"U.S. Congress should be very seriously looking at impeaching justices Alito and Roberts right now"

[omega minimo]

1-29-10 Thom Hartmann on the air.

"As Pat Leahy pointed out, they LIED during their confirmation hearings."

Which is an impeachable offense.

http://www.thomhartmann.com

on edit for those who didn't see this yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=428828 -- Video posted by democracy1st

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=428723 -- Video posted by cal04


Pat Leahy unloads on Alito, on Senate floor -- posted by Enrique 1-28-10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7593999

somewhere Alito is watching this on his computer, mouthing "not true"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/leahy-slams-al...

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) lashed into Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday morning on the Senate floor, calling out the swing vote who overturned a hundred years of precedent to legalize deep corporate involvement in elections.

Leahy said that, in 36 years in the Senate he had never come to the floor to criticize a court decision, but was moved to do so by the activist nature of last week's 5-4 ruling in the Citizens United case.

He personally attacked Alito, noting that his confirmation testimony was under oath, yet was proven false by his brazen and radical dismissal of a century of precedent.

"In his confirmation hearing, Justice Alito -- and I might say, under oath -- testified that the role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. It has to do what it is supposed to do vigilantly, but it has to be equally vigilant about not stepping over its bounds and invading the authority of Congress," Leahy recalled Alito apparently lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "That was then -- when he was seeking confirmation. This is now."

Leahy said that he was speaking on the floor as chair of that committee and there are few historical precedents for such a direct rebuke of the court. "The conservative activist bloc on the Supreme Court reached an unnecessary and improper decision that is going to distort future elections," said Leahy. "It creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street."



Hartmann caller asks, "What can we do?"

movetoamend.org
reclaimdemocracy.org
duhc.org

[cali]

1. depends on the lie. saying you're going to be a "fair umpire" and

then behaving like a partisan hack is not an impeachable lie.

[fishbulb703]

108. Agreed, Dispicable, yes. Impeachable, No. Can't prove perjury. nt

[Sherman A1]

117. Although I agree with you

impeachment is pretty much whatever the House decides it is. Not that I expect this to ever come to pass.

[shadowknows69]

140. We wouldn't even try to impeach the war criminals

Why would Congress finally find the fortitude (alliteration intentional) to go forward on this fool's folly.

[abelenkpe]

2. I'm sorry

what did they lie about?

I would like to see them impeached.

[cali]

3. I'd like to know what lies the op is specifically referring to as well.

[omega minimo]

5. "As Pat Leahy pointed out, they LIED during their confirmation hearings."

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vincardog]

8. They both swore that they did not believe in "activist judges' and would respect settled law. Both

impeachable lies.

[omega minimo]

10. Thank you.

[cali]

12. no, sorry that is most definitely not an impeachable lie.

people have differing opinions on what an activist judge is. and promising to behave in a certain vague manner that's interpreted very differently by different people is not an impeachable lie.

[Vincardog]

16. Overturning 100 years of settled law is not what they said under oath that they would do

Interpret it any way you want.

[cali]

19. did they both promise never to rule against precedent? No?

then that's your answer.

[Vincardog]

22. You are not talking to me remember?

[cali]

24. lol. that's the best you can do? lame.

[omega minimo]

25. and it was a significant section of the Committee's questioning, such as it was.

I wonder how many actually believed them at the time.

[Recursion]

52. They overturned 30 years of settled law. The 100-year-old stuff is untouched. NT

[Fozzledick]

77. If 51% of the House think it is then it is

It's simply a matter of having the political will to hold them accountable.

[FLDCVADem]

13. Wrong

As for settled law, aren't you glad that the Supreme Court didn't rely on settled law in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education opinion?

The idea that each and every legal precedent is sacrosanct is ludicrous and failing to uphold precedent in all cases is certainly not an impeachable offense.

[omega minimo]

27. "The idea that each and every legal precedent is sacrosanct is ludicrous"

Good thing that's not what the person you're replying to is saying!

[FLDCVADem]

35. Learn to follow the line

It will be most helpful in seeing to whom I was responding.

[omega minimo]

39. I did. That's not what they said.

And why are the people opposing this argument acting like bullies? What's with the fucked up attitude? Really not necessary.

[FLDCVADem]

42. They used smaller words

but the same meaning.

[Recursion]

17. Ummm... no and no

They will say (sincerely, for that matter) that the decision was not "activist" and that the law was not "settled".

No. The fallout of this is going to be that the Senate may not allow such vague answers in the confirmation process, though.

[Vincardog]

18. They will not allow such vague answers in the confirmation process, of Democratic appointees

[omega minimo]

28. They were not vague answers. Can't get much more "activist" than this decision

[FLDCVADem]

30. Are you of the opinion that all precedent should stand forever? n/t

[omega minimo]

33. So are you going to turn around the meaning and words of what someone posts forever

and try to make them argue your strawman?

[FLDCVADem]

37. Your argument is that

Alito should be impeached because he said he would respect settled law, which is just another term for precedent. You want him impeached because he you feel that the didn't resepct precedent. And I'm saying that precedent, while important, is not sacrosanct.

[Recursion]

51. Sure you can

Roberts and Alito don't see striking down laws as activism, they see it as the purpose of the judiciary.

What he means by "activism" is saying "the current law isn't good enough, come up with something along the guidelines below instead" or, worse yet, (and this has happened from time to time) "the current law doesn't work; this decision is going to be the law instead".

[Ter]

125. Respecting settled law and voting to overturn it

Is not a lie. They are saying they respect it, but when it comes down to it, they'll overturn it. Segregation was settled law once.

[lonestarnot]

138. We should not have liars on the bench of the highest Court in the land! Impeach!

:thumbsup:

[FLDCVADem]

4. If he said the Senate should do it

then I think he should go look at the Constitution again. I could be wrong, but I think only the House can impeach.

Leaving aside of course that I don't see any impeachable offenses...

[omega minimo]

6. You're right. Thank you.

His words were "The United States Congress should be looking very seriously at impeaching justices Alito and Roberts right now."

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. For the Brazillionth Time...

You cannot impeach a Supreme Court Justice because he ruled in a case in a manner opposite of what he told a committee during the Confirmation Hearings. The Justice can simply state that the facts of the case were not the same as the hypothetical case discussed in the hearings. The Justice could say that the attorney made a compelling case.

Or the Justice could just say...

I CHANGED MY FUCKING MIND!!!

Unless somebody can unearth proof positive that Roberts or any other member of the Court received an improper benefit from one of the plaintiffs in the case, you don't have grounds for impeachment.

I'm sorry. Get over it.

[omega minimo]

9. Feel better now?

:thumbsdown:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

29. This idea won't go away....

You cannot, no matter how strongly you disagree with a Justice, impeach him because his statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee do not match his later rulings on the bench. One study linked here suggests that nearly every Supreme Court Justice appointed since Roosevelt has drifted either to the left or the right. They almost NEVER maintain a strict ideological course over the full span of their careers.

The argument that you can use a Justice's later rulings as "proof" that he/she was lying during confirmation is patent nonsense. And the idea that you could impeach a Justice over this simply shows a stunning lack of understanding as to how our system works.

Just for starters, it requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to remove a Supreme Court Justice. Given the recent and well-publicized inability of the Democratic Party to get 60 votes on Health Care Reform in the Senate, I suspect that getting 66 votes is going to be a mighty tall order.

[omega minimo]

36. Did you watch the confirmation hearings for Alito and Roberts?

Do you recall the testimony?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

46. Sweet Jesus, It Doesn't Matter What He Said....

Why don't you get this? You can't argue that a Justice's later rulings, no matter HOW MUCH they contradict his confirmation testimony, is proof that he was lying at the time.

Ask anybody who's ever been divorced. Were they lying at the time when they promised to love their former spouse forever, or did things change?

[cali]

54. give it up, Jeff.

you're using facts and logic. they fall on deaf ears.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

58. My head hurts....

:banghead:

I think I'll stop now...

[omega minimo]

65. Are you always belligerent?

[cali]

69. comedy gold

from the poster who just wrote "piss off".

:rofl:

[Occulus]

44. Actually, I *think* they can impeach for whatever reason they like

I don't recall language from the Constitution stating that certain, specific grounds need to be met to initiate the impeachment process. If it said that, we probably never would have had to endure the whole Clinton fiasco.

No, impeachment, as we heard over and over again in the 90's (and then again in the 00's when we were arguing for the Congress to impeach and convict Bush), is a political process and the stated punishments for being convicted in the trial are political in nature (except where actual crimes violating the law are revealed). The House of Representatives could impeach and attempt to convict Alito and Roberts for eating a ham sandwich if it wanted to do so. The question you need to ask yourself is, "will the charges stick at trial?" and that's left solely in the hands of the Senate.

Now, if you could show me established legislation laying out specifically what is and is not an impeachable offense, I'd be in agreement with you, but I don't believe such law exists. The Constitution is deliberately vague regarding what are and are not impeachable offenses, but from what I recall, it boils down to "impeachable offenses are whatever the Congress agrees they are".

To bolster my claims, let's look at Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason and bribery are clearly understood concepts, and in fact one could argue that the SCOTUS decision we're referring to when we call it an "impeachable offense" is treasonous because it could allow foreign influence into the US electoral process (whether or not that is actually the case is outside the scope of this post), potentially by states or organizations we understand to be our 'enemies'. The decision almost certainly was not bribery, unless one can prove that Alito and Roberts were in fact bribed (not bloody likely).

This leaves us with "other High Crimes and Misdemeanors", which puts us right back in the same boat Clinton was in in the 90's. To my knowledge, no court (or Court) has ever ruled on exactly what sorts of offenses rise to that level. There is good reason for this; defining what is and is not an impeachable offense must be left solely in the hands of the Congress. I think the Framers did the right thing by leaving that last bit as vague as it is; this opens the door for the Congress to start the impeachment process for, as I said above, any reason it likes.

[shraby]

49. How about a ruling that opens the door to legal foreign

influence in our elections? With that ruling they handed down, foreign owners of mega-corporations (even Osama bin Laden/Al Queda/Iran/North Korea/Russia, etc ad infinitum) can blanket the air waves with advocacy for a candidate of their choice to the extent that opposition candidates and their all American support can't buy time because it's all been sold. That ruling is tantamount to treason..aiding and abetting our enemies.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

63. If you can prove...

that one or more Justices allowed their decision to be effected by inappropriate contact between themselves and a foreign corporation (or an American corporation for that matter), then you have a potential case of Bribery. That's an impeachable offense.

Being titanically stupid isn't an impeachable office, or there would be a Republican left in Congress.

[shraby]

90. After the 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore, I think their personal

finances should be looked into and now with this last debacle, they should be scrutinized again.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

96. I don't disagree

There are plenty of enterprising journalists who would love the Pulitzer Prize that would assuredly come with bringing down a corrupt Supreme Court Justice.

[cherokeeprogressive]

104. So now all foreign owners of mega-corporations are our enemies?

Does this snowball of silliness never stop growing?

[Recursion]

11. You can't impeach a justice for a decision you don't like

The only option open is packing the court, which even FDR backed down from.

[Vincardog]

20. The REpublicans haven't backed away from it. See the illegal Bush V Gore.

[Occulus]

64. Yes, you can, actually

This post could also be titled, "show me where High Crimes and misdemeanors" are defined, because they're not. Defined, I mean.

Both you and Jeff are a bit confused about what the Constitution has to say regarding the impeachment process. Impeachment is a political process (not a legal one) initiated by the House and intended to be used when it perceives that treason, bribery, or other High Crimes and misdemeanors have occurred. As I said in detail in another post, while treason and bribery are clearly understood and in fact legally defined (in spite of the fact that they are impeachable offenses), High Crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, which given the Congress wide latitude when bringing the charges. They can, in effect, impeach for any damn reason they like, and that's as it ought to be.

"It's legal", in the case of impeachment, does not mean "I'm safe from the process".

[John Kerry VonErich]

76. Sorry for being stupid

What is packing the court?

[fascisthunter]

97. appointed politically biased individuals who support a political agenda

[Recursion]

132. Increasing the number of justices on the court

The number of justices on the court is set by statute, not in the Constitution. There were originally 3. Somebody (Q. Adams?) raised it to 7. Lincoln raised it to 9 because it was full of southerners. FDR threatened to raise it to 11 but the threat was enough to make the court back down and stop overturning New Deal legislation.

The idea is if the court is sandbagging, Congress can increase the number of justices on the court and "pack" it with new Presidential appointments.

[onenote]

137. lets' try to get our facts straight

The original size of the court was 6 not 3 (Judiciary Act of 1789).

As the size of the country grew, the number of federal circuits grew, Congress (not the President) increased the number of SCOTUS justices to match.
The number was increased to 7 in 1803 and to 9 in 1837 and by one more to 10 in 1863.
In 1866, Congress passed legislation designed to reduce the court back to 7 by means of attrition (thus denying Andrew Johnson any SCOTUS appointments).
The number of Justices had dropped to 8 by 1867. In 1869 Congress passed a new law setting the number at 9, and it has stayed there ever since.
FDR did propose legislation that would have allowed the court to increase over time to 15 justices, but that legislation was an abject failure, defeated 70-20, even though the Democrats controlled more than 75 seats in the Senate at the time.

BTW, the court wasn't "full" of southerners when Lincoln took office. Effectively, the court had 7 members at the time (eight on the day Lincoln was inaugurated, but one resigned a month later). Of those seven, three were southerners (Maryland, Tennessee and Georgia). Lincoln filled the two vacancies with non-southerners so at the time Congress increased the size of the court, the division was three southerners and 6 non-southerners.

[Recursion]

139. Thank you

That will teach me to try to remember my last US History class.

The point is the same: packing the court is increasing the number of justices on the court to change its ideological balance. It requires a Congress and President both greatly at odds with the court.

[onenote]

141. yup

and it ain't gonna happen now, or any time in the imaginable future because FDR's attempt was such a debacle.

[Octafish]

15. K&R to make it so.

My 2-cents on the turds:

Know your BFEE: Alito is just another word for Mussolini

Chief Justice Roberts is not Michael Jackson's Lover

Corrupt hacks have no place on the Supreme Court of the United States.

So, while we're at it, let's bounce Thomas, Kennedy (no relation to JFK) and Scalia.

[omega minimo]

31. When will we learn how to

stop these things BEFORE they happen?

[defendandprotect]

21. Absolutely . . . and it is this lack of corrective action which continues to take us further and

further towards fascism --

[omega minimo]

23. OP edited with links to yesterday's videos and text of Leahy's comments

:hi:

[cali]

26. one thing I know for sure, Leahy does not think that they're impeachable

because they said they wouldn't be activist judges.

[ddeclue]

32. Stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense...

it doesn't amount to an impeachable offense and it's NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.

[omega minimo]

34. If Thom Hartmann makes a comment, it has substance, you can Bernanke on it.

Stop being belligerent.

[cali]

40. yes, yes. every word out of Tom's mouth is gospel.

:rofl:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

47. I think Thom would be appalled to hear you say that....

He's a smart guy. Smart enough to know that a Cult of Personality is not cool.

[omega minimo]

145. Saying "it has substance" is not "a Cult of Personality"

:thumbsdown:

[ddeclue]

56. NOPE.. Who cares if Thom Hartmann said it? It doesn't make it right.

[omega minimo]

146. It makes it worth discussing

[Occulus]

53. Who defines a High Crime or misdemeanor for the purposes of impeachment? n/t

[ddeclue]

60. The Congress who will never get within a 1000 miles of doing it.

[Occulus]

70. My only point is that they have the power to do so.

There are several people on this thread saying it doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. My purpose here is to point out that that "level" is undefined, and left solely in the hands of the Congress.

People need to read the Constitution. Impeachment is not a legal process.

[ddeclue]

89. No not really. There is no power because there is NO interest or belief that any crime occurred.

The obvious defense is "that was then.. this is now" they didn't commit perjury by stating their belief and then changing their mind later.

[progressoid]

55. Hey, stop peeing in the Wheaties.

We got us some righteous indignation goin' here.

[Kingofalldems]

38. Uh Oh--somebody not liking this one

Wow!

[omega minimo]

41. Big time

[cali]

43. profound stupidity will always get an unrec from me

and I'm talking about the post, not the person who wrote it.

[fascisthunter]

99. .

[omega minimo]

45. edit for websites in response to What can we DO?

movetoamend.org
reclaimdemocracy.org
duhc.org

[Green_Lantern]

48. they can only be removed...

For improper behavior, not for making bad rulings. If judges can be removed because people oppose their rulings as activist then right-wingers would have a field day impeaching so-called liberal judges.

We need to be careful of this unless we want progressive minded judges brought before right-wing impeachment panels.

[omega minimo]

67. Presuming that "progressive minded judges" would do the same....

[Green_Lantern]

80. I meant for perceived activism..

nt

[opihimoimoi]

50. Yes, I agree...They have proven themselves Partial...which makes them involved in Politics

Super Bad Form

Not Rec'd in in their Role and Mission....to Uphold the Laws of the Land...

Not make self interest Rulings...

Very Very Bad Form these dudes...they should be examined for high levels of Lead...

causes mental Probs with Fairness and Reality

[jgraz]

57. If the roles were reversed, the Repukes would be all over this

It's unlikely that they'd be impeached, but investigations may uncover evidence that wasn't previously known. At the very least, it will establish that the Senate isn't going to tolerate being conned by nominees.

[cali]

61. and that wouldn't make them any the more correct

anyway, the pukes wouldn't hold investigations over a decision they disagreed with. they never have before.

[jgraz]

62. Oh, come on. The Repukes never abused the filibuster like this before.

And betting on the Repukes respecting any limits of decorum is a sure way to lose.

[Occulus]

66. Could you please define "other High Crimes and misdemeanors"?

I only ask because I don't believe any law or court (or Court) has ever done so.

Congress has the latitude and the power to do this. All that remains is the will.

[TexasObserver]

59. Recommend. These enemies of America should be impeached.

The five GOP justices (or their predecessor in their seat) who vote as this bloc have twice in the past ten years led a frontal attack on Democracy. They subverted the presidency through fiat, when even their own voting histories on the topic demanded that they let stand the State court ruling in Florida. Now, they have demolished 40 years of campaign finance reform.

These 5 men are GOP hacks who happen to be sitting on the court. We've had really bad justices before who tried to kidnap the country. FDR had to back them down. Time to rip out a page from history.

[Nye Bevan]

68. Translation.

The justices should be impeached because they made a ruling that I really, really, really dislike.

I wish DUers had more respect for the separation of powers, which is one of the best features of the Constitution and has stood the test of time for 200+ years. There have been many previous SC rulings just as controversial as this one but I have never heard of anyone calling for impeachment of justices because they didn't like their decision.

And the DUers who call for impeaching judges whose rulings they dislike, and who call for the filibuster to be abolished, should think about what will happen when the shoe is on the other foot. One day the GOP will control Congress again- imagine if the Dems had no filibuster power, and if the Repukes were prepared to impeach any judge who ruled against them. A truly terrifying prospect.

[cali]

71. precisely and well said.

[anonymous171]

72. Yes. We need to send them a message and scare them into submission.

The GOP would do it.

[Nye Bevan]

74. I guess you only read the first line of my post (nt)

[anonymous171]

75. I read the rest of your post. I just chose to respond to your first line.

Separation of powers does not mean that one branch should not serve as a check on another. In fact, that is contrary to the concept.

[TexasObserver]

73. I've been doing this 35 years and have a background to understand it.

Over 30 years as an attorney in federal court and an even longer time as a politico.

Your naivete is your problem. Save the 7th grade Social Studies lecture for 12 year olds who don't know any better.

[cali]

78. so, if at some point in the future

some dem appointed liberal justice who said in confirmation hearings that they'd act impartially as a justice, rules to overturn this ruling on the grounds say, that corporations are not persons under the constitution, and the repuke majority moves to impeach her, you'd be fine with that?

[TexasObserver]

81. I don't issue advisory opinions for naysayers.

When there is such a controversy, I'll address it on its merits.

[Nye Bevan]

79. Antonin Scalia has been in the legal profession for 49 years

So I guess he understands it even better than you do?

[TexasObserver]

84. No, he's gone senile.

[cali]

92. wow. I see you're a disciple of the frist school of diagnosis.

[TexasObserver]

94. I see you're still incapable of writing a cogent reply.

[cali]

103. really? only the extraordinarily obtuse or ignorant wouldn't get that.

[apocalypsehow]

91. Uh-huh.

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

86. did you view or read Leahy's comments? re "the separation of powers"?

[fascisthunter]

100. they made an unconstitutional decsion to destroy democracy itself

giving corporations the power to use what funds they want to for a candidate of their chosing, gives that entity more influence over everyone else's vote. One person, one vote... and no, corporations are not person's.

[Thothmes]

131. JMO, the justices that made the Kelo decision should also

be impeached. Imagine, taking private property to turn over to a Corporation so they can develope the property so the local government can make more tax money. The Court said this was OK.

[earth mom]

82. It ain't gonna happen.

All the politicians in Washington DC benefit from the recent Supreme Court ruling.

So why in the hell would they change anything or do anything?

[cali]

83. really? you think bernie sanders benefits from this decision?

not to mention dozens of others.

[earth mom]

102. So go tell Bernie to get right on that impeachment. nt

[laylah]

85. I would give SO MUCH if this

were to happen. Unfortunately, those treasonous, lying, BOS will remain. They did at their 2000 Coup and they will continue to. There is NO ONE with the intestinal fortitude to take this issue on.

[omega minimo]

87. I would love to see

it stopped at the Jud. Hearing level, no confirmation of these two corporate Imperial Executive toadies, back when some of us were warning about what happens if you DON'T stop it. How CAN this be turned back, after the fact?

[Bitwit1234]

88. George W. Bush said in one of his State of the Union Speeches

the job of the Supreme Court is to rule on cases not to legislate from the bench.....

[FLDCVADem]

105. They did rule on a case

The fact that we don't like the ruling doesn't mean they legislated from the bench.

[G_j]

93. They Must Be Stopped

(these bumper stickers are available free at link below)





Supreme Court Judges Do Da Corporate Takeover Hustle, And They Must Be Stopped

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:52 PM
From:
"The Pen" <[e-mail]>



This the second in a series of action alerts about the fundamental
willful and pernicious errors underlying the decision by 5 agenda
driven right wing judges on the Supreme Court to gut all restraints
on corporate meddling in our elections. Each of these successive
alerts will analyze additional derelict aspects of this shameful and
truly dangerous decision, to further demonstrate why we the people
must speak out and act to reverse it.

In the first alert we made the triable case (which no attorney has
written us to dispute) that failing to even bother to distinguish
between domestic and foreign owned corporations, and knowingly
leaving America vulnerable to the latter BY their ruling, was de
facto an act of treason by The Supreme Court 5.

This alert will focus on the abandonment of every prudent rule of
judicial review, in favor of haste and the most extreme form of
judicial activism, again with specific page number references to the
opinion itself.

There are TWO critical action pages related to this, which we are
asking each of our participants to submit and also pass on to
everyone you know, which will send your message by fax to all your
own members of Congress, and President Obama too. You do not need
your own fax machine to participate, the action pages do all this for
you automatically in real time.

Action Page: Corporations Are NOT The People
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php

Action Page: Impeach The Supreme Court 5
http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php

The most bedrock principle of appellate review is that first an
appellant must have PRESERVED the issue for appeal, by arguing and
getting a ruling on the point of law from the court below,
necessitating fact finding by the lower court to create a "record".
Innumerable appellants since the beginning of time have had the door
to review slammed in their face with the admonition that if they HAD
preserved the issue then and only then could a higher court review
it.

And in particular, appellate courts have traditionally been loathe to
making their own findings of fact (and only in a corrective way)
absent very clear error by the Court below, which is as it should be.
The role of a higher court is to apply the law to the facts, and make
rulings of what the LAW is, not make their own findings of fact. And
this is supremely true of the Supreme Court.

So even beyond the outrageousness of the result, it is at least
outrageous the way it was reached, and how that reach was justified.
As justification, The Supreme Court 5 asserted that some legal
emergency existed requiring a broader inquiry in this case,
resurrecting a claim already ABANDONED by the appellant in the court
below (opinion p. 12). Why directly overturning precedents at least
20 years old would suddenly be such an emergency they do not explain.

And when you actually read the opinion, the only pressure really on
the Supreme Court was because so-called Citizens United was bound to
LOSE on the case they did preserve (opinion pp. 10-11). The Supreme
Court 5 wanted that party to win. This was in itself an over the top
act of judicial activism. But even beyond that they were hell bent on
undoing as much as 100 years of campaign finance regulation (Stevens'
dissent p. 3). Even the most conservative commentators agree this is
what they have in fact done.

Appellate courts have been known on occasion to comment (in no
binding way) that if an appellant HAD made a particular argument they
might have been receptive to it, a kind of higher court invitation
for someone to bring an actual case, an actual "controversy". And
then there would be a factual record in some subsequent case. But
here there was no controversy on the issue on which the ruling was
based, for it had already been WAIVED a priori, thereby denying the
Supreme Court any jurisdiction to rule on it (Consitution Article
III, Section 2, Clause 1).

But even further assuming that the Supreme Court was justified in
reopening a can of worms already discarded, the appropriate procedure
would have been to return the case to the lower court with
instructions, what is called a "remand", and which is done all the
time after a ruling of LAW, for the court below to make findings of
fact and conduct further proceedings, so that there would be a
factual record for them to review, should the appellant wish to
appeal to the higher court again in the case of an unfavorable ruling
by the lower court.

All these prudent judicial things are exactly what the Supreme Court
5 did NOT do. Instead, they called for hurry up further briefing on
the new question of law THEY wanted to rule on (Stevens' dissent p.
4), in a vacuum of insufficient facts to make those arguments of law.
Instead, they set a scary new purported standard of review that says
they basically can make rulings on any point of law THEY want to
raise, whether developed in a lower court by an appellant or not.

This is truly frightening! It means that these five absolute
dictators in black robes have now asserted the unheard of prerogative
to make their own law pretty much any time they like, if only
tangentially related to appellant's actual arguments on appeal
(opinion pp. 13-14), a profoundly dangerous NEW standard, to become a
new stare decisis if not immediately challenged and reversed by their
removal from office. It means they now assert unchecked prerogative
to make their own findings of fact whenever necessary to reach the
result THEY want to reach.

And they must be stopped. The Supreme Court 5 must be impeached
before they go even further off the deep end. Whatever else within
the law that Congress can do to counteract this decision must be
done, and to make sure such a thing can never, ever happen again.

So please submit both action pages above now. The next alert in this
series will analyze the totally bogus basis of the so-called facts
the Supreme Court pulled out of sheer hot air in this case.

NEW FOUR COLOR BUMPER STICKERS

In the meantime we are making available for no charge (not even
shipping) your choice of one of two new bumper stickers. Take a
"Corporations Are NOT The People" bumper sticker, OR a "Impeach The
Supreme Court 5" bumper sticker for free. Of course if you can make a
contribution (or if you want both), please DO contribute what you
can, which is what allows us to send these out for free to anyone who
cannot make a donation right now.

We have engaged one of the top commercial printers in the country for
printing these, they have gone to press using the highest quality 4
color process, the proofs are absolutely gorgeous, and we will be
taking delivery shortly of the first run.

So you can still request your bumper sticker from the return page
after you submit either of the action pages above to get in on the
first shipping. Or you can do directly to this page and get them
there.

Bumper Stickers for no charge:
http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php

Facebook participants can also submit the action pages at

Corporations Are Not The People:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1029

Impeach The Supreme Court 5:
http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1030

And on Twitter, just send the following Twitter reply for the
Corporations Are Not The People action

@cxs #p1029

And this Twitter reply for the Impeach The Supreme Court 5 action

@cxs #p1030

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.millionfaxmarch.com/in.htm

[Midlodemocrat]

95. This is pure comedy gold. Kudos!!!!

[Odin2005]

98. The Fascist 5's behavior borders on treasonous.

[fascisthunter]

101. What This Supreme Court has done is Destroy "We the People's" Vote

when entities can use tons of money at their disposal to get a candidate of their liking elected, it diminishes the impact of of each person's vote. The inequality of voters influence on an election is anti-democratic and unamerican.

It's bribery and it is fascist.

[SimonPhoenix]

106. Brilliant idea to hand the Republicans both houses in November

If you think that idea, ridiculous as it is, wouldn't backfire, then wow... just... wow.

[omega minimo]

123. You have a crystal ball?

[TexasObserver]

107. What if they overturn Roe? And Brown v. the Board?

Would the naysayers find those actions sufficient basis to impeach some of the justices and remove them?

Is there any action by the five GOP goons on the court that would move the naysayers to ACT? Or would they sit by and watch it happen, handcuffed by their slavish devotion to the separation of powers?

The simple fact is that impeachment is a constitutional remedy intended to give the legislative branch the ability to remove out of control judges. The naysayers cannot wrap their head about that simple fact. It's literally over their heads.

[FLDCVADem]

109. As horrible as it would be

No, I would not find it sufficient for impeachment. I don't believe hating a decision is grounds for impeachment.

Slavish devotion to separation of powers? I support the U.S. Constitution; if that makes me a slavish devotee to separation of powers, then so be it.

[TexasObserver]

111. Then you belong in the group who would do nothing.

Impeachment is a constitutional power and remedy. It is available to the congress. All it takes is the votes. It's a political remedy.


As I said, we should have gone after them for the theft of the 2000 presidential election.

[FLDCVADem]

112. Should the justices have been impeached in 1954

when Brown v. Board of Education overturned settled law?

Or does the impeachment standard only hold up when it's your ox being gored?

[TexasObserver]

115. No and No.

[FLDCVADem]

116. Don't look now, but your hypocrisy is showing n/t

[cali]

119. but he's a brilliant lawyer! he said so himself.

and his posts in this thread are just sooo persuasive.

[FLDCVADem]

120. Oops, you're right - my bad! n/t

[cali]

110. first of all, they won't overturn brown. believe me, no case challenging

it can get anywhere near the SC. secondly, if they do overturn Roe, no, I wouldn't support impeachment.

Let's play into the future: the pukes are in control of congress. it's a 5-4 liberal SC. They've just overturned Citizens United on the ground that corporations are not persons under the constitution. the most recent justice said under oath that she would be a "fair umpire". pukes say she lied. would you support impeachment.

the simple fact is that impeachment and conviction in the Senate are very difficult and designed that way for a reason. the reason being people who would impeach because they don't like outcomes.

[TexasObserver]

113. Like you'd know.

[cali]

118. brilliant retort, genius. oh so snappy and clever.

:rofl:

[FLDCVADem]

114. As usual, well said n/t

[Unvanguard]

127. It's not supposed to be a policy tool. That's how those calling for impeachment want to use it.

It's not a question of how much we disagree with the decisions they make; it's a question of whether they actively subvert the duties of their office--say, by accepting bribes.

Anger at the judiciary about it "overstepping its authority", from both sides of the political spectrum, is pretty typical. If it became an excuse for impeachment, we would lose our capacity to have an independent judiciary. Perhaps this is the price we wish to pay to avoid decisions like Citizens United--but if it is, we should pay it honestly, not pretend that we are really doing something else.

[TexasObserver]

130. I have a more expansive view of politics than you do.

We fight them everywhere, and the fight never ends. I don't consider the Supreme Court or the federal judiciary sacrosanct. I've watched the GOP subvert the constitution the past 30 years, and they've done it by hook or crook. They've done it by inserting far right ideologues into courts from the district level to the Supreme Court.

This was a power grab by the five GOP judges, and they should be treated like any other attempted coup. You want to act as if this is just politics as usual. It isn't. We're fighting for the life of the democracy. If we let them steal the presidency then buy all elections, what's left? The illusion of having democracy, that's all.

[Unvanguard]

121. This is silly. Leahy obviously thinks it's the Court overstepping its authority.

But Alito may well not. A difference of opinion is not an impeachable offense.

[omega minimo]

122. They lied during confirmation. They knew it. And they lied.

[Unvanguard]

124. What did they lie about? Specifically? n/t

[omega minimo]

126. Have you read the thread and sources?

[Unvanguard]

129. Unfortunately I'm not quite bored enough to watch thirteen minutes of a Senator's speech.

I spent much longer than that reading the main dissent in Citizens United--along with the majority opinion, Scalia's and Robert's concurrences, and Thomas's dissent. Did you?

I have also paid attention to the threads on DU arguing for impeachment. There are common threads through them. The major one is that those arguments that go beyond "The decision is (very, very) bad policy" (irrelevant to impeachment) operate on a misperception about how Supreme Court decisions work. Rules like respecting precedent, or judicial restraint, are not straightforward rules with obvious implications. They are themselves complex, ambiguous aspects of the law, and applying them is as much an act of interpretation as making the actual decision is. Certainly they are very far from absolute: liberal as well as conservative justices overrule precedent and make decisions with strong policy implications, and often provoke public outrage in the process.

While to liberals, the decision of the Court in Citizens United may be "judicial activism" in the worst sense, to Alito and Roberts it may well be simply upholding the rights protected by the Constitution, as they see them, and overruling what they take to be a poorly-reasoned and dangerous past opinion. That is in the nature of partisan difference. If we are to have an independent judiciary, it cannot in itself be grounds for impeachment.

[omega minimo]

134. Do you feel that their rationale for their decision transcends partisanship?

[Unvanguard]

135. No controversial judicial decision "transcends partisanship."

I guess that part you might be able to justifiably accuse them of lying about (though the same could be said about Sotomayor and every other justice); a justice's personal political beliefs obviously and necessarily influence his or her jurisprudence, you can't resolve an issue of (say) whether or not corporations have free speech without having some notion about the right way to conceive of free speech. It's no accident that the Court's voting breakdown often (though not inevitably) mirrors the partisan split in the US public as a whole.

[sendero]

128. You know they lied..

... and I know they lied, but that is still not provable in a court of law.

[omega minimo]

133. Maybe Leahy's mad because he knew they lied at the time, too.

[sendero]

136. Yeah...

.... I think a lot of Dems are wishing they'd engaged in a little less "bipartisanship" and not confirmed some of these lying bastards.

[omega minimo]

143. Good point. That's exactly what they were doing.

[omega minimo]

144. Good point. That's exactly what they were doing.

Although I call it "pandering."

And the excuse at the time? "If we don't confirm this guy, they'll just put someone just as bad."

[MilesColtrane]

142. It is certainly the right of the House membership to draw up whatever impeachment charges they want.

But, any attempt to charge confirmation testimony as perjury would be laughed out of the Senate.

You'd get the same results as in the old Sammy Chase case.