Can Anything Be Done About The "Supreme" Court Ruling?

[Dinger]

Anything at all? Impeachment? Is there anything else? Is this it?

[TygrBright]

1. A Constitutional Amendment would render it moot. n/t

[Journeyman]

3. Provided, of course, the Court didn't render the Amendment unconstitutional. . .

[SDuderstadt]

4. Ummm, a duly adopted amendment to the constitution...

by definition, could not be "unconstitutional".

[Journeyman]

5. So had the proposed Flag Desecration Amendment been adopted in 1990. . .

it could not have been overturned by the Court as a violation of the First Amendment?

[DaveinJapan]

7. The Supreme Court has no authority to overturn an Amendment.

Methinks you're not quite clear on what an Amendment is. It becomes part of the fabric of the Constitution itself, as valid as the First Amendment or any other.

The Supreme Court would have no more authority to overturn it than they could the first Amendment. Only a new Amendment could do that (see Prohibition). Even that wouldn't be "overturning", it would be a repeal. And that would have to be done by the Congress or (I believe) by the States. The SCOTUS would have nothing to do with it, and they would be bound by it unless/until repealed.

Amendment XVIII

(Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed December 5, 1933 with the Ratification of Amendment XXI)
Section 1
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2
The Congress and all of the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Amendment XXI

(Ratified December 5, 1933)
Section 1
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3
The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.



Of course, with a court packed with activist Republican judges, anything is possible. I'm sure Scalia would find a way to interpret it in any manner he sees fit.

[TexasObserver]

8. That's exactly right. Did the original consitution stop the 13rd applicability?

The entire purpose of amending the constitution would be lost if the Supreme Court could ignore new provisions by finding them in conflict with earlier provisions.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Once duly adopted...

an amendment becomes part of the constitution. I'd loe to hear how the SCOTUS could find part of the constitution "unconstitutional" .

[begin_within]

9. I'm surprised the Court doesn't just go ahead and declare the entire Constitution unconstitutional.

Seems like it would make things so much easier for the ruling class.

[LLStarks]

13. Unless it gets repealed. nt

[Gregorian]

2. Barney Frank claims to be working on an SEC regulation.

There are multiple remedies I've heard about recently. None of which I can summon up from my rusty brain at the moment. Given that it went against a century of well thought out rulings, it's got to be taking a lot of resentment in the legal world.

But like someone tonight was mentioning on Olbermann's show, the SC is the final stop that requires a Constitutional amendment in order to change.

[Gregorian]

34. OOPS. That would be FEC, not SEC.

Sorry.

[TexasObserver]

6. 1. Constitutional amendment, 2. Impeachment, 3. Expand size of court

[paulsby]

11. there is nothing to impeach them about

it's simply ridiculous.

you can't impeach a SCOTUS justice because you don't like their decision.

that's not how rule of law works

[DaveinJapan]

12. What if their decision was somehow illegal or (better) unconstitutional?

Would that not be grounds for impeachment?

[TexasObserver]

16. Grounds for impeachment are whatever the House wants to say they are.

Investigate them fully. Find out if they have any connections to any parties who have appeared before them. Find out if they have received any gifts (they have) which are probably inappropriate (they are), or done anything heinous (hunting with Cheney while he is a litigant before the court).

The House's vote and the Senate's votes are all that really matters. The justices of the Supreme Court serve for life unless removed by impeachment and conviction on the impeachment articles. There is no appeal. They can't claim they have a right to stay in office.

If the House even started considering impeachment proceedings against the GOP stalwarts, one of them might be moved to resign if it stopped the action. All we need is one more vote, and I'm ready to see Democrats oust a justice by any legal means.

[onenote]

35. another DUer who doesn't believe in an independent judiciary

Would you be happy if a repub majority congress launched such an investigation every time the SCOTUS reached a decision they disagreed with? And if you think that all it would take is "one more vote" in the Senate to convict any/all of majority members of the court in an impeachment trial (assuming you could even get a majority to impeach, which is doubtful) suggests you haven't been paying close attention to the Senate lately.

Elsewhere in this thread, you claim that you were just answering the OP by stating what the available options were. But in the post above you seem to be going a step beyond that and advocating that the step be taken through the conduct of an investigation, etc. If I have misread your intention, I apologize.

[TexasObserver]

37. You're a DUer who doesn't know the first thing about this topic.

As for your concerns about what the GOP might do some day, I'm much more worried about this out of control, anti democratic, traitorous gang of right wing hacks ruling the court. If the GOP wants to try something similar, so what? They've impeached a president over nothing, investigated the same president for 7 years over nothing, stolen the presidency, and now thwarted 40 years of campaign finance reform. My concern is stopping them.

They've got to be held accountable, by any legal means possible. Impeachment is a legal and constitutional means of dealing with justices who are so out of touch with America they are dangerous to its safety and health.

[onenote]

38. First, I know plenty about it. Second, I live in the real world

The one in which the House has impeached a SCOTUS justice exactly once and whose acquittal set the precedent that is widely recognized as establishing the independence of the judiciary. Is impeachment ultimately a political act? Yes. THus, could any or all SCOTUS Justices be impeached and removed for offices for wearing black socks and brown shoes? Sure. But in the real world it wouldn't happen because those trying to do so would fail and would pay an enormous political price for having tried. And the same is true for trying to impeach SCOTUS justices (or even launching formal investigations of them) because of the outcome of a case. Would you be calling for investigation and impeachment of them if the decision had been 5-4 the other way? Should investigations and impeachment proceedings been launched against the majority in the Korematsu case?

Again, in theoretical rage land, your posts make sense. In the real world their nonsense.

[TexasObserver]

40. "In the real world their (sic) nonsense."

Thanks for the laughs!

[paulsby]

17. marbury v. madison

etc

for pete's sake, it is the SCOTUS that decides what *is* constitutional, like it or not

[TexasObserver]

20. Impeachment and removal by impeachment are political actions.

They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The House passes the articles. The senate votes on them. If they pass, the judge is removed from office. There have been judges of lower federal courts removed by impeachment. It's not new.

A Supreme Court justice cannot prevent himself from being removed from office by the legislative branch, if the legislative branch wants to remove the judge. And the basis for such action could be anything the legislative branch determines is a proper basis.

[paulsby]

22. which of course is tyranny

and completely obliterates the concept of a govt. having three INDEPENDENT branches.

but apparently, tyranny is fine with you, as long as the cause is good in your eyes.

like i said, you are a funhouse mirror version of michael savage

[TexasObserver]

25. Fighting tyranny is part of my life.

Tyranny is old ladies being tased by arrogant cops.

Tyranny is black boys being beaten senseless by white cops who do it because they can.

Tyranny is cops lying to make criminal cases because they just KNOW this guy did it.

[paulsby]

26. the only tyranny you fight

is the tyranny of your mama telling you to stop playing with yer daddy's computer and to come get your cookies and milk before bedtime

[TexasObserver]

27. I fight the tyranny of the police state.

Here are some of the tyrannies I fight:

Police brutality
Police oppression
Prosecutorial misconduct
Death Penalty
Incarceration for drug possession
Incarceration for minor crimes
Police misuse of tasers
Police use of steroids
Police use of racism and profiling
Police sexism
Police maltreatment of gays
First amendment rights violations
Fourth amendment rights violations
Sixth amendment rights violations
Eighth amendment rights violations

[TexasObserver]

15. You know nothing about the Supreme Court or impeachment.

Here's how impeachment works. The HOUSE votes it. The SENATE tries it. The only result for conviction is removal from office. It is a POLITICAL, not a LEGAL, process. There is no appeal. There is no LAW process to stop it.

The basis is anything the congress believes constitutes an impeachable offense.


-------------------------------

Epilogue:

Learn the difference between a post that advocates something and one that provides information requested. In this thread, the OP made a specific request. He asked what the options were. That's what I gave him - the three options available. I didn't lobby for any of them in that responsive post. You jumped the gun, jumped to conclusions, and argued against what you thought I had suggested. In doing so, you exposed your ignorance about impeachment, law and politics.

[paulsby]

18. i know plenty about it

impeachment is not a reaslistic option

for fuck's sake, how many times has the right complained about "judicial activism" when they don't like a ruling.

some people here are getting just as ridiculous.

if you actually believe in seperation powers, rule of law, etc. you realize that the very idea is abhorrent. if a democratic congress could impeach the SCOTUS because they disagree with the decision, then you better be ready for a repub congress to do the same to the SCOTUS when they don't like the decision

the responses to this decision are way worse than the decision itself.

it's getting frigging ridiculous.

[TexasObserver]

19. You know about local laws regarding traffic tickets, burglaries, drugs, and disorderly conduct.

You know how to tase someone if they give you attitude.

That's not law, that's being a police officer.

Law is MIRANDA.


Unlike you, I have some concept of the history of the Supreme Court in this land, and the role it has played. I know about it the past 35 years as a professional charged with reading and understanding what the Supreme Court is doing and likely to do next year. In my view, they should have been impeached over the 2000 presidential election following their decision, and removed from office.

You have no idea how these right wing jackasses on the court have obliterated the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 8th amendments the past 30 years. I want them removed by any legal means.

[paulsby]

21. you clearly demonstrate you don't understand

the foundation of our government, seperation of powers, rule of law, etc.

you are like a funhouse mirror version of michael savage "Impeach the stench from the bench"

[TexasObserver]

23. I clearly do understand, and I have the basis for understanding.

You have no concept of the constitution, the Supreme Court, the balance of power, or how that balance has been tipped twice by the court in the past ten years by the same five votes, once stealing the presidency, and once rendering meaningless most of what congress and the president have done the past 30 years regarding campaign finance.

[paulsby]

24. wow. talk about projection

you demonstrate your ignorance by accusing me of having your inadequacies.

physician, heal thyself

and stuff...

[Stinky The Clown]

41. You can impeach them for bad haircuts or linty robes

Impeachment is a *political* proceeding disguised as a legal one.

There is an open ended phrase for impeaching a supreme that is not unlike "high crimes and misdemeanors". I bet the google would lead you to it.

[OHdem10]

10. Constitutional Ammendment woud take eons because it has to go

to the states for confirmation.

House and Senate can pass bills targeting parts of the bill.

The Justices did not break the law, just handed down a questionable
decidion.

[kentuck]

14. Only one answer.

Bipartisanship. The Democrats have to work with the Republicans to turn back the law. The Congress has that power.

[DailyGrind51]

28. A good test case to prompt a reversal.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Ummmn by what court???

n/t

[DailyGrind51]

39. The Supreme Court, with a very controversial litigant, like China or Venezuela.

[donheld]

49. How about Al-Queda?

[DailyGrind51]

50. Exactly!

Remember what happened when "W" was ready to lease America's port operations to U.A.E.? Both sides of the aisle forced him to back down. If Al Qaeda, the Government of Iran, Hugo Chavez' Venezuela, etc. pumped a $ billion behind any candidate, conservatives would be the first to contest their right to influence American elections.

[lynne]

29. Only a constitutional amendment limiting and restricting rights and liberties -

- of unions, businesses, corporations, societies, clubs, groups, assemblies - any group that does not constitute an individual person.

I don't see that occurring, IMO.

[Igel]

30. What's to be done depends on what the effects are.

Currently, there doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement on that point. After all, most of what people say was struck down wasn't, much of what people say is now permitted is still illegal.

Until there some sort of reasoned agreement on certain, probable, possible and unlikely outcomes, it's unclear whether a Constitutional amendment is required, whether a federal law could handle it, whether FEC regs could deal with the problem, or whether the change to the status quo ante is trivial and around the edges.

There are lots of claims. Most of them say, "Be afraid! Do you hear me? Fear! Fear! Fear! Run, scared, because all hell's going to break lose. I feel it in my little toe because the big, scary people have spoken so we all have to be *terrified*!!!1! What? *Read the opinion*? No time for that, I have my own opinion. (Oh, and don't listen to the fear mongers on those topics over there, use your critical thinking skills because, well, that's so not us. We're rational, not like the mouth-breather fear mongers. We return you to your on-going, yet ramping up, panic.) Terror! My cortisol and adrenaline levels haven't maxed out--can I have some injected?. I haven't gotten as terrified as I need to be--and you're not as terrified as you need to be! Be afraid! . . ."

[Lyric]

32. Add two or four new justices to the total number

and let them revisit the case.

It's long past time that the number of SCOTUS justices was increased anyway. Nine people cannot even begin to represent the diversity of legal complexity and philosophy in modern America.

[onenote]

36. Not going to happen.

Not a chance in the world. You know how long the Country has had 9 Justices? Since 1869. Sure changing the court is an "option" just like impeachment is an "option". But they're not realistic options and thus don't actually advance the cause of addressing and correcting the court's decision.

[Lyric]

42. I disagree.

I think that with the general unrest about the Supreme Court, there has never been a better time to address this issue. It's not just about political advantage; we really DO need a few more justices, and since there's no way to accomplish an addition without advantaging one party or the other, better ours than theirs.

[onenote]

43. what general unrest about the Supreme Court?

There's unrest here at DU, but the public at large doesn't pay the slightest attention to these things and if FDR had enlarging the court blow up in his face during the Great Depression and with a 76-17 majority in the senate (yet his bill lost 70-20) then you can disagree with reality until the cows come home but you aren't going to change the reality that no court enlargement plan can pass.

The Democrats can't get a voting representative for Washington DC without giving another rep to the repubs by adding another seat to Utah's delegation. BUt you think they could add seats to the Court and get them filled by Obama? Hah!

[Lyric]

44. "What general unrest?" Are you serious?

You think that WE are the only ones griping about the SCOTUS? The right-wingers and even the moderates have been grumbling in the media about "activist judges" for damn near a decade. It's such a common phrase that it's practically become a cultural cliche. Of course, the two sides are pissed at the SCOTUS for entirely different reasons, but still, there's really no doubt that even the right-wing is as uncomfortable with the court as we are. "General unrest" describes that pretty well, I'd say.

As for whether or not we can get it done--we sure as hell can't so long as everyone in Washington can point at cynics like you and say, "See? They don't expect us to do anything of substance, so why should we take any risks and try?"

:shrug:

[onenote]

45. just because you can try to do something doesn't mean you should

If you think there is a single right winger who would support allowing Obama to name several new justices to the court, I would like to sell you a nice bridge in Arizona.

And the reason it makes no sense to try something that is destined to fail is that the cost of failure would be high. The Democrats would be ridiculed for trying something that even FDR couldn't get done and that is historically regarded as folly on FDR's part. How can it possibly help to repeat that?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

46. No. n/t

[omega minimo]

47. links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7601125

[backscatter712]

48. Alan Grayson's legislation.

IIRC, it would impose a 500% excise tax on corporate political spending, forbid political contributions from any company that takes money from the government (the anti-kickback bill), apply antitrust regulations to PACs, require all companies to disclose the political money they spend, where they got it, and so on...

It's something that will be helpful while working on a constitutional amendment...

[KharmaTrain]

51. I Like This Idea...Not Sure If It's Constitutional...

Forget about a Constitutional Ammendment or Impeachment...there aren't the votes. Plus an ammendment could take years to work its way to the states with no guarantee it would get voted on (remember ERA??).

The tactic is to pass laws that don't infringe on "free speech" but to make it expensive for those with the big bucks to try to buy it. A better idea is to pass a bill that would prevent corporation who spends over $100,000 dollars from using government money to do it...meaning any corporation that has a government contract (which covers many of them). Thus they pick their poison...try to buy an election and loose millions or billions in government contracts.

[backscatter712]

52. Taxing isn't banning. It could tie up the courts for a while.

Maybe long enough for a constitutional amendment?

I think the anti-kickbacks bill - forbidding government contractors or any corporation that takes government money from donating to politicians or spending money politically (I'd like this to be broad enough to keep them from spending money on 527 attack ads) is constitutional - there's a clear conflict of interest & corruption issue here that can pass strict scrutiny tests.

[KharmaTrain]

53. One Big Problem = Politicians

Our political system has become a non-stop campaign...no sooner does someone win election then they're off fundraising for the next one. A House seat will cost in excess of $1 million and Senate $10 or more (upwards of $100 million in a large state)...and without the money a candidate won't make it to the general. I've seen too many highly qualified candidates who never make it past a primary since they can't raise the big bucks...thus the corporates get all the attention while the voters are an afterthought. If I had my druthers, I'd pass a law that would limit the campaign season...similar to how the British do it...prohibiting campaigning to 90 days before an election...focusing both the money and the attention on the voters and making campaigns a lot less reliant on the big bucks.

That said, any change has to go through the people who have benefitted from the current system...who have the money or the access to it. Telling someone you're limited on what you can take in and/or spend is like taking their candy away...there's going to be a lot of resistance from either party to changing a system they feel they control. Thus going to 50 state legislatures...all loaded with those who dream of moving up to the next level is a real tough sell. Again I bring out the ERA fiasco as to how an ammendment can be politicized and slow walked to a complete stall. Be assured that if you're talking about the "mother's milk" of a politicians life, the slow walk will be a crawl...they may talk the talk, but surely won't walk the walk.

Thus I prefer the anti-kickback concept as being the least "painful" way to enact some kind of restraint, but the genie is out of the bottle and the ugly truth is politicians are salivating about all the money that will be pouring in rather than accepting constraints. And the only way to break that bond is to make it a liability to be corporate candidate...and make it expensive, both financially and in PR for any corporation to try to buy a candidate or election.

Cheers...

[harkadog]

54. I assume DU is registered as a corporation

So most of their expenses under that proposal would be taxed 500%. Not a bright idea.

[backscatter712]

55. Maybe there's more details.

Say a 500% tax on political spending by for-profit corporations... There's a bunch of different types of corporations - some for-profit businesses, some that are non-profit explicitly political entities, and so on. I presume the law in question would take that into account.

[harkadog]

56. I'm sure DU is set up as a profit making corporation.

Under your theory, if some exception was made for "explicitly political entities" what would stop any corporation or individual from setting up one those "entities"? Nothing. Not a bright idea.