Senator Feingold Suggests Impeachment of Corrupt Supreme Court Justices

[Time for change]

U.S. Politicians must often result to indirect means for expressing their ideas – less they be pilloried by the corporate media for expressing views that are beyond the pale of (corporate defined) acceptable discourse. Such was the case when Senator Russ Feingold recently suggested that corrupt U.S. Supreme Court justices be impeached for, among other things, their transparently corrupt decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which they asserted in a 5-4 decision that “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech (including bribery of public officials) of corporations”.

As quoted in an article by Matthew Rothschild titled “Corporations Aren’t Persons”, Senator Feingold called the decision “one of the most lawless in the history of the Supreme Court”. Yet, unlike some other progressives, whose reaction to the decision was to call for a Constitutional amendment, Feingold had a better idea. He said about the Constitutional amendment idea:

I think that’s unwise, but I certainly understand the sentiment… The best thing to do is to get new justices, different justices, who will do the right thing.

He didn’t specifically use the word “impeach” – But what else could he have meant when he said that “the best thing to do is get new justices”? One possibility is that he meant that we should wait for the current justices to retire or die of natural causes and then “get new justices”. As John Bonifaz said in criticizing Feingold’s statement, “Based on the age of some of the justices in the majority, that’s suggesting that we wait a very long time”. A very long time, indeed! I’ll be long dead by that time, and so will many tens of millions of other Americans, as well as what’s left of our democracy. That would be a very passive way to address “one of the most lawless (decisions) in the history of the Supreme Court”, as Feingold described it. Feingold could not have meant that.

Another unlikely possibility is that Feingold meant to wait for the justices in question to die quicker deaths – along the lines of John F. Kennedy, his brother Bobby, or Martin Luther King. But Feingold isn’t that type of guy, so I doubt that that’s what he had in mind.

There is only one other possible way that we could “get new justices”, as Feingold suggested: Impeachment. Before discussing the pros and cons of a Constitutional amendment vs. impeachment for dealing with the corrupt Citizens United decision, let’s consider why this USSC decision should rightly be considered, as Feingold said, “one of the most lawless in the history of the Supreme Court”.

One of the most lawless decisions in the history of the Supreme Court

Matthews summarized the crux of the Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission in his article:

To read the 5-4 majority decision in Citizens United is to look at a fun-house mirror…. The McCain-Feingold law prohibited corporate-funded independent ads during such a timeframe, and Citizens United challenged the constitutionality of the law as it applied to this particular instance….

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, threw out decades of Supreme Court precedents. Writing in the most sweeping way, he declared that “political speech of corporations or other associations” cannot “be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not ‘natural persons.’ ”

The logic of the Court’s argument would throw out all restrictions on corporate expenditures. “Political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence,” it said. This seems to justify unlimited direct gifts to candidates, though the majority didn’t quite go there. But it went everywhere else.

Former U.S. Senator from Wisconsin and Progressive Party candidate for President Bob La Follette, warned of the threat of unlimited corporate power during his 1924 run for the Presidency:

Democracy cannot live side by side with the control of government by private monopoly. We must choose, on the one hand, between representative government, with its guarantee of peace, liberty, and economic freedom and prosperity for all the people, and on the other, war, tyranny, and the impoverishment of the many for the enrichment of the favored few.

Implications for our democracy – Justice John Paul Stevens in dissent

86 years later, Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent to the majority decision in Citizens United, explained what the majority decision means to the future of our democracy:

Justice John Paul Stevens… warned: “Starting today, corporations with large war chests to deploy on electioneering may find democratically elected bodies becoming much more attuned to their interests.” The Court’s decision, he added, undermines the integrity of our democratic institutions and “will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.”

Stevens cut to the heart of the matter and laid out why corporations should not be treated as persons. “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant,” he argued. “Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it…. Their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. . .

Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.” …

Stevens also invoked our Founders. “Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind,” he wrote. “Thomas Jefferson famously fretted that corporations would subvert the Republic,” Stevens observed, and in a footnote, he provided the quotation from Jefferson from 1816: “I hope we shall… crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations.”

On the corrupt nature of the decision

Of course, impeachment of our public officials must not be taken lightly. Decisions to impeach should not be taken on the basis of mere differences of opinion or differences of ideology. But to understand the corrupt and lawless nature of the decision one need only look at the justifications put forth by Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority. Matthews summarized this in his article:

The decision asserted, astonishingly and without evidence, that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” It added: “The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”

The first sentence noted above essentially asserts that the unlimited use of corporate wealth to influence our elections does “not give rise to corruption…”. Doesn’t give rise to corruption? Perhaps not. It IS corruption.

Maryland State Senator and law professor Jamie Raskin explained the consequences of removing all limitations on the use of corporate wealth to influence our elections:

In 2008, the Fortune 100 corporations had $600 billion in profits… Now imagine that those top 100 companies decided to spend a modest 1 percent of their profits to intervene in our politics and to get their way. That would mean $6 billion, or double what the Obama campaign spent, the McCain campaign spent, and every candidate for House and Senate.

And as for the idea that “the appearance of influence or access… will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy”, my God, how could any reasonably intelligent person say such a thing?


Bush v. Gore set the stage for egregiously corrupt USSC decisions

The Bush v. Gore decision of December 2000, which mandated that the counting of votes for President cease, and thereby handed the 2000 Presidential election to George W. Bush by a 5-4 decision of the USSC, set the precedent for transparently corrupt USSC decisions to slide by without consequence. It is no coincidence that of the five justices who handed down this abomination, three of them (Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy) are the same ones who perpetrated the Citizens United decision on the American people; and the two others in the majority in Citizens United were then appointed to the Court by the “winner” of the 2000 sham Presidential election, George W. Bush.

The decision in Bush v. Gore preposterously concluded that the hand-counting of Florida votes was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. That conclusion was said to be based on the fact that different jurisdictions in Florida used different standards to evaluate the intent of the voter, as recently mandated by the Florida Supreme Court.

But it made no sense to say that differences in standards for counting ballots meant unequal protection under the amendment. By that reasoning, the whole election, in all 50 states would have to be ruled unconstitutional, since there were myriad voting methods used in all states throughout the country. Furthermore, given the differences in voting methods in Florida itself, and that the purpose of hand counting the ballots was to remedy the unfairness that resulted from this, how could the U.S. Supreme Court decide that this was unconstitutional?

Vincent Bugliosi on the absurdity and lawlessness of the Bush v. Gore decision
Vincent Bugliosi put the matter in perspective in his article, “None Dare Call it Treason”:

And if the Court's five-member majority was concerned not about Bush but the voters themselves, as they fervently claimed to be, then under what conceivable theory would they, in effect, tell these voters, "We're so concerned that some of you undervoters may lose your vote under the different Florida county standards that we're going to solve the problem by making sure that none of you undervoters have your votes counted"? Isn't this exactly what the Court did? ….

If none of the undervotes were counted because of the various standards to count them, then to be completely consistent the Court would have had no choice but to invalidate the entire Florida election, since there is no question that votes lost in some counties because of the method of voting would have been recorded in others utilizing a different method….

Furthermore, the use of the equal protection clause, which was originally designed to protect minorities from the unequal application of laws designed to be used against them, was new for the Rehnquist Court. Bugliosi continued:

The Rehnquist Court almost never uses equal protection jurisprudence except in striking down affirmative action programs (designed to help blacks and minorities). I can't think of a single instance where Scalia or Thomas has found discrimination against a racial minority, or women, or the aged, or the disabled, to be unconstitutional.

Varying methods to cast and count votes have been going on in every state of the union for the past two centuries, and the Supreme Court has been as silent as a church mouse on the matter, never even hinting that there might be a right under the equal protection clause that was being violated….

And if all that isn’t enough, the Court said that its ruling was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." Bugliosi comments on the significance of that:

In other words, the Court, in effect, was saying its ruling "only applied to those future cases captioned Bush v. Gore. In all other equal protection voting cases, litigants should refer to prior decisions of this court."

This point… all alone and by itself, clearly and unequivocally shows that the Court knew its decision was not based on the merits or the law, and was solely a decision to appoint George Bush President.

Bugliosi on the meaning of Bush v. Gore
As with Citizens United, this isn’t just a matter of a difference of opinion. Bugliosi summed up the meaning of the decision:

The stark reality, and I say this with every fiber of my being, is that the institution Americans trust the most to protect its freedoms and principles committed one of the biggest and most serious crimes this nation has ever seen – pure and simple, the theft of the presidency. And by definition, the perpetrators of this crime have to be denominated criminals…. Make no mistake about it, I think my background in the criminal law is sufficient to inform you that Scalia, Thomas et al. are criminals in the very truest sense of the word…. In a fair and just world (they) belong behind prison bars as much as any American white-collar criminal who ever lived. Of course, the right-wing extremists who have saluted the Court for its theft of the election are the same type of people who feel it is perfectly all right to have a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in a federal penitentiary for some poor black in the ghetto who is in possession of just fifty grams of crack cocaine, even if he was not selling it….

A proposed Constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United V. Federal Elections Commission

Many progressives have suggested a Constitutional amendment to deal with this attack on our democracy. Congresswoman Donna Edwards, whom I admire as much as any Congressperson, proposed the following Constitutional amendment:

Section 1. The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds for political speech by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity.

Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Edwards had this to say about her reasons for her proposed amendment:

The Supreme Court has left us with no choice. I shouldn’t have to worry as a lawmaker that if I make these tough decisions for the American people that a corporation is going to… in effect run an election against me.

The American people already believe that corporate interests and their lobbyists run the show around here… Our elections are for sale. They became activist in a way that we haven’t seen in a long time… and they wiped away decades of precedent… I think that the American people will quickly realize that we would rather have our elections run by people… paid for by the American people and not by corporate special interests.

Why we need to impeach corrupt justices

I am not against a Constitutional amendment to reverse the corrupt Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision. But I agree with Russ Feingold that it is not the best way to do it. Beyond the fact that Constitutional amendments are very difficult to pass and take so long, there is a more important why they are not the ideal process for dealing with corrupt and lawless judicial decisions.

Consider our 14th amendment. Its first sentence provides the basis for the rest of the amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

A major reason for the amendment was to ensure that our recently freed slaves (as well as other minorities) could enjoy the equal protection of our laws as citizens of our country. But if there is virtually no limit set on how corrupt our judicial appointees can be without risking impeachment, what is to prevent some future court invalidating the spirit of our 14th amendment by ruling that black people (or some other minority) are not persons, and are therefore exempt from the protections of the 14th amendment? (That is not such a far-fetched idea, given that not so many years prior to the passage of the 14th amendment black people were considered property rather than persons.) Would the best way to deal with that be to pass a Constitutional amendment saying that black people are persons?

Bugliosi summed up the significance to our country of Bush v. Gore:

That an election for an American President can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening and dangerous events ever to have occurred in this country. Until this act – which is treasonous, though again not technically, in its sweeping implications – is somehow rectified (and I do not know how this can be done), can we be serene about continuing to place the adjective "great" before the name of this country?

That assessment is right on target. And it applies as well to any corrupt and lawless decision by the highest court in our land.

Do we need to pass a constitutional amendment to deal with every blatantly corrupt, lawless and absurd decision of our Supreme Court? Or would it be a better idea to serve notice that such abominations will not be tolerated? Should our Supreme Court justices be made to understand that there is some limit to the absurdity and corruptness of their decisions that will be tolerated? Should we send a message that they will be held accountable for adhering to the rule of law? Should we take seriously their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States? Or do we have to pass a Constitutional amendment every time they blatantly violate their oath and stray beyond the bounds of decency and faithfulness to the rule of law?

[stray cat]

1. IF illegal corruption is clearly proven in a court of law and not blogs -absolutely agree

[ClassWarrior]

3. Impeachment is not the conviction, just the indictment. But the trial is held in the Senate...

...not a court of law.

NGU.

[laughingliberal]

9. Thank you. Saved me the trouble. nt

[FlufferFreeZone]

178. Impeach the RATS + Kennedy NOW!!!!

And take it to the Senate and convict and remove them!!!!

BTW, awesome "Please Be Patient" graphic, I love it. SO TRUE.

[aquart]

134. Wasn't there conflict yet they didn't recuse?

Wives working...?

[lark]

142. Bush vs Gore anyone?

Illegal and unconstitutional both

[Gin Blossom]

2. VERY interesting. n/t

[philly_bob]

4. Justice Thomas' wife was on Bush transition team during Bush v. Gore case! (nt)

[Enthusiast]

69. That about says it all

right there. They don't even have a basic sense of conflict of interest.

[The Wizard]

73. Scalia's son

worked for the law firm representing Bush.
If Scalia and Thomas can't recognize the conflicts of interest, neither should be on the Court and both have been committing legal malpractice for years.

[Dinger]

5. Very Interesting Indeed

That's my senator!

[midnight]

23. I love the pic. Where was it taken? Also I agree with the rule of law or throw them out...

[Dinger]

47. At A Listening Session In Antigo, Wisconsin

about 2 or 3 weeks ago. I look like shit, but who cares?

[midnight]

58. Thank you for attending those listening sessions, and the Senator does not seem

to think you look like sh#t.

[Dinger]

63. A Couple Of Videos From That Listening Session

Not the best quality though. In the first one, it's short and he talks a little bit about how he'd vote on the (health care) bill. In the second, there's a repuke trying to take over, and Russ handles him pretty well, but I didn't get all of Russ's comments because my batteries died on the camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYMyfdJMRBY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zuxPJTErFs

I'm not the best a You-Tubing.

[midnight]

83. The Senator does a good job with the man who seems unwilling to hear

a difference of opinion when dealing with numbers, and how the Senator was going to vote. Thanks for sharing.

[Enthusiast]

70. You 'look' like a perfectly

good one to me.

[Myrina]

151. What are you doing with my future husband?

;-)


:loveya: Aaaah, Russ Feingold :loveya:

[Dinger]

167. Never You Mind

Hee hee.:evilgrin:

I know this is lame, but it kind of makes me all giggly when I think Russ put his arm around me (first), and then I did the same to him. Dang, me and a U.S. senator! Ahhhhh, it was nice. Mr. Dinger took the picture.

[DeeDeeNY]

52. You are so fortunate

He was the only Senator with the guts to vote against the Patriot Act. That alone puts him head and shoulders above every other Democrat.

[Dinger]

59. It Sure Does

Wish there were 99 more like him.

[RainDog]

6. Vincent Bugliosi had a petition online to impeach the Supreme Court 5 before 9-11

and after that, the subject was dropped.

however, I still think the remaining members should be impeached and O'Connor and Rehnquist should get little marks by their names for posterity as part of this shameful group of motherfuckers who did more to destroy this nation than anyone in Al Qaeda could ever dream of doing.

It would be great if Bugliosi started actions again.

[skepticscott]

7. I agree with Feingold about most things

but what justifies the label "corrupt" being attached to this decision? Can he prove that the justices in the minority took money or something else of value to render a decision that they would not have otherwise? Not likely. If he's saying that it was an ideologically based decision, that's not at all the same thing, and by no means impeachable. If he's saying that the decision may have undesirable political and social consequences, so what? Nothing says that a constitutionally correct decision can't. And certainly impeachment can't be justified because a certain segment of the political spectrum didn't like the decision or thought it was bad constitutional law. If it could, then the justices in the majority on Roe v. Wade would have been subject to impeachment. Does Feingold think they should have been? Again, not likely.

Bottom line is that, regardless of past precedent, this decision was entirely in line with the free speech clause of the First Amendment (which makes no distinction based on who is doing the speaking). Trying to impeach justices for that would open a very unpleasant can of worms, and risk politicizing the Supreme Court even more than it already is.

[Time for change]

12. The term Feingold used was "lawless"

There is no need to prove that money exchanged hands before coming to an assessment like that. Feingold's assessment that the decision was lawless was based on his understanding of the Constitution, as well as the rationale for the decision put forth by the Court.

The statement “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” put forth by the majority to justify their decision was supported by no evidence, and it flies in the face of common sense.

As for the free speech clause of the First Amendment (though this is off the subject of whether or not the decision was corrupt), that amendment does not say that corporations are persons, nor does it say that money is speech.

[skepticscott]

16. I seem to remember reading this in your OP

"Such was the case when Senator Russ Feingold recently suggested that corrupt U.S. Supreme Court justices be impeached for, among other things, their transparently corrupt decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"

Are you saying that Feingold didn't really use the word "corrupt", and that you falsely attributed it to him (twice)? If so, then perhaps YOU can explain why the word corrupt should be applied to this decision. Whether politicians have been corrupted in doing THEIR jobs by corporate money is another issue entirely.

Further, you falsely inserted the phrase in parentheses in “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech (including bribery of public officials) of corporations”. The SC decision did not contain the phrase "including bribery of public officials", despite your claim. A little more intellectual honesty would be appropriate.

And no, as I said, the free speech clause does not only ban restrictions on speech by "persons", it bans restrictions on speech, period (political speech in particular). Nowhere in the First Amendment (unless it's in your version and not mine) does it say that speech has to come from a "person" in order to be protected.

And if the right to raise and spend money is not inextricably linked with the right to disseminate political messages, why is everyone so worried about the effect of corporate money on the political climate in this country? Sorry but you can't have it both ways. If restricting the raising and expending of money does not amount to a de facto restriction on political speech, then lifting those restrictions can't do any harm, now can it?

[Time for change]

24. My first sentence in the OP says

"U.S. Politicians must often result to indirect means for expressing their ideas..." In the second paragraph I quote Feingold as characterizing the decision as "one of the most lawless in the history of the Supreme Court”. In the third paragraph I note that Feingold did not specifically use the word impeach, but then I go on to explain why I believe that impeachment should be inferred by his statement. I also quote Feingold as saying "The best thing to do is to get new justices, different justices, who will do the right thing". The step from "lawless" to "corrupt" is not a big one. If justices make lawless decisions (i.e. based not on any reasonable interpretation of the law) it is reasonable to consider corruption as the underlying cause, rather than that the lawless decision is the result of ignorance or stupidity. In any event, the making of lawless decisions is quite enough to warrant impeachment, without the need to also prove specifically that they are corrupt.

[skepticscott]

34. Your response doesn't address

even half of the points I raised, but as for what you did respond to, why did you feel the need to put words in Feingold's mouth and attribute things to him that he may or may not have meant, just to make the point YOU wanted to? Either go by the words he actually used, without presumption, or use your own words and justify them, and leave Feingold out of it.

And please, please tell me how ruling that free speech cannot be restricted by Congress is "lawless".

[Time for change]

38. See section in OP, "On the corrupt nature of the decision"

I did not put words in Feingold's mouth. I explained my interpretation of what he said.

[skepticscott]

56. It's hard to take that justification seriously

when in the same OP, you're also clearly guilty of putting words into Anthony Kennedy's mouth to try to sell your point.

[Time for change]

62. What words do you think I put into his mouth?

[skepticscott]

159. Here is what you put in your OP

“No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech (including bribery of public officials) of corporations”

The phrase in parentheses was NOT in Kennedy's original decision, but by deliberately including it in quotes, you falsely implied that he had written it. In fact, you stuck it in there yourself, didn't you?

[Time for change]

174. Yes, I did. I thought that was obvious.

You can't use square brackets on DU because the format won't accept them, so I use parentheses instead.

[skepticscott]

177. So it never occurred to you

to put your personal commentary outside the quotes? Right. You knew perfectly well what that implied, but you did it anyway.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. The word 'corrupt' does not mean 'bribed' or 'bought'

it can, but the meaning of corruption is wider than that small monetary portion. It merely means dishonest, immoral, or even error laden. Corruption can mean many types of rot, and to say an official is corrupt is not the same as saying they are taking money in return for action.

[skepticscott]

173. And which of your numerous definitions of "corrupt"

(It does NOT mean "bribed" or "bought"....uh, well, except when it does) applies unquestionably to this decision?

[totodeinhere]

92. It may be "lawless" in the eyes of Feingold, but unfortunately Feingold is not on the court and...

his decision doesn't count. The law is whatever a majority of justices on the Supreme Court says it is. And they have the last word until and unless a future court reverses them.

[Time for change]

118. They don't necessarily have the last word.

If Congress believes that they have not acted in good faith in carrying out their responsibilities, Congress can impeach (House) and convict and remove them from office (Senate).

[totodeinhere]

145. Do you realistically believe that any of the five will ever be impeached and removed from office?

Get a grip my friend. The Republicans in the Senate have the votes to block that even if it ever got that far, which it won't. We would be better off to concentrate on the possible, such as a legislative remedy to the campaign finance decision, rather than engaging in fantasies about impeachment. Congress wouldn't even impeach war criminals Bush and Cheney, but now you think they will impeach the gang of five? Dream on my friend.

[Time for change]

175. No, I don't.

Is that a good reason for not expressing my opinion?

[BeFree]

14. Yeah

The recent free speech issue is questionable.

So what about Gore vs Bush? That was unconstitutional.

What the people need to do is protest in front of the SCOTUS day by day.
Send them letters. Lobby the snakes til they quit or the senate finds some balls and evicts the bums.

[skepticscott]

17. Well, I don't disagree with you about Bush v. Gore

being entirely in conflict with the law, but that's not what Feingold was addressing here.

[cali]

21. he did not call for the impeachment of anyone.

[skepticscott]

22. Feingold did not use the word "impeachment"

but the OP seems to think that was the clear implication of his statement. Not saying I agree with that, and I certainly don't agree that this decision warrants it in any event.

[midnight]

30. "Impeachment is for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

"Treason? Check. These five jusices have, according to Obama, just given foreign, not to mention international, corporations the power to greatly influence the outcomes of U.S. elections.

Bribery? Check. This decision facilitates, not to say legalizes, massive bribery the likes of which the world has never known.

Other high crimes and misdemeanors? Check. These five justices ruled on an issue not requested of them and not relevant to the case they heard, and did so in a manner destructive of long-standing precedent. That's a serious abuse of power.

So, take your pick: treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors: we've got 'em all here, and we've got the president of the United States pointing this out to us and Congress.

Let's hurry up and demand impeachment proceedings before President Obama declares concern over this decision to constitute looking backwards."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7556948

[skepticscott]

31. Nice try, but epic fail

Treason must involve levying war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to her enemies. If foreign corporations qualify as "enemies" under this definition, then everyone in this country would be guilty of treason, since we have all aided foreign corporations in one way or another.

Bribery? To qualify, the impeached justices would have had to take a bribe themselves. Didn't happen.

Other high crimes and misdemeanors? Even if what you cite qualifies (highly doubtful), do you have any idea how long the list of SC decisions which did the things you mention would be? Not to mention the list of impeached justices.

Try again.

[Lord Magus]

49. High crimes and misdemeanors are whatever Congress says they are.

The first person ever to be successfully impeached and convicted in US history after all was charged with...chronic drunkenness.

[kenfrequed]

87. Indeed

Nixon didn't commit treason and an impeachment trial was brought against him.


Of course this concern troll fear of impeachment is not new. I seem to recall it during the Bush administration too. There was a continual fear of bringing charges against them for some absurd political rationalization. Predictably some promised that action could be taken when they were out of office. Serious charges have, of course, not materialized.

Impeachment has always been political and giving it the unswerving gravitas as an action of absolute jurisprudence isn't supported historically. The Democrats are fools to make this mistake and it is emblematic of the way they refuse to enter into a fight and cede almost all of their positions in favor of pretending politics is a civil boarding school debate society meeting.

[midnight]

61. Feingold said, “one of the most lawless in the history of the Supreme Court”.

If this man says these folks are lawless, I'm going to have to assume he knows more than you.....

[fascisthunter]

166. we can bank money on that

[onenote]

39. weak

Read the constitution. What you claim is treason isn't.
Bribery? Where is the evidence that these justices accepted a bribe?
Other crimes and misdemenors? Not liking a court's decision isn't a crime.

Sorry. But Feingold didn't suggest impeachment. And no one with an ounce of sense is going to push for it.

[Myrina]

152. Indeed.

n/t

[StClone]

8. Current SCOTUS rulings are blatantly activist!

Americans need to hear of these repeatedly!


1) Bush v Gore.
2) Corporations are people! (only better and they make money and none of the Pooh!)
3) Free Speech but NO on net neutrality!

[skepticscott]

18. I suspect what you really mean is that

current SCOTUS decisions are blatantly activist and they go counter to liberal ideology. I suspect that if a liberal SC were handing down decisions that were equally "activist" from the conservative point of view, you (any many others on this site) would have no complaint at all. But no one should be happy about the degree to which the court has become politicized.

And when will people get over the notion that corporate personhood (as much as they may hate the concept) had any relevance to this decision?

[Time for change]

26. Writing for the majority, Kennedy said

"political speech of corporations or other associations” cannot “be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not ‘natural persons.’ ”

That sounds to me like he is going out of his way to differentiate "persons" from "natural persons", and therefore that he considers the assumption that corporations are persons to be a major part of the rationale for the decision.

[skepticscott]

35. What it sounds like to you

is really not relevant, is it? Especially since you seem prone to project your presumptions onto other people's statements. All he is saying is that the First Amendment clearly makes no distinctions between speech by corporations and speech by individuals (whether you call them "persons" or "natural persons").

[kenfrequed]

89. Feh

You seem to be bending a good deal to justify this decision.

A corporation is obviously not a person, and what is more it is not even a consensual association of persons. A corporation is a legal contract designed to limit liability and the idea that it should be granted full rights as a separate entity without the legal responsibilities of a person is absurd.

Impeachment is not a trial with the weight of burden of a standard criminal or even civil trial. It has historically always been tinged (if not overwhelmed entirely) with politics. In this case we would merely be recognizing the grossly absurd decision that they have made, a decision that even 90% of my conservative friends find totally baffling and contrary to the constitution.

[onenote]

96. under your view of the constitution

if Congress passed a law requiring all corporations to fly the American flag, you would not find that it offends the Constitution.
Correct?

[kenfrequed]

107. Sorry that doesn't work,

It is not analagous.

Yes, Congress could pass such a law but that would be enforcing a particular political or civil expression. The matter is not about enforcing a particular position, which would be questionable, but whether or not a legal construct that exists to limit liability has discernable and independent human rights.

That question must be answered before one can actually speak about whether one case or another serves to violate its supposed rights.

Basically your question is an aesthetic attempt to appeal at a resistance to enforced patriotism and it seems almost designed to offend or challenge basic liberal sensibilities.

It simply won't do.

[onenote]

112. if the issue is whether corporations have rights under the first amendment

or whether those rights only apply to 'natural persons', how does my question not work.

What part of the Constitution makes it "questionable" for the government to enforce politcal political or civil expression? The FIrst Amendment. So you must be conceding that the First Amendment applies to corporations.

But don't worry, you're not joining the RW when you make that concession. After all Justice Stevens acknowledged in his CU dissent that the application of the First Amendment to corporations isn't subject to serious question.

And Justice Marshall agreed that it was a violation of the First AMendment for the government to burden the speech of Pacific Gas and Electric by requiring PG&E to include in its bills statements provided by third parties. As Marshall's concurrence makes clear, you don't have to find that the first amendment rights of corporations are coextensive with those of individuals to find that corporations have first amendment rights.

CU was wrongly decided, imo, not because it recognized that corporations have free speech rights, but rather because it failed to perform the sort of analysis that the court has employed in the past to determine when restrictions on speech (whether by individuals or corporoations) are permissible.

[kenfrequed]

133. I made no concession

You are implying it based on my argumentation against perfunctory nationalism. The reluctance to force such expression is markedly different from a positive right to free speech. I am sorry if I did not leap to consume your bait on this but it is interesting that you decided to try springing your little trap anyhow.

Again though, as I have pointed it, as can 'limited liability persons' with all the rights of citizens exist properly and be consistant with a good society. Only a complete misreading of the 14th Amendment allowed this nightmarish idiocy to have been accepted in the first place and only because one of the law clerks that snuck it in was formerly a bigwig in the railroad industry.

[onenote]

135. sorry, but I'm still trying to figure out where in the constitution you find

a prohbition against forcing expression apart from the first amendment, which apparently you don't believe has any application to a corporate entity.

As the SCOTUS has made clear, the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment protects both the freedom to speak and the freedom not to be compelled to speak.

If corporations are not protected under the First Amendment, then they have no protection against state action, by either the federal government or from state governments. (Your reference to the 14th Amendment is perplexing in relation to our discussion,w which has been about the application of the First Amendment to actions by the Federal government, not to the First Amendments applicaton to the states through the fourteenth amendment).

Again, I'm at a loss under your theory that the First Amendment only applies to "natural persons" what would stand in the way of the government enacting legislation that required corporations to fly the American flag, or to give nnother example involving a prohibition on speech rather than compelled speech, barred a corporation from using the phrase "Seasons Greetings" in its communications with members of the public.

[kenfrequed]

141. The history is neither arcane nore cryptic.

A misreading of the 14th amendment is where the existence of a corporate person came about, without it the structure of a corporation never had independent rights as entities.

The bill of rights define the limitations of government with regards to the states and the citizens of the the US, to include the first amendment. Congress is fully authorized to legislate corporate behavoir under the commerse clause.

The first Amendment only applies to people. Corporations are not people, nor are they groups of people (as has been stupidly argued), they are legal contracts. Are you going to argue to me that a legal contract has a seperate status or seperate existance as a person in addition to the language of that contract?

No, that would be absurd.

You can throw out all the national-phobic or manger scene massacre cases to try to scare liberals into accepting corporate rights to free speech you like but you still have to come back to identify whether they are, in fact, persons or not.

[onenote]

146. according to Justice Stevens they are protected by the first amendment

and if your assertion is that only persons are protected by the first amendment (and where, by the way, does the first amendment say that), then I guess the answer is yes, they are persons for the purpose of the first amendment.

As Justice Stevens points out in his dissent in CU:
"We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment" and "...speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation.... Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary."

I guess its a good thing Stevens is retiring before some here start calling for his impeachment.

Finally, lets' get something straight:
The Bill of Rights on its face applies to action by the Federal Government. The First Amendment doesn't say squat about persons. It says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." For a number of years the courts read the First Amendment narrowly as restricting only action by the Federal government ("Congress") not action by the state government. The case to which you refer was an incorporation doctrine case that found that the first amendment applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment. Now, because the fourteenth amendment refers to persons, that incorporation would only work to protect the first amendment rights of a corporation if they were found to be persons. Now, its conceivable that the court could have found that the first amendment applies to state action but only with respect to natural persons because of the reference to "persons" in the fourteenth amendment, but that wouldn't have changed anything with respect to the broad wording of the First Amendment.

Its a good thing that corporate entities are protected by the first amendment and while you might think the examples I've given are "scare" tactics, the fact is that you haven't explained what if anything restrains the government from imposing on corporations the kinds of loyalty pledges or restraints on free expression that apply to individuals. What is bad about CU is that it finds, incorrectly in light of past precedent, that corporations necessarily have first amendment rights that are coextensive with those of natural persons. That's as wrong as saying that all individuals have the exact same first amendment rights when, in fact, the courts have long imposed distinctions between and among speakers with regard to the scope of their first amendment rights.

[kenfrequed]

172. hmm

You are not addressing my point and just referring back to an implied freedom granted to persons. Certainly some level of stare decis supports a part of your argument, but the underlying (and more important argument) you have ignored save to toss out ridiculous canards regarding some imaginary suggestion that somehow the constitution had to define a person as being human.

The fourteenth was misapplied by a clerk working for the supremes that misconstrued a ruling to support his own selfish ends.

The underlying issue is personhood, not any kind of absurd statements about loyalty oaths or any other nonsense.

A toaster is not a citizen, your dog is not a citizen, a legal contract is not a citizen and our constitution actually makes allowances for congress to legislate that a flag has to be embossed on the bottom of every peice of equipment that a company sells by virtue of the commerse clause.

Apart from yoru fear tactics you don't seem to have any arguments but to spam Stevens post about corporate freedom of speech without addressing the underlying issue.

I don't see this exchange as constructive.

[StClone]

36. No not what I'm saying

These rulings are bad period not just un-Liberal. If operating as "We The People" and "general welfare" JHC it is not Conservative or wantingly Liberal bias, it's Unconstitutional. To see that a contrived entity that does not eat, sleep or die as having all the Rights of a person with none of the liabilities as far as unlimited personage goes against what is known of the intent and ideals of all that came together in 1787.

Same as Bush v Gore -- God damned if that were a contrived POS decision based on fabricated "for this case only...irreparable harm to Bush" is so out of line and I think many a Con will admit it (while openly saying so what?).


To couch the rulings "if it were a Liberal SCOTUS" in this light is ignoring much. Conservatives were outraged too by the "Corps is People too" ruling.

[skepticscott]

57. You don't get it either, do you?

This was NOT a "Corps is People too" ruling. It was a ruling based on the First Amendment, in which the right of free speech does not require "personhood" in order to be protected. Why is this such a hard concept for so many people here?

[Time for change]

64. Why is it a hard concept that the right of free speech applies only to persons?

I doubt that it was meant to apply to animals. Our Founding Fathers, who wrote the First Amendment, warned us about the dangers of excess corporate power. It's very hard to imagine that they meant the first amendment to apply to corporations -- or any non-persons. They probably didn't think it necessary to specify "persons", as they probably never imagined that it could be applied to anything else.

[onenote]

78. do you disagree with decisions that accorded the NY Times Inc constitutional protection

in the Pentagon Papers case?

Even Justice Stevens, in his CU dissent, acknowledged that the application of the first amendment to corporate entities is not subject to serious dispute. The issue is the extent to which such speech can be regulated (just as that is the question with respect to speech by natural persons).

[kenfrequed]

109. Uhm

The right to advertise is also mediated but has always been subject to regulation and is rarely considered a purely 'free speech' issue for similar reasons. The activities of corporate entites are subject to local laws as well as direct congressional control via the commerce clause which appears before the bill of rights.

For the bill of rights to directly apply, again, the corporate entity must be ruled to be a person. Becuase it is allowed to communicate and advertise does not imply the positive rights of human beings, merely that it is allowed communicate save where it collides with existing law.

[Time for change]

119. I think you just made my case

No, I don't disagree with that decision.

The First Amendment, after noting that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, then adds "or of the press". If they believed that freedom of speech applied to corporate entities there would have been no need to add "or of the press".

[onenote]

137. define press

THe NY Times is easy.
Are bookstores that are coprorations the "press"?
Is a corporation that operates a movie theatre the press?
Is the producer of a movie, including porn, the press?
Is an art gallery the press?

Should bookstores be protected by the first amendment?
Should movie theaters be protected by the first amendment?
Should movie producers be protected by the first amendment?
Should museums and art galleries be protected by the first amendment?

[Gaedel]

80. For the most part

Corporations were rather insignificant in the general scheme of things to the Founding Fathers. Corporations (and corporate law) evolved rapidly with the construction of trunk line railroads. Most corporate law precedents were originally decided in the 19th century railroad era.

[skepticscott]

163. Then why did they think it necessary to specify "the people"

in the assembly clause? They certainly couldn't have imagined that right applying to anything else, now could they? And yet they specify persons in one clause, but not the other. How strange. Maybe they really meant it to apply in one clause and not the other.

[shraby]

116. If corporations are to be considered as persons, then it stands

to reason that corporation CEOs should be held criminally responsible when events like the latest mining disaster happens because the corporation decided it was cheaper to challenge regulations that are in place than to obey them and make their place of work safer for real people.

[onenote]

140. and corporate ceos can be held criminally liable for actions taken under their watch

Here's language from the Pennsylvania Code:

A person is legally accountable for any conduct he performs or causes to be performed in the name of a corporation or an unincorporated association or in its behalf to the same extent as if it were performed in his own name or behalf.
Whenever a duty to act is imposed by law upon a corporation or an unincorporated association, any agent of the corporation or association having primary responsibility for the discharge of the duty is legally accountable for a reckless omission to perform the required act to the same extent as if the duty were imposed by law directly upon himself.
When a person is convicted of an offense by reason of his legal accountability for the conduct of a corporation or an unincorporated association, he is subject to the sentence authorized by law when a natural person is convicted of an offense of the grade and the degree involved.

[sabrina 1]

10. Excellent OP. Thank you.

Once Democrats accepted the theft of an election, rather than continue to fight it, we were really lost as a nation. It is sad that Bugliosi did not have the backing of the injured Political Party in his excellent reasoning on why this was such a dangerous crime. We were told to 'move on' airc.

And now we see the result of ignoring crimes of such major proportions. The effort to shut down discussion of that stolen election, especially on democratic boards was incomprehensible.

The crime was so blatant that the felonious five even went so far as to declare that their decision 'would not set any precedent' but would be confined to only this one case. Who ever heard of such a thing before? As Bugliosi said:

This point… all alone and by itself, clearly and unequivocally shows that the Court knew its decision was not based on the merits or the law, and was solely a decision to appoint George Bush President.

Shame on everyone in a position to have done something, for remaining silent at that time.

[Supersedeas]

143. Second that.

[martymar64]

170. And so many around here tried to pin it all on Nader

They ignored everything else. Nader was the architect, in their eyes.

[LongTomH]

11. Well Said, Sir!

Brilliantly stated and argued, as always!

[skepticscott]

13. I'd also like to know why Donna Edwards thinks that

"The sovereign right of the people to govern" has been overturned by the Citizens United decision. Can she name a single person whose right to vote for any candidate of their choice is any election in which they are running has been taken away by this decision?

[Bluenorthwest]

81. You do not even understand the definition of the word 'corrupt'

and the rest of your 'logic' is based on similar misunderstandings and improvised meanings of words and of law. Your posts are very verbose, but verbally weak. Forget about points made, you are not even using the component words correctly.
Amusing in a rather pitiful and clutching way.

[skepticscott]

164. Since I didn't even use the word "corrupt" in my post

I can't put your response down as anything but a deflection, full of declarations, but no evidence for any of it. Answer the question I posed, and I might be able to take you seriously.

[Time for change]

121. Everyone knows that money has vast influence on the results of elections

That's primarily because it allows the speech of the wealthy to drown out the speech of everyone else. The fact that that doesn't take away our right to vote is irrelevant to that argument.

[skepticscott]

169. Hardly irrelevant

Unless you think that most of the population is too stupid to see through corporate propaganda the way you can. Or are you simply worried that more money being poured into elections will have people voting in a way different than YOU think they should?

[Demeter]

15. Whatever It Takes

This decision needs to be punished and reversed with prejudice so it never arises again. The cost may be high, but it will be worth it. Otherwise, the US of A is over, just like the Roman Republic.

[Hawkeye-X]

19. Since 2000, I've been calling for impeachment of

Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O'Connor and Rhenquist.

Now the latter two have died/retired, I'm still calling for impeachment of the new justices that were installed by an unelected Resident, they do not belong in the Supreme Court much less a traffic court.

Removing the Felonious Five the Next Generation would be a start, and replaced with like-minded justices that will apply the law fairly and not a tool for the corporations.

Hawkeye-X

[onenote]

60. and yet no one has heeded your call.

[Ozymanithrax]

20. The Congress can increase the number of justices in the Supreme Court...

This has been done 8 times.

Judiciary Act of 1801: Court size, 5
Repeal Act of 1802: Court size, 6
Judiciary Act of 1807: Court size, 7
Judiciary Act of 1837: Court size, 9
Judiciary Act of 1863: Court size, 10
Judiciary Act of 1866: Court size, 7
Judiciary Act of 1867: Court size, 8
Judiciary Act of 1869: Court size, 9

FDR tried to do it in 1937 and failed.

This would be an inherently partisan act designed to pack the court in favor of the left. It would most defiantly be filibustered and might even be opposed by the more Conservative members of the Democratic Caucus. In the current partisan climete it would be doomed to failure.

[Time for change]

25. True -- but I doubt very much that Feingold meant to recommend packing the court

given how that turned out for FDR and the fact that it's never been tried since.

[Ozymanithrax]

28. Since he did not use the word "Impeach" I find it hard to accept that he is accepting impeachment.

It requires a 2/3rd majority to confirm an impeachment. Fiengold is smart enough to know that there is no way 66 Senators will vote to remove a Supreme Court Justice, unless that Justices sacrificed a baby live on national TV at halftime during the Super bowl.

It will also be practically impossible to get a constitutional amendment. The bill must pass both housed by a 2/3rd majority and then be ratified by the states. This is slightly more feasible than impeaching five justices because we don't like a decision. But with the current make up of the House and the Senate, it will never happen.

Next comes a constitutional convention proposed by 2/3rds of the states. Never happen. well unless you get enough states to want to dissolve the country, then it won't matter.

Personally, I think this decision will go down in history along side the Dred Scott Decision as one of the worst in history. But it can not be considered a high crime or misdemeanor, because interpreting the Constitution is what the Supreme Court has the power to do.

I think Feingold just meant that we have to wait until the court changes directions, then run a case through to overthrow this monstrous decision.

[Time for change]

32. Yes, the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution

But that doesn't mean that they have the right to make up interpretations out of whole cloth. They are obligated to act in good faith, and failure to do that can be considered grounds for impeachment and conviction.

Granted, it can be very difficult to ascertain when a bad decision means that they've not acted in good faith. But it is Congress's job to do that.

[onenote]

41. grounds for impeachment?

Wearing brown socks and black shoes can be grounds for impeachment.

But no one with an ounce of sense is going to go down the path of suggesting that whenever the court reaches a controversial decision the justices in the majority should be impeached, any more than they'd make the argument that dissenting justices should be impeached everytime they come out on the short side of a decision.

And suggesting that Congress investigate whether justices acted in 'good faith" -- both when in they are in the majority or when they dissent -- that's also ridiculous.

[Ozymanithrax]

42. Actually, they are not obligated to anything except what the constituting,

Marbury Vs. Madison, and the Congress allows. I know of no legislation that requires them to limit their interpretations.

I don't agree with the decision. But impeachment is an inherently political act, as the impeachment of Bill Clinton taught all of us. Without some very obvious violation of law there is not going to be an impeachment. And it would have to be blatantly obvious to get any Republicans to agree. Without 66 votes in the Senate, it won't happen. But without an obvious violation of law, the Congress will not investigate or impeach.

I understand you are angry, and this decision is very bad, but it in no way violates any law that I know of. Extending High Crimes and misdemeanors to include a despicable but a legal and constitutional act won't happen. We will have to wait until time brings us a court more favorable to freedom of individuals.

[Time for change]

65. If they didn't act in good faith, it was a violation of their oath of office

and is therefore subject to interpretation. Congress has the right to determine whether or not they acted in good faith.

[onenote]

75. having Congress investigate whether justices acted in "good faith" every time Congress

disagrees with a decision would destroy the concept of an independent judiciary.
Indeed, by the logic of this proposal, every time there is majority decision with which Congress agrees, Congress should "investigate" the dissenters to see if they acted in "good faith".

Dumb.

[Gaedel]

95. Bit of a precedent

When Thomas Jefferson succeeded John Adams in the presidency, the US had its first regime change.

One of the first ideas in the new Congress was to impeach and remove all of the federal judges at every level from the Supreme Court on down to the district courts so that jefferson could nominate allof the replacements.

Fortunately for the emerging democracy, cooler head prevailed and the concept of an independent judiciary that didn't turnover with every shift of the political wind was established as a tradition.

The House could impeach Scalia on the basis that they don't like his looks and the Senate could convict. The only standards for impeachment are what a majority of the House thinks and the only standards for removal are what two-thirds of the Senate think.

I am not sure we want to go down that road.


Cong

[Time for change]

123. Dumb?

I did not say that Congress should investigate whether justices acted in good faith every time Congress disagrees with them. But they certainly are entitled to do so whenever they see a decision that is so absurd that it suggests that they acted in bad faith.

[onenote]

136. the standard you just articulated would allow congress to start an investigation

of either the majority or minority after every case.

So, I'll stick with my assessment: dumb idea.

[Time for change]

176. Congress is already allowed to do that. They don't need me to give them that right

[Ozymanithrax]

85. good faith is a judgment call. Most of the right thinks their judgement was in good faith.

I dont' agree with that, but you will face that in the initial inquiry for a impeachment. For that reason, they will never be impeached.

As dificult and painful as it might be, we have to wait for the court to shift.

[Time for change]

124. So it's a judgment call. Congress has the right and responsibility to make judgments.

[G_j]

27. don't think for a moment, the Republicans wouldn't try it

if it suited their means.

[humbled_opinion]

29. Interesting that you say that..

Since They fully intend to pressure their Conservative friends on the SCOTUS to overturn the Healthcare reform just passed by Congress. If portions of the law are found unconstitutional by the gang of 5 then the Republicans may demand that the entire bill come back to the Senate for a rewrite and a revote and then reform would never pass.

[Odin2005]

33. The Fascist 5 need to be treated as the treasonous bastards they are.

[BlueIris]

51. I love you, Odin. nt

[Odin2005]

71. Thanks!

:hug: :hi:

[cowman]

154. On what grounds

did they commit treason? Get a grip.

[Lord Magus]

168. I think the deliberate destruction of democracy counts as treason.

Or at least it should.

[amborin]

37. K&R

[Whisp]

40. Next Step: A Corporation can run for Presidency. n't

[Dr Morbius]

43. I believe...

1. That the Supreme Court does not have to answer to the American people. No accountability. Ever. And I don't care for this, not even a little. So to begin with, I'd like to see the Constitution amended to ensure actual terms for the members of SCOTUS: 12 years, and then the sitting President can renew a justice with the approval of the Senate. This doesn't actually make SCOTUS accountable to the people but it does limit their power, which currently is nearly absolute.

2. That the Congress has no Constitutional authority to recognize non-human legal entities (like corporations). Change the Constitution to grant Congress this authority, for then Congress will be able to define and limit the legal powers and authority of these legal entities.

3. That the current SCOTUS, for all I disagree with their rulings, has done anything to merit impeachment. It may appear obvious that they're serving the interests of the superwealthy and corporations, but appearances (thank heaven) aren't sufficient legal basis for impeachment. I see no evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, just a few tired old men and women who are far removed from the actual people of the United States.

4. That the amendment process to the Constitution would work better for the people if 2/3 of the states were required, as opposed to 3/4. The difference is four states: right now, to amend the Constitution you need 38 states to approve, and if it was 2/3 you'd need 34. Looking at this from the other angle, those who wish to prevent amendments to the Constitution currently need to defeat them in 13 states. I'd like that to be 17 states. Let's make it a little bit - not much, just a little bit - easier to modify the Constitution so the document is more useful to us.

5. As long as we're discussing amending the Constitution, I'd like to see some real limits concerning Congressional districting, which has for many decades been done to ensure most members of the House are in "safe" seats, engineered so one party naturally has an advantage. So members of the lower house can pretty much vote the way their party tells them to without worrying about losing their jobs. A very simple rule makes it much more difficult for parties to draw districts in this way: just state that no Congressional district may be drawn (within a state) such that it is possible to draw a straight line between any two points inside that district and the line leaves the district. In other words, no more funny shaped districts, and much greater accountability to the people.

[mmonk]

44. I agree 100%.

[bertman]

45. Rec. Will read this through in detail tomorrow.

[Greyhound]

46. Auto K&R.

It's been awhile, don't know if you've been busy or I have, but it's good to see this quality again.
:yourock:

[Time for change]

125. Thank you Greyhound

I've been very busy lately. :hi:

[kenny blankenship]

48. Impeach

With the exception of the Civil War, no greater acts of treason than Bush v. Gore and Citizens United have ever been committed in this nation's history.

[onenote]

76. since you are a constitutional scholar, I'm sure you know that what you are characterizing

as treason isn't treason according to the constitution.

[newtothegame]

50. If you're going to put the Supreme Court decision in quotes...

“No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech (including bribery of public officials) of corporations”

...you probably shouldn't add your own thoughts into it in parentheses. You're not quoting anything then. Just a thought for future posts.

[Time for change]

66. The stuff in parenthesis was not meant to be part of the quote. The rest of it is a quote.

[onenote]

79. usually "stuff" inside quotes is considered part of a quote.

[eppur_se_muova]

91. That's what editorial brackets are for. Fairly standard convention.

On DU, we are forced to use braces, or click on "Check here if you want to format your message in plain text. Use for posting code snippets."

“No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech {including bribery of public officials} of corporations”

Maybe that seems a little anal retentive, but it is a little bit less ambiguous than parentheses, which might have been used by the quotee, if in print.

[Time for change]

127. Maybe I'll do that next time

Do you think it would be clearer to most readers?

[eppur_se_muova]

139. If they're editors, sure. :^D Heavy readers, probably.

I've used it with no complaints, which, of course, proves nothing. But if it doesn't work I'm out of suggestions. :(

[skepticscott]

171. When you put something inside quotes

that clearly means, the person I'm quoting used exactly these words. You know that perfectly well, so please don't be so disingenuous. You dishonestly tried to make people reading your post think that Kennedy expressed thoughts that were actually yours.

[anigbrowl]

180. Not exactly

Usually brackets (or braces here on DU) are used editorially to abridge a quotation without altering it substantively. In your OP the bits about bribery were editorial comment, about what you felt the likely implications were, which you added to the bit of the decision you quoted. It would have been better to just present the quote as written and then make your editorial comment about what might result in a separate sentence.

I don't think you were out to mislead but by confusing people over what was actually written you undermined your own argument.

[shraby]

53. Kicking so I can find it tomorrow. Want to read this.

[Orsino]

54. ...by corrupt Senate. n/t

[cali]

55. The OP simply wishful thinking.

Feingold did not say word one about impeachment- and he would have if that's what he was backing. And no one in Congress including Feingold will move to impeach. Not that Feingold could- he's in the Senate.

This is truly pointless shit.

[Vattel]

67. Come on now.

Your argument is unconvincing. You say:

"He didn’t specifically use the word “impeach” – But what else could he have meant when he said that “the best thing to do is get new justices”? One possibility is that he meant that we should wait for the current justices to retire or die of natural causes and then “get new justices”. As John Bonifaz said in criticizing Feingold’s statement, “Based on the age of some of the justices in the majority, that’s suggesting that we wait a very long time”. A very long time, indeed! I’ll be long dead by that time, and so will many tens of millions of other Americans, as well as what’s left of our democracy. That would be a very passive way to address “one of the most lawless (decisions) in the history of the Supreme Court”, as Feingold described it. Feingold could not have meant that."

The flaw in your reasoning is this: Since the decision was 5-4, in theory only one of those five would need to retire to change the opinion of the Court on corporate speech. Thus, Feingold could have meant that we wait for at least one of the current justices to retire or die. You have no basis for saying that he was recommending impeachment.

[Time for change]

128. It's more complicated than that

Only two of the 5 are older than 62 years old, and even they may be around for another 20 years. And when they retire or die they are likely to be replaced by someone very much like them -- especially if this decision is allowed to stand.

[Enthusiast]

68. How could anyone believe

the Citizens United V. Federal Elections Commission decision was correct? The arguments for the decision make no sense. This decision is the very picture of judicial activism. It underscores the hypocrisy of the right in this country.

I wonder, what kind of a country do these people want to live in?

[Doctor_J]

72. Bush v. Gore was the key

As the author states. A presidential election - the most important event in our national democracy - was stolen, and not one drop of the tyrants' blood was spilled. It was at that moment that the fascists knew that we would never fight back, no matter how egregious was their treason.

[Enrique]

74. i'm sure the RW wants to impeach over decisions they don't like

and they have all kinds of reasoning, and the fake endorsements of the idea from respected figures like Feingold.

[Greyhound]

131. Malfeasance does not equal "decisions they don't like".

:kick:

[amb123]

82. Don't suggest the Impeachment of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia & Kennedy

DEMAND IT!

:nuke:

[cowman]

157. On what fucking grounds?

Just because you don't like the rulings is not a reason to impeach. You would need 67 votes in the Senate to convict, where are those votes going to come from

[Overseas]

84. K&R . //nt

[Javaman]

86. Easily (sort of) solved. Obama could appoint, instead of one new judge..

3 new judges. There is no limit to the size of the supreme court, just as long as there is a deciding vote.

Wouldn't that be something? LOL

[Doctor_J]

90. This would require having a president with the FDR spirit

instead of Neville Chamberlain

[Javaman]

97. LOL well said! LOL

Look, look! I have a paper with a promise!!

[cali]

99. as you don't even seem to know- and it's pretty basic stuff dearie-

it's Congress who sets the number of SC Justices, not the President.

And the Neville Chamberlain comparison is just absurd, honey.

[Javaman]

102. Oh for the love of god...

can you be any more rude?

Chirst on a pogo stick, DEARIE, of course congress approves of them. Do you think I'm THAT stupid? You aren't talking to a tea bagger.

Good god.

you know what, I'm blocking you because you are just so incredibly rude.

[onenote]

105. sorry but you're mistaken if you're claiming the president can decide the size of the court

The size of the court is set by statute. To increase the size of the court it doesn't just take the president naming some additional justices and having the Senate confirm them. It takes an act of Congress to change the size of the court. The current size of the court was set over 100 years ago and the last time a President proposed changing it -- FDR -- he suffered a hugely embarassing defeat.

[Javaman]

108. No, duh.

Where did I say the president can do it by fiat?

[onenote]

115. your post upthread seemed to suggest it

by indicating that enlarging the court would be "easily (sort of)" accomplished by having Obama appoint three justices instead of one, so long as Congress cast the "deciding" vote.

That seemed to put the cart before the horse -- Obama appoint, and then Congress decides its okay. But if that's not what you meant, I'm happy that its been clarified.

[onenote]

106. it would require a president with no sense of history or politics

FDR's attempt to increase the size of the court was hardly his best moment. Despite having a huge Democratic majority in Congress, his proposal was crushed by Congress. And FDR was able, at least, to claim that he was motivated not by the makeup of the court, but by the fact that in his first term he didn't get to name any justices, something that Obama obviously can't use as an excuse.

[cali]

98. no he couldn't. It would take Congressional action for him to be able to do that.

[Javaman]

103. So you enjoy responding twice to the same issue? wow.

I have no problem with being corrected, but the rude manner in which you did it down thread now causes me to ignore you.

Perhaps next time, you will observe some manners.

We both are long time members here on DU and as such, I think a little polite-ness would be in order.

So the next time you throw around your "dearie" insult, others may do the same as I.

Just be a little bit more civil, okay?

Jesus.

[Time for change]

130. Not so easy

Even FDR couldn't get that done.

[TexasObserver]

88. recommended

[olegramps]

93. Gore was absolutely wrong in conceding the election to Bush.

He should have challenged it and demanded that the recount go forward. He did the country a disservice by providing Bush's selection by a crooked Supreme Court any degree of authenticity. The Supreme Court has become nothing more that than a political action committee dominated by Catholic right wing zealots. The worst decision that our forefathers made was when they made it a life time appointment. If ever there was a need for an amendment to the Constitution, it is to rescind the life time appointment to perhaps ten years and mandatory retirement at age 70.

[totodeinhere]

94. Your headline is misleading. Feingold only "suggested" impeachment in your mind...

not in fact. It would be just as reasonable if not more so to interpret his comments as merely suggesting that in the course of normal turnover on the court, such as is happening now with the retirement of Stevens, that the president nominate a prospective justice more along the lines of Stevens and not along the lines of Scalia and the other members of the gang of five.

It's quite a leap to suggest that he was calling for impeachment. And it might not take a long time to replace justices through normal turnover as you suggested. It is impossible to predict when and why any justice will retire. There have been several instances in history when they retired at a relatively young age. Plus both Scalia and Kennedy are already in their 70's.

Plus Feingold didn't use the word "corrupt." That is your characterization, not his.

[defendandprotect]

100. Good read -- thank you -- and we should remember that it isn't only the

corporate bribery and job-giving-favors which influences our elected officials --

and our court members --

but in the case of Congress it is also the power of this corporate money to sway

citizens against them during elections. Huge amounts of right wing money was spent,

for instance, in trying to find a way to entrap Clinton.

So not only money "for" a candidate, but money "against" a candidate.

This is a decision which should be overturned --

and impeachment is fine with me!



PS: And, just for the record, so should Bush vs Gore should be overturned --

to prevent anything like that in future. Democrats have been very reluctant, however,

to stand against that decision and all it means for "voting" in America.

[smoogatz]

101. I think you may be reading in to his original statement a bit.

I don't see any mention of impeachment there. Do you, really?

[Time for change]

132. Yes, I do

I absolutely believe that is what he meant. But he can't say it outright, especially with an election coming up, because he would be pilloried by the press.

The other ways of "getting new justices" are either way to slow or too violent to make any sense.

[smoogatz]

153. Too slow for you, you mean.

Not necessarily for Feingold, who measure time in 6-year increments. He's not a guy to mince words (I'm a WI resident and a big fan). If he thought we should impeach Supreme Court justices, he'd most likely say so. He had no problem bucking the herd when he voted against the Iraq war or when he was the only senator to oppose the Patriot Act, after all.

[cali]

155. nonsense. Russ Feingold knows that there is NO viability to impeaching

even one of the five. There is virtually no chance of that happening.

[Enrique]

104. sad to see Feingold's name being used like this

:-(

[Uzybone]

110. More empty, useless words from Feingold. He knows there will be no impeachment

in fact no one with a brain is thinking impeachment.

[onenote]

113. well, its hard to say that Feingold's words on impeachment were empty when he didn't say anything

about impeachment.

[Uzybone]

114. True. The writer who finagled impeachment out of Feingolds statement is the real dummy

I stand corrected. Feingold didn't have empty words this time around.

[midnight]

148. I hope you're joking. Because If your not, I would be interested in some facts....

[Martin Eden]

111. K&R - Excellent work! n/t

[proReality]

117. K&R n/t

[RedCloud]

120. Congress should just add two more justices to overturn those suckers!

There is no expressed limit. Raise it to 11 and then cap the funding!!!

[totodeinhere]

147. Yea right. It sure worked out well when FDR tried to pack the court.

Learn from history my friend.

[RedCloud]

122. Self deplete. dupe of the corporations. Internet crazy double play!

[Echo In Light]

126. k/r

[Whisp]

129. I really think this point should be Pushed: Can a Corporation run for Presidency?

Under what the Supremes have said, the answer is YES. This will wake up the rheumy eyes that just don't get how gawdawful this ruling was. Let them deal with this question.

make it fucking viral.

It would be unconstitutional to deny this 'person' to run if it was born in the U.S. and was at least 35 years old, and whatever other qualifications are required.

[onenote]

144. where did the Supremes say a corporation can run for president?

I'd love to see where that appears in the CU decision or elsewhere.

The First Amendment covers corporate entities. It has for a long time and even Justice Stevens made clear that he agrees stating in his dissent that: "We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment" and "...speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation.... Of course not, but no one suggests the contrary."

I guess its a good thing that Justice Stevens is retiring before some here claim he should be impeached because he recognized that corporations have first amendment rights.

The problem with CU -- and it was a terrible decision -- is not that it found that the first amendment applies to corporate speech. Its that it failed to employ the traditional analysis that the court has used in determining whether particular restrictions on speech -- whether they be limiting the voting rights of felons, or restricting the speech of minors, or any of a zillion other ways that the courts employ line drawing rather than an absolutist approach to the first amendment and thus treated the first amendment rights of corporations in the political context as coextensive with those of natural persons.

THe problem isn't finding that corporations have first amendment rights, its refusing to regulate the exercise of those rights consistent with precedent.

[Whisp]

150. if a corporation is a person why can't it? the only qualifications needed

would be like any real flesh one, otherwise it would be discrimination.

is the corporation of age?
was it 'born' in America?
etc etc.
the prerequisites aren't all that complicated iirc.

How would we like Halliburton as our president?

[onenote]

156. because its not a natural person

And because Justices like Stevens and Marshall and Ginsburg and others who have acknowledged that the first amendment on its face is not limited to persons (and who have gone along with the conclusion that for the purpose of applying the incorporation doctrine under the 14th Amendment to the bill of rights, corporations are "persons") aren't as simple minded as those who think that because a corporation is a "person" for certain purposes under the constitution it automatically means that they are persons for all other purposes. In other words, they are smart enough not to take some rigid absolutist view of the Constitution, an idea that one would think progressives would understand.

[Whisp]

158. thanks for calling me a simple minded non-progressive there buster.

I take it you agree with the decision about finances and elections and the freedom to speak with corporate dollars being as equal as human rights to speech. that all is really safe, and people shouldn't get all worried about what that door can open to next.

phffft.

[onenote]

160. if the shoe fits.

You've demonstrated your simplemindedness by suggesting that I agree with the CU decision when, in fact, I clearly stated that it was a terrible decision in an earlier post that you responded to, but apparently were incapable of comprehending.

Oh, that plus the part about your thinking that somehow the CU decision allows corporations to run for president.

[Whisp]

162. not at this time it doesn't, that was my whole point.

what will be next.

but you go on your high horse snobbish way. talk about shoes stuff one in your miserable yap.

[valerief]

138. Oh, Sen. Superfinegold, if it could only happen! Get those SCOTUS bastards

who gave the election to GWB, too!

[Forkboy]

149. A welcome can of worms.

:thumbsup:

[Uncle Joe]

161. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Time for change.:thumbsup:

[fascisthunter]

165. Kick

and no matter how hard some spin, corporations are not persons.

[deaniac21]

179. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.