria Mode.

It gets like this occasionally.

[reformist]

26. LOL! That it is. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

25. Our leadership behaving like "gutless wonders" has almost DESTROYED our party.

The fall out is coming and it's going to be horrid. It's time for BOLD action - this would be A GOOD START.

[Codeine]

27. Because nothing succeds like failure?

Seriously, what do you charge them with in the impeachment? making a dumbass decision that lots of people don't like? That is neither High Crime nor Misdemeanor.

[cascadiance]

41. Making a decision that benefits them or their cronies!

A kid in elementary school can tell that legalized bribery benefits someone.

Now, did they get bribed? We won't know that until an investigation is made. Explain why such a decision where they potentially allow themselves to be vetoed by a court reporter isn't "suspicious", and not worthy of being investigated, especially when the benefits to corporate America are probaby as big as any other decision that's been made.

[donco6]

28. Impeach a Supreme Court Justice?

Dumb.

[cascadiance]

37. Oh, so the constitution is dumb? Nice.

[donco6]

39. Uh . . . no.

The idea of our side doing this is dumb. D-U-M-B.

[cascadiance]

42. WHY!

[Ozymanithrax]

32. What High Crimes and Misdeamenors were comitted?

They havn't been getting BJ's on pool tables, and then lie about it.
They didn't break in to the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate hotel.
They interpreted the Constitution in a way that I, and most liberals/progressives/Democrats don't like.

What are the charges?

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. Treason?

Considering how many corporations are "multinational" these days, and how many are foreign owned.

For example, Saudi Arabia owns a big chunk of Citibank. Like any huge Wall Street bank, they now have been given a green light to buy as many politicians as they want.

[Ozymanithrax]

45. Please read U.S. Constitution Article III Section 3

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Being owned by a non-citizen does not fit the Constitution's definition. We are not at war with Saudi Arabia. None of that is treason. Now, it does call into question laws that keep citizens from donating to political campaigns. That would just be a violation of law, not treason. Corporations considered American Corporations, that pay taxes here, that have their headquarters here, would not be foreigners, even if some of their investors are not citizens.

The problem, as I see it, is that a corporation is a convenient legal fiction used to protect investors from failure or violation of the law. They are not living citizens. They should not be able to spend money in excess of what members of the board of Directors can spend individually. But they simply don't fit the Constitutional definition of treason.

[Codeine]

46. That is not, by any stretch, the definition of treason.

Treason is a legal term with a specific meaning. Throwing it around willy-nilly has largely robbed it of its meaning conversationally, but when it comes to charging somebody with it their actions have to fit that legal definition.

[cascadiance]

38. They just gave permission for court clerks to veto any SCOTUS decision!

That's what they did when they "validated" the previous head note that in effect did that to support their ruling.

It was either they consciously did that, or if they say that can only be selectively done when THEY choose it to be, then this decision is a violation of judicial process in my book. That is a high crime (or misdemeanor) in my book, and the congress has the ability to define what that is.

[quaker bill]

34. Why don't we do what FDR tried

11 Justices. Make it 6-5 rather than 5-4.

[tritsofme]

44. Boy that sure worked out well for FDR

Didn't it?

[Codeine]

47. Because it was a dumb idea then, and it failed.

Time hasn't made the idea any less dumb, or any more likely to succeed.

[Bitwit1234]

40. BUT it might scare their butt. After all there may be other ways

to sanction these five republican shills.

[Codeine]

48. Supreme Court Justices do not "scare." nt

[ClassWarrior]

49. Really? I knew they were androids!!

:rofl:

NGU.