Obama's Argument Leads to Impeachment of Supreme Court Justices

[davidswanson]

Here's the president:

"When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with Members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision. We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done."

Forget the "bipartisan" BS, the point is that this statement advocates a forceful response from Congress. What could such a thing be? Legislation could lessen the damage, but not reverse it, and could hardly be seen as forceful. A Constitutional Amendment gets closer and is ultimately what's needed, but it requires that the states take action, as well as, or instead of, Congress. The only forceful response Congress can offer, regardless of whether it's uni-partisan, bi-partisan, tri-partisan, or non-partisan, is impeachment.

Oh, but you can't impeach justices for rendering decisions you don't like. They have to have truly abused power in a serious way. They have to have done something that could fit this description from President Obama:

"We’ve been making steady progress. But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law – including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.

"This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.

"I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections."

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.

[truedelphi]

1. However judging from how the past efforts of our president to approach solutions

Using the important term, "Bipartisan" method, the translation from my "Past Experiences with Political Leader" dictionary shows that Obama intends for the staus quo to remain the same.

From his vantage point, what could be wrong with that status quo? The media now likes him (ever since he agreed to expanding the war in Afghanistan.) And the MIC likes him, and so does Wall Street and the Big Medical Interests.

He likes to make pretend that he cares about democracy and us little people.

He is much less fond of upsetting the big Corporate Applecart that puts so much money into his camapign funds. So I suspect little will come of this.

[yurbud]

4. a bipartisan solution would giving corporations a tax credit for buying elections.

[thunder rising]

22. hotdammit ... now I have to clean the monitor. (Just the right thing to say in the right spot)

[riverdale]

40. funniest comment ever

[pattmarty]

52. When this happens (probably within a month) we will all have you..............

...........to blame, yurbud for suggesting it. Seriously though, corporations already have too much power and at this stage it will take protests/uprisings that haven't been seen in this country since the 30's. I hope I am wrong but I believe the "masses" are too fat, lazy, and grossly uninformed for this to happen. By the way, what's on American Idol tonight?

[AlbertCat]

143. I believe the "masses" are too fat, lazy, and grossly uninformed for this to happen.

Beside, little baby Jesus will take care of it all.

[pattmarty]

163. Yep. Ya struggle all your life and deal with family deaths, sickness.......

...........fucked up finances, but I'll get my millions and my mansion on a hill when I meet Jesus at the pearly gates. Haven't I heard a very similar line somewhere else? Something about 70 virgins or something?

[DKRC]

164. My daughter agrees with you completely

which is sad to say since she's 16.

;(

[pattmarty]

168. I truly feel sorry for her and all the other 16, 18, 21 year olds...............

............My sons are 32, 36, 42, 37 and I know that they are going to have it a lot tougher than I did growing up in the 50's & 60's.

[Paper Roses]

173. My kids are about the same age as yours. I worry for them.

I grew up in extremely modest circumstances. Since I married, my husband and I worked our tails off to better our lives and that of our kids. He is gone now, my kids are struggling and I feel like I'm back in the velveeta cheese sandwich days of my early youth.

Sad to say, I think it is actually worse now. Who would have believed this just so few years ago?

[bjobotts]

177. Not even the dissenting judges denied corporate personhood or that money is speech

[bjobotts]

178. Glenn Greenwald at salon . com can be trusted on these matters.A must read on this issue.

[bjobotts]

179. ACLU is protected from FBI just ransacking their corporate offices right.

[bjobotts]

180. There are other ways to prevent corporate take over of elections says Barney Franks.

[bjobotts]

181. Forget constitutional amendment-too slow and could backfire.Get rid of filibuster

[bjobotts]

182. Ending filibuster will allow new legislation to emerge to stop corporate election take overs

[bjobotts]

183. Please read Greenwald's explanation to understand what this is really about

[tomp]

110. well, it is a business expense, isn't it? nt

[cascadiance]

114. And yet the citizen still won't be able to deduct contributions to political organizations...

Churches will still get to play politics and get their own tax deductions, and people can deduct their contributions to them too.

Oh what a lovely democracy we live in! :mad:

[Leopolds Ghost]

123. Hey, they're contributing to the US economy!

We could give extra credit to paper ads to help relieve the burden on newspaper advertising caused by the collapse of the real estate and movie theater industry.

[cascadiance]

124. Sounds like a good government incentive to reduce usage of paper and carbon emissions!

:sarcasm:

[shimmergal]

240. You know, this ruling

wouldn't have that much impact if it weren't for the near-universal devotion to TV.

Require that they put their "ads" into reasonably-well-written text, no visuals, and only the minority of voters would even pay attention.

What to do???

Norman Spinrad wrote of a democracy where the most cherished right was free TV access for every citizew. Not access to view it, but to appear and say-and-show whatever you wanted. He really nailed it (although today we'd need to offer help gratis to equal out production values for their appearances.)

[truedelphi]

155. Oh gawd - so funny and so true.

Let me know if you write a book about this - it will be insightful and hilarious.

Well worth making into a movie.

[yurbud]

204. I gave up on writing satire early in the Bush administration

reality quickly passed my past efforts, and anything more outrageous than reality would seem cartoonishly stupid--until it too happened in real life.

[Enthusiast]

223. Don't say that too loud. nt

[earth mom]

45. [phone]! nt

[olegramps]

58. Bin Laudan thinks its a swell deal.

[bjobotts]

184. Satire, but Bin Laden is dead...has been for years.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[timeforpeace]

3. We need to really push this impeachment of Supreme Court justices idea. Should resonate.

[onenote]

137. in your dreams

[cascadiance]

142. Many of us do "dream" of a return to democratic values on this board...

Anything wrong with that? Justices can be impeached according to our constitution. Is there a reason they shouldn't be? Please tell us! Other than "it won't work".

[onenote]

192. Justices should be impeached when they commit crimes, not when they issue decisions we don't like

If there was evidence that the judges were paid off to reach a particular result, sure. But should they be subject to second guessing by whatever party happens to have a majority in Congress every time they make a decision? No.

[rhett o rick]

5. Fat chance. We wont even hold the war criminals accountable. This is a fuckin class war

and our class is losing. Most of conress belongs to the other side.

[4dsc]

89. Right on brother..

The party is weak at best. We don't have the politicians that will stand up to the GOP.

[arthritisR_US]

207. given the state of your banana republic I don't expect anything to be done. n/t

[AlbertCat]

145. We wont even hold the war criminals accountable

Not to mention it's the same group (practically) that put Bush illegally into office.

How many are members of "The Family"?

[omega minimo]

6. Damn, UnRecced when trying to Rec. Thanks DS for your work and dedication.

:yourock:

[Cleita]

7. I feel that this rises to treason.

They have sold the American government to the highest bidder anywhere in the world. It was bad enough when our President was kissing Saudi princes and holding hands with them. I got the uneasy feeling back then that they were running things, not Washington. This will make foreign imperialist taking us over even more blatant.

[nimvg]

64. Funny...

...Jonathan Turley doesn't think so.

[Joe Chi Minh]

75. And a very warm and hearty welcome to you, nimvg! What is your response to the

next two posts?

[nimvg]

80. Which Ones?

[Joe Chi Minh]

104. The two immediately below yours, responding to the OP.

[diva77]

8. And isn't it a crime to lie under oath -- didn't Roberts & Alito lie about

atare decisis in their confirmation hearings? Does that crime rise to the level of having a justice removed? If so , how?

[davidswanson]

42. they could be prosecuted for that but hard to prove

or they could be impeached for obvious impeachable offenses

[notadmblnd]

9. I asked the impeachment question last night

here's what I got. Many people are for it, some don't think what has happened is reason enough? I tend to think it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7548338

[debunkthelies]

161. A Link to Petition for Impeachment

http://www.petitiononline.com/insure/petition.html

[rosesaylavee]

167. Wrong petition - but same justices.

That petition references their former criminal act in selecting W to the pResidency. I would sign an updated petition for their current treason if available.

[Atticus]

10. Ah, but that wouldn't be "playing nice" and Democrats, above all else, play nice, even

with those who are doing their best to gut them.

[Joe Chi Minh]

76. I've amended a Starbucks liberal saying seen on here from time to time:

"I may not agree with another person's opinion, but I'll fight to the death, no-holds barred, to kill it stone dead, and make good and sure it stays that way."

[elleng]

11. However emotionally satisfying such approach might feel,

I think its tenuous legally, and politically completely out of line, David. If we're lucky, Dems will come up with a bunch of approaches to the problem. Watch Barney Frank and Alan Grayson, for example.

[defendandprotect]

20. How long were conservatives trying to impeach Earl Warren . . . ???

[elleng]

28. And how successful were they?

[defendandprotect]

93. They, of course, were not successful ---

but it was a widespread campaign most everyone was familiar with --

and while I am not that familiar with it led onto the pathways of other

right wing efforts against the court's decisions -- Roe vs Wade -- and the

domestic terrorism of the "pro-life" religious violence which has by now very

successfully shut down general access to abortion for many women.

Unfortunately, I can't do a search right now due to a problem with my computer,

but it would be interesting to see the info on that period.

Did anyone describe the impeachment effort as "political"?

Or confined to racist right wing radicals? I don't know.

I found it perplexing that so many Americans did not react with "impeachment" to

the Gang of 5's 2000 decision re Bush. Of course, by the time everyone was recovering

from the shock of that election, we had 9/11 and then Anthrax.


This also strikes me the same way that letting T-baggers have the streets does.

Obviously, they are called out and put in place by GOP right wing interests and financed.

But certainly Democrats can also be called out to demonstrate for MEDICARE FOR ALL, for

instance. Among many other things.

How can it be that the Democratic Party has no interest in bringing out their own supporters?

On any of these issues?

When might the Democrats, unions, women's groups, NAACP -- all of the liberal organizations

ever come together in common interest?

[cali]

49. golly. that impeachment of Warren was such a success for them.

oh, and they never tried to impeach him.

[anonymous171]

25. It wouldn't be politically out of line if we found out that Roberts was taking money on the side

or something like that. This needs an investigation at least.

[elleng]

31. Oh Sure, we have some big moneybags like [ ] to work on this

pie in the sky, and look like the Reps. 'doing' Clinton. GREAT idea!

[defendandprotect]

95. Our founders supported the idea of "suspending" an administration when

conspiracy between a president and VP was suspected --

They understood that we are all threatened by dishonest men among us --

Nixon with millions in cash -- and we wouldn't suspect anyone in government of like

behavior?

Scalia in fact had at least two of his sons working with law firms involved in the

Bush vs Gore decision. Should have recused himself.

In fact, the secret Swiss bank accounts are a threat to everyone's rights and democracy.

The Drug War also makes clear that we have corruption of government officials and

police enforcement.

[Enthusiast]

226. Scalia also should

have recused himself on the Cheney secret energy meetings. Seeing as how he is Dick's duck hunting buddy and all.

[conscious evolution]

85. The wiretapping bs

does work both ways,after all.
They got nothing to hide,right?

[classysassy]

12. Did the funky five

take a dive?."The love of money",those five crooks love money and I am sure the con/servants,will take care of the thugs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I'll believe it when I see it

Ft. Sumtper moment comes to mind though... in the same way as Dredd Scott

[sharesunited]

14. Impeach Earl Warren!

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka preceded the Civil Rights Act by a decade.

Reversing the controlling precedent Plessy v. Ferguson, it also eviscerated state's rights in the arena of Jim Crow.

This was a ruling for the people, but was decried as treasonous by an angry white majority.

Anger alone cannot be the basis for impeachment.

[defendandprotect]

21. I haven't read the opinions yet -- but don't see "anger" as a basis for talk

of impeachment --

I see a "people's" government at stake --

this directly undermines democracy --

moves ownership/allegiance of elected officials from citizens to corporations ---

We should be dealing with all of this as "BRIBERY" . . .

We all know that's what it is!

And this is the Supreme Court's latest Gang of 5 issuing a LICENSE to corporate/fascists

to BRIBE our candidates/legislators!!

[sharesunited]

24. Defying the will of the People. Undermining suffrage. Threatening the franchise.

The Court arrogating unto itself a power which erodes democracy.

I am hearing echoes from half a century ago.

Impeaching justices is completely knee jerk.

When you see a corporation trying to influence an election, swarm the goddamn thing.

If it is a publicly traded corporation, swarm the goddamn thing with shareholder voting power. Punish from within.

[bjobotts]

185. Nothing was ever done about Bush v Gore and look at those results

[Overseas]

15. K&R, yes please ! //nt

[Kablooie]

16. To impeach a justice then pick your own man to take his place is not really kosher.

The only possible effective response is a constitutional amendment.
That would be using the system to solve a problem in the system the way it was designed to do.

The only way to get it, though, would be to find a way to strong arm a lot of Congress but
I don't believe that is one of the tools Obama keeps in his toolbox.

[thunder rising]

23. I think there might even be Republicans that are scared of this. Amendment might happen.

It's getting the states to sign on that would slow things down.

But this has to happen within a month or two at most. And that's not going to happen.

[Joe Chi Minh]

78. No disprespect to even metaphorical Judaism, but Republicans don't

get 'kosher'. And 'taking knives to gunfights' are a no-no here. We'll be 'kosher' as 'kosher' can be, once they're brought back in line. i.e duly brutally subjugated.

[bertman]

17. I'm in. Where do I sign up? Rec.

[defendandprotect]

18. Treason . . . . and certainly Thomas is a pervert and Scalia's sons involved

and working in firms which would suggest conflict of interest re Bush vs Gore!

And of course, we should NOT forget that overreaching by this court! Talk about

"activist" judges!!!

I guess the Founders simply FORGOT to mention corporations and capitalism in the

Bill of Rights!!!



PS: And a few religious fanatics, as well!!

[cascadiance]

84. 2/3rds is tough. But if evidence is presented that shows what a majority of Americans can't support

... then the Republicans, especially their "moderates", will be persuaded like the Republicans were in the case of Nixon that they'll need to vote for impeachment.

The following should be looked at for evidence and perhaps researched to see if bribery or other actions were involved:

1) The Bush v. Gore decision - Scalia's sons working for Bush, and perhaps other favors being done to persuade people on that vote. Any found to have been influenced by external "favor doers" in this decision that wasn't following proper judicial procedure.

2) the Scalia / Cheney duck hunting incident. Scalia could be impeached over that.

3) Not hearing Sibel Edmonds appeal. If it can be found that those voting not to hear the case were knowledgeable of Bush administration crimes and were facilitating a crime, that would be impeachable. BTW, Reggie Walton had his finanical history conveniently "hidden", after he was "randomly" selected for the TWO cases that Edmonds had where it was shut down for reasons of "State Secrets". It looks like he stopped short of allowing gray mail to be used in Scooter Libby's criminal case that he was afforded to do with State Secrets privilege for the two civil cases that Sibel had. That seems a pattern to research to see if what might have been "funny business" extended to her appeal being ignored by the Supremes.

4) This case itself had the court basically explicitly saying that a stare decisis decision was based on a case where the notion of corporate personhood is to be respected as law was not derived from a decision that the justices made in that case, but what a court clerk "decided" in that case. So this case shouldn't be looked as following "stare decisis", as even Rehnquist, according to Thom Hartmann in a speech I heard from him, backed off and dissented on one of these cases, knowing that the stare decisis basis for such a notion was questionable if not valid. So these justices shouldn't defend their decision based on stare decisis, but their OWN interpretation of the constitution and laws to defend their notion of corporations as persons. To use a faulty court clerk's "interpretation" of a case as a head note as the basis for a decision in my book is impeachable.

Perhaps if an investigation can turn up some bribery behind the scenes, or other influence peddling that would be hard for any politician to vote in opposition to, they might do the Nixon strategy again and persuade or attempt to persuade such justices to resign before impeachment proceedings woud take place.

Republicans, faced with evidence that is "unimpeachable" that impeachment should be pursued might be persuaded to persuade the justices to resign for the following reasons:

1) if real strong evidence demanding impeachment is found, and Republicans stand against it, perhaps they risk losing other Senate seats that might give Democrats a 2/3rds supermajority, which would be their nightmare of having little or no control, even if some of the majority are blue dogs. Then constitutional amendments can be made to roll back so much of the damage they've wrought.
2) at least with a justice resignation, they have enough votes to filibuster nominations they deem as unacceptable to replace any justices that might resign, as they did with Abe Fortas back in the 60's.

[defendandprotect]

96. Agree ---

Unfortunately, I haven't yet had time to read text of the decision and

the dissent --

[scheming daemons]

19. it takes 67 senators to convict .... you know 8 Republicans that would?

Nobody thinks things through anymore.


Even if we could convince the House to file articles of impeachment..... how in the heck do you propose we get 67 Senatrs to vote to remove the judge?


Liberals are famous for thinking up pie in the sky ideas that have zero chance of ever coming to fruition.


There are things we can do to mitigate the damage from this ruling... but impeaching a judge isn't one of them. It makes you look stupid and naive for even thinking it is possible.

[Dinger]

27. Yes I Do, Well, 7 Anyway

lieberman, lamdrieu, baucus, lincoln, bill nelson, ben nelson, bayh . . .

[davidswanson]

43. i'm sooooo scared

i can't recall -- who thought Repubs would convict Nixon before the effort to impeach him began?

[KharmaTrain]

48. He Never Got To The Senate...

...never got to a floor vote in the House either. But there's a damn good reason...he was caught dead to right in abeting a crime. You not only evidence (as well as him being named an unindicted co-conspirator) but a SCOTUS ruling that made it impossible for him to hide evidence. We don't have a SCOTUS like that now...nor a judiciary, after decades of raygun and booosh appointemnts and a Senate that puts party and agenda ahead of country and the law. Boner isn't Hughes Scott...McConnel isn't Barry Goldwater. This surely isn't 1974.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. I don't think we need any high minded reason to impeach. We can impeach for a bad haircut.

Obviously we wouldn't. But we could.

[lutherj]

29. Surely something could be dug up on Thomas. Someone that obsessive/compulsive

doesn't just stop overnight. I'm expect the FBI holds the dossier.

Beyond that, it seems to me that Roberts unloaded this opinion in order to influence the next elections.

[Dr.Phool]

30. Send them off with nice FRSP's!!!!

French Revolution Severance Packages!

[Vattel]

32. Treason? Bribery? Other high crimes and misdemeanors?

None of the above. Treason? The Court left open the question of wehther the govt has a compelling interest in limiting the influence of foreign corporations. Bribery? The Court did not strike down laws against bribery. Protecting the bill of rights often removes obstacles to crime. That is hardly a grounds for impeachment. Other high crimes and misdemeanors? They didn't abuse their power. They overruled a precedent, but they argued in the usual way that it was appropriate for them to do so.

The decision may have been a bad one. But talk of impeachment in response to it is silly.

[Usrename]

33. Scalia is the one who should be impeached.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7537270&mesg_id=7537789

[Enthusiast]

227. No question.

And we lived the results of the secret energy meetings. The damage soaring oil prices did to the economy pushed us over the edge, imho.

[xchrom]

34. Shrug -- it'll never happen. Nt

[Usrename]

35. A president can be impeached for treason, bribery and other high crimes.

The cause for impeaching a justice is a MUCH lower standard. They are expected to exhibit good behavior, and failure in this regard is reson for removal. Probably where the term "sober as a judge" comes from. Scalia spent the night with a defendent in a case that was before him, and then he refused to recuse himself from the case when asked to do so by dozens of news organizations. This cannot be "good behavior" since it is in violation of the LAW!!!


Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial Powers


The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

[RC]

166. If a president can be impeached for a stain on a blue dress...

Why can't charges of high treason for a sitting Supreme Court Justice for ruling foreign countries can influence our elections?

[Thothmes]

175. The impeachment charge was perjury, which is a felony.

[RC]

186. That was a Civil case and the question had noting to do with the case at hand.

For you or I under the same circumstances, we would get away with not telling the truth about a personal matter that did not pertain to the case at hand. The trial was a witch hunt anyway.

[Usrename]

194. This is true. The process is intended to be a political process.

By that I mean the trial is conducted by politicians, by design.

In the case of impeaching a president the case is SUPPOSED to be overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Rhenquist was surprisingly absent from the entire process.

The fact that Clinton wasn't even under oath during his Grand Jury testimony should have got the charge thrown out without even being heard. It was a farce.

[Usrename]

193. Actually, the perjury was never legally charged.

In order to charge perjury, the actual statement(s) that he was accused of making would have to be identified. No perjurious statement was ever was identified in the charges against him. Interesting, eh?

[cascadiance]

198. It could be argued that Clinton faced a "perjury trap", which arguably also is a crime as well...

Ken Starr and others were lucky they weren't prosecuted themselves for this... Arguably they weren't investigating a crime, but trying to create a circumstance where they could create a "lie under oath", which is not what perjury laws are designed to be used for. Perjury laws are used to prevent someone from obstructing questioning that might lead to the truth about what happened in a crime that is being investigated or prosecuted.

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/perjury.htm

Perjury Trap / Legal Perspective / Definitions

In the case of United States vs. Chen, 933 F.2d 793, 796-97, A perjury trap is created when the government calls a witness before the grand jury for the primary purpose of obtaining testimony from him in order to prosecute him later for perjury. United States v. Simone, 627 F. Supp. 1264, 1268 (D. N.J. 1986) (perjury trap involves "the deliberate use of a judicial proceeding to secure perjured testimony, a concept in itself abhorrent"). It involves the government's use of its investigatory powers to secure a perjury indictment on matters which are neither material nor germane to a legitimate ongoing investigation of the grand jury. See United States v. Crisconi, 520 F. Supp. 915, 920 (D. Del. 1981). Such governmental conduct might violate a defendant's fifth amendment right to due process, Simone, 627 F. Supp. at 1267-72, or be an abuse of grand jury proceedings, Crisconi, 520 F. Supp. at 920. See generally Gershman, The "Perjury Trap", 129 U. Pa. L. Rev. 624, 683 (1981).

The Chen case goes on to say, "If a court divines that the purpose of repetitious questioning is to coax a witness into the commission of perjury . . . such conduct would be an abuse of the grand jury process."

[Usrename]

196. I think the politics of bringing such a case would be unknown.

It could conceivably do more harm than good.

IMHO, bringing a case against Scalia for spending the night with a defendant while his case was being decided and then refusing to recuse himself from the decision, this is a case that cannot lose politically, no matter the outcome.

Just imagine Hannity and Rush and all the other morons having to DEFEND a judge that had a sleepover with his defendant in a case that he was deciding. I would make them defend that judge. I would make them come up with some kind of BS story that would make that judge's behavior acceptable. It would HAVE to damage them politically to defend Scalia on this single issue.

[drm604]

36. You need a 2/3 majority of the Senate to convict in an impeachment.

I just can't imagine that happening with this Senate.

[grahamhgreen]

103. But we could try

[grahamhgreen]

105. I agree with impeachent. couldn't we also add a couple liberal justces to SCOTUS to balan

balance out the court?

Isn't this what FDR did?

[Union Yes]

37. Fuckin-A right on DS! mega knr nt

[Vidar]

38. K&R.

[pokercat999]

39. "concern over this decision to constitute looking backwards"

will be in next weeks State of the Union speech. When will we figure out the rethugs were right about one thing, Obama is a man of words not deeds. He gives a nice speech.The mid-term mud slide by the Democrats may cause him to become more decisive and invoke progressive policies but I'm afraid it will do just the opposite and cause him to move further to the right, which would be to the right of many republicans.

[Kaleva]

41. Interesting but wishful thinking.

The Justices won't directly benefit from any bribery so they can't be charged for that and the Constitution narrowly defines treason.

[DisgustedInMN]

44. You know this with absolute..

... certainty, how?:

"The Justices won't directly benefit from any bribery.."

Considering that there has been not even a hint of investigation into their financial dealings...

...a bit of a stretch, maybe?

[cali]

47. I don't know that but I know this:

There is as much a chance of ANY of the Justices being impeached as of an asteroid hitting my house while I type this.

Useless fantasy solutions to dire problems don't do jackshit.

[DisgustedInMN]

50. Ahhh...

..yes, the "Surrender Monkey" strategy!

That one has worked so damn well in the past.:sarcasm:

[cali]

53. bzzzt. wrong, honey. it's the

not indulge in absurd fantasy solutions to dire real problems. There has been ONE impeachment of a SC Justice in our history. He was exonerated. It's about knowing history and not being so pathetic and weak as to slobber over crap as stupid as David's op. I know simple minded people love simple minded solutions. the rest of us don't.

[DisgustedInMN]

55. I'm not your fucking "honey"..

.. and you can take your condescending attitude and insults and stuff them.

Catch my drift, "honey?"

[cali]

91. you started. don't like it? don't play with me.

I will respond.

[Moochy]

94. If she stuffed the attitude and insults

cali's posts would be simply punctuation.

[cali]

99. codswallop.

I make substantive points in post after post. That person insulted me first with the snarky surrender monkey crap. Btw, a post of mine was just on the top of the greatest page. And sorry, it was substantive, as are most of my posts.

[Vattel]

172. In my experience, Cali's posts

are almost always either substantive or justifiably dismissive.

[DisgustedInMN]

199. Here's to you..

.. "Cali" and the Surrender Monkeys sitting with a "what happened????" look on you faces...

Early next November.

:toast:

[cali]

224. pathetic.

I am rarely if ever surprised by elections. In fact, I predicted MA a good 10 days before it came down. I've been predicting a bad November for dems for the last 8 months. No, honey, I won't be surprised. I don't indulge in wishful thinking no matter the subject, and I'm not stupid.

[DisgustedInMN]

234. Thought I told..

.. you that I'm not your fucking "honey."

Yep, sure did. Guess you really are not too smart, if you can't sort that out.

Bubye.

[skepticscott]

74. Thank you

I'm glad at least one other poster in this morass of visceral reactions is showing an ounce of sense.

[Kaleva]

60. We'll see how "Impeach the Justices" strategy will work out.

[DisgustedInMN]

66. I'm guessing..

.. about as well as a "bipartisan approach to health care reform" has.

What is it about attacking REALLY bad developments from EVERY angle that bothers some people?

... or should I say, Surrender Monkeys?

The "all-knowing" PTB scoffed at "Teabaggers."

And results are?

A seat in the Senate, held by Dems since 1953, 47 years of which by Ted Kennedy, is now held by a Teabgger.

WAKE THE FUCK UP. THIS IS WAR. FIGHT ON ALL FRONTS.

You can bet your ass that our enemies will.

Do you "get it," yet?

[Kaleva]

67. You people don't fight though.

Coakley faced two liberal opponents in the primary but interest in the primary election was zilch and turnout was very low. Coakley won mainly on name recognition. All the talk about primarying the so-called Dinos turned out to be nothing but talk.

[DisgustedInMN]

68. "You people" ?

What a load of crap. You screw the pooch and then pretend it was "you people."

Point at "us people" if it makes you feel better.

The midterms are coming your way.

[cascadiance]

97. Hmm.... I don't suppose the DSCC gave these other candidates an advantage that she overcame?

More likely the DSCC gave her the money and not them. Much like the DCCC has picked corporatist candidates in primaries to support. It's not a black and white situation. Not to mention that the media will also give more airtime to those that are less progressive too.

[hack89]

132. We don't impeach for things that have not happened

as soon as there is actual evidence that one of the justices has accepted a bribe then impeachment will be easy.

[cascadiance]

134. That's why indictments are made and not sentences initially...

And why investigations of crimes are made when the known evidence "stinks".

You can't jump to a criminal conviction and sentence for a crime without investigations, nor indictments, nor trials.

NOR should you ignore facts that "stink" because you have no evidence YET to convict someone of a crime! When those facts exist our system should COMPEL one to investigate. Unfortunately in our post-Bush era world, if those people that might be targets of investigation are "favored" positions of power, not having evidence to convict is too often used as an excuse NOT to do an investigation. And some segments of our populations seem to be STUPIDLY conditioned to accept that line of "reasoning". PLEASE don't fall in that latter group!

[hack89]

135. There is no grounds for an investigation.

you can't stretch the definitions of treason and bribery beyond recognition and then turn around and scream "we need to investigate!". That is not justice.

[cascadiance]

138. I'm sorry but saying stare decisis exists for a decision rendered by a COURT CLERK is not "regular"

Most justices if asked in the open without the historical context of this case, would say that deciding a case based on supporting the language of a flawed head note (who's author was arguably corrupted to do so as a former railroad exec) is overstepping the bounds of justice's responsibilities as a judge and the bounds of the judiciary. And most people who aren't stupid wouldn't argue that there's nothing to investigate when their are HUGE potential financial gains to be gained by corporate America based on this decision. Rehnquist even avoided backing this case as I noted in another post here, likely for this reason. Something stinks!

Where did you leave your DLC membership card?

[hack89]

141. Still not treason or bribery, is it?

simply a bad decision.

[cascadiance]

144. So do you KNOW it's not bribery oh "omniscient" one?

What gives you the power to know that? THAT is what investigations are designed to find out about. Why would Supreme Court justices violate the integrity of their jobs unconstitutionally giving the power of court clerks to overturn their decisions with this decision, if there wasn't "something in it for them"? Hopefully an investigation would show why they would do this.

[hack89]

147. You sound like a Birther

"Judge, we have no real evidence that any crime was committed but if you let us use the power of Congress to root around in our enemies lives I am sure we can find something."

Do you really want to set this kind of precedent? Could you imagine a RW Congress doing this to punish judges for liberal or progressive rulings?

[cascadiance]

148. Um. There IS evidence that Obama had his birth in Hawaii announced...

And there's no compelling reason to dispute that. THAT is a birther's approach.

Now do you think an ex-railroad exec, J.C. Bancroft Davis, defining our laws on what a "person" is, that creates a lot of corporate wealth in America, that our Supreme Court just validated, is something we should ignore as NOT suspicious? What part of that being not constitutional do you not understand?

[hack89]

150. OK - so you are suspicious

now find some hard facts to justify Congress investigating.

And there are many Birthers who still think that Obama's BC is suspicious - if they can get enough Congressmen to agree, can they also have an investigation? That's the only threshold, right? Just get enough Congressmen to agree with you.

[cascadiance]

153. It is a FACT that the head note was used to justify "corporate personhood"

It is a FACT that no judges on the Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific case of that headnote issued that opinion!

It is a FACT that this court's five justices based their decision on the headnote of that case.

It is a FACT that therefore they are in effect allowing a court clerk to CREATE law.

It is a FACT that this court clerk, J.C. Bancroft Davis, was an ex-railroad exec.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05004.html

That discovery -- that we'd been operating for over 100 years on an incorrect headnote -- led me to discover that the clerk, J.C. Bancroft Davis, was a former corrupt official of the U.S. Grant administration and the former president of a railroad, and in collusion with another corrupt Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Field, who had been told by the railroads that if they'd help him get this through they'd sponsor him for the presidency.

It is a FACT that the constitution itself does NOT give corporations the right to personhood.

It is a FACT that corporations (who have great incentive to bribe people in power, and have done so via both illegal and legal means) stand to gain GREAT power by this decision, which would also make less of their bribery illegal.

It is a FACT that some court clerk in the future could use this case as a basis for issuing a head note that could create law then.

WHY would a SCOTUS judge allow themselves to be "vetoed" by a court clerk through a decision they control, unless they benefit directly from it somehow? This question NEEDS to be answered by an investigation!

If you can't see this, then your are blind or complicit.

Now what things are you "suspecting" of me?

[hack89]

154. Good luck - tell me how it works out. nt

[rosesaylavee]

169. Thank you ...

for breaking it down into chunks. I found this very helpful.

Bookmarked.

[onenote]

215. it also is a fact that virtually every other SCOTUS justice has concurred in at least one decision

in which it is stated,either with a citation to the Santa Clara case or its progeny (btw, Santa Clara isn't directly cited in Citizens United). Should they have all been impeached? Should White, Blackmun, Stevens, Powell and Burger been impeached in 1978 for striking down on first amendment grounds a Massachusetts law that barred corporations from making expendituresn expenditures by banks and business corporations for the purpose of influencing the vote on referenda issues having no material effect on the business, property, or assets of the corporation, citing the first amendment/fourteenth amendment protection of speech by corporations? I think that case (like the Citizens United case) was wrongly decided and that the dissenters -- White, Marshall and Brennan-- had the better argument. They acknowledged that the first amendment protects speech by corporations, but felt that the state had provided a rational basis for its regulation of corporate speech. Oh, and the one Justice that took the hardest line against corporate speech being entitled to protection? Rehnquist.

[cascadiance]

218. I think you need to provide a reference here...

I'm not going to chase notes on other cases.

Now, there could be OTHER laws OTHER than using "corporate personhood" that if separately crafted could arguably be used as a basis to provide corporations with its own "speech rights". However, arguably those wouldn't be a "constitutional right" that isn't subject to regulation by state legislatures, etc. to put it in perspective with what local legal bodies feel are appropriate laws to allow them to speak but not put natural persons underneath them in terms of their inherent rights, like the so-called "corporate personhood rights", which SELECTIVELY chooses which rights that those in power WANT to enjoy, and which responsibilities of "persons" they want to avoid.

There arguably may have been some cases in the past where justices lazily didn't check the real notes of the case behind the Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific head note, and assumed it to be a proper summary of the case when it wasn't. There might be the case there that justices weren't consciously trying to elevate non-judicial opinions into making law based on stare decisis, and therefore not impeachable.

In recent years though, the Supreme Court HAS been made aware of this discrepancy, and Thom Hartmann and others have made sure they were aware of that fact. So I don't think ignorance of the nature of this flawed head note is an excuse any more. Therefore using it knowing that it was flawed in my book borders on an impeachable offense. Congress I think certainly could make the case for that.

Certainly at the time of the head note's creation, there should have been some avenue and effort made to correct this flawed head note, to prevent any unknowing usage of it in future cases. If the SCOTUS justices at the time allowed for this to happen and knowingly and intentionally didn't do anything about it to allow this to happen, that would have also been impeachable in my book too. If they wanted this to be made law, then they should have made that official in how they argued and wrote notes on the case, not through this stealthy "trick" to have it just in a head note.

We need to have the Supreme Court to be an ultimate body of system of law that is to be respected, not manipulated for use by back room powers, which appears to be the only thing explaining the non-professional way this earlier and subsequent cases were handled. Those that violate it should not be able to do it with impunity, and that is what impeachment I believe is set up to allow for.

If this problem isn't corrected, its just a matter of time before someone tries this trick again, either the same corrupt people that have been benefitting from this flawed decision before, or others that want to use it to further other agendas, perhaps even drawing attention to it and using it to create a total legal mess to do so, to prompt someone to correct it. Either way, leaving this case and its "stare decisis" decisions of this last weeks' decision and others is something that needs correcting, and have a more professional way of correcting it. If that involves impeachment, then so be it. If not, then tell us another way to correct this. I know that a constitutional amendment would be one way, but that sort of response is unrealistic in many situations, especially when the same corrupt powers that are benefiting from this also control the media and what adequate information gets out to voters that might be swayed to vote against those opposed to a constitutional amendment.

If you think the status quo of doing nothing and letting crap like this persist is a proper way of handling this case, then I'm sorry, but you don't live in the same democracy I and others here think we should be living in.

[onenote]

231. here you go

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 US 765 (1978)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=435&navby=CASE&page=765

[cali]

46. codswallop.

unrecced for fantasy "solution" to a dire problem.

[Golden Raisin]

51. Wonderful fantasy but

will happen at the same time Cheney & Bush are dragged in chains and shackles before the World Court in the Hague.

[nimvg]

81. That's Not...

...the world we live in. We may as well get used to it.

I was fortunate enough to get a Saturday session with my instructor (a Brit) at the field yesterday and I mentioned that I got my first passport in mail awhile back. He told me to go out and buy one of those nice leather cases for it that has a maple leaf on the cover. Why? For whatever reason, there's a lot of resentment of the US worldwide and it could come in handy someday. He mentioned Italy as one place you definitely want to keep your trap shut about being an American while traveling.

[elocs]

54. After Bushco you would have thought DUers would have learned about "impeachment".

"Impeachment" does not mean "conviction". Bill Clinton was "impeached", but he was not "convicted" and he finished his term. Considering HCR, does anyone really believe the Senate will find 67 votes to convict a conservative Supreme Court Justice?

This is shaping up to be exactly like the Bushco years where we heard the daily drumbeat here for impeachment. You've all seen Congress and HCR, does anyone really believe that Congress will take up impeachment of Supreme Court Justices? It's not going to happen and I don't need to be psychic to predict that, just remotely in touch with reality.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. But Obama is a coward.

with no moral core, so that is one hell of a fantasy. If we had a person as President, instead of a montage of a man, well, we'd be better off.

[bahrbearian]

57. Who are the Freeptards unrecommending this?

[bigtree]

61. I'd unrec it

If I cared enough to.

[Codeine]

98. Don't have to be a Freeptard

to unrec something as utterly unconnected to reality as this.

[cascadiance]

100. So are you saying that we that impeachment is unconstitutional and shouldn't be a law?

Why is what he is saying "unconnected to reality" unless you believe that impeachment shouldn't be available to counter such unconstitutional behavior that these justices exhibited (basically empowering court clerks to make law).

DAMN I wish our current court clerk would say in his head note for this bill that "corporations are NOT persons" and throw us into a constitutional crisis that would DEMAND congressional action!

[Codeine]

109. Great job putting words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is there will be no impeachment. This will go no furthr than when the tightie-righties howled about impeaching the Warren court.

The votes aren't there. The impeachable offense isn't there. IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. At this point it is more likely that the LHC will create a mini black hole that eats the Supreme Court up.

[cascadiance]

113. So would you have left Nixon in office because Republicans wouldn't vote for impeachment?

That IS the definition of a surrender monkey. There are certain crimes if exposed, the Republicans will realize they have a losing hand with, and if we play them, they will either do the right thing or subsequently suffer the consequences. The key is how you play our cards, and don't give up before you even start because the odds seem "insurmountable". Clinton wouldn't have gotten impeached if Republicans had followed your strategy.

[Codeine]

115. The republicans should have followed my strategy.

One of the biggest political missteps they've ever made was impeaching Clinton.

And stop with the "surrender monkey" nonsense. It isn't making your case seem any more sane.

[cascadiance]

121. So, arguing for the rights of ALL of us as citizens vs. corporations is the same as a blow job?

Sheesh! You have no faith in the American people's sense of priorities to sort out which is partisan politics and which is protecting our democracy from being destroyed!

[Codeine]

125. Oh please.

Dream all you want about "the American people's sense of priorities", there are not 67 votes for impeachment. There was no impeachable offense, and even if there was there is no way the Pukes would vote to impeach anyway.

Nothing would make the Democrats look more ridiculous to the voters than a failed impeachment vote over an issue most don't understand.

So keep reframing my arguments in completely tangential and inaccurate ways, keep howling to the heavens about impeachment, keep doggedly ignoring political reality -- it won't make a whit of difference; no member of the SC will face any sort of impeachment over this decision.

[cascadiance]

129. And we know WITHOUT an investigation that there's no impeachable offense?

I'm sure that if they hadn't done investigations on Nixon, despite the stinkiness of what showed up before them (which is ALSO present now!), that the Republicans wouldn't have voted to impeach then.

Amercans like you seem to have been warped by 8 years of Bush by ignoring obvious clues of wrongdoing and just putting up with the systematic and step-by-step destruction of our democracy.

No, you don't call for an impeachment vote TOMORROW! You do something called an investigation and get the facts and then you put it to a question.

I noted earlier that Reggie Walton's financial history before *RANDOMLY* being selected for TWO civil appeal cases by Sibel Edmonds that allged a lot of wrongdoing in our government were BOTH turned away for reasons of State Secrets privilege. That case was CRYING for an investigation. The Supreme Court conveniently chose to avoid taking this case.

Looking in to the details of her case and the "state secrets" and who knew of the details when (INCLUDING Supreme Court Justices), might be the basis for many impeachments and indictments.

That's just one example of where an investigation could provide us a more solid case for impeachment. And the details might make it so, LIKE the case against Nixon, the Republicans won't be willing to vote against impeachment, in their own self-interest, and correspondingly in America's self interest!

[whistler162]

127. Why did you try and threadjack this?

[hack89]

133. Me.

it is a stupid fantasy on par with anything the 911 Truthers or Birthers have come up with.

[bigtree]

59. oh, I get it now

This view is an attempt to frame any response by the president short of impeachment as some sort of appeasement of the members of the SC who voted in favor of the corporations. This mirrors the end of the Bush term where folks were told that any response or measure from Congress short of impeachment was a waste of time.

Any effort to convince the number of Senators needed to impeach would be a waste of time, in my opinion. I also don't see any reason to be cynical about the president's response. I look forward to seeing what he'll propose or sign on to. I'm not buying into the tone of this appeal which is more in line with confronting a republican administration than our new Democratic one.

[berni_mccoy]

62. Indeed. It is the worst case for impeachment ever made on this site. You couldn't even get DUers

to agree that Bush had committed treason, you'll never get Congress to agree to that, let alone the lesser charges.

[Unvanguard]

63. It is plainly neither treason nor bribery, and the "abuse of power" claim is somewhat questionable.

The reason is that, as you say, it would clearly be inappropriate to impeach justices simply for deciding differently from what our preference would be. But the standards for what issues are properly before the Court, and what precedents can legitimately be overturned, are themselves vague and ambiguous enough that applying them is a jurisprudential act in itself. In this particular case, for instance, exactly what the precedent pre-Austin was in dispute--and while I think the dissent has the better argument, I'm not convinced that the only explanation for the majority's behavior was a conscious desire to pervert the rule of law in service to their ideology.

[Codeine]

Damn your logic, Spock!

Here we're ruled by hyperbole and hysteria, and that's the way we like it!

Seriously, change the names and this place sounds like a bad day at Freeptown.

[Octafish]

65. Oh, yeah. Treason.

Bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors, too.

Book 'em, Barack.

[COLGATE4]

69. A silly post

May feel good to beat our chests about trying to impeach Justices we don't agree with but nobody has come close to stating any legal grounds upon which impeachment could begin (probably because as regards USSCt such grounds would be extremely extremely hard to come by).

[Unvanguard]

70. You would have to have something like actual bribery, I think.

If the Chamber of Commerce has been giving millions to Justice Kennedy surreptitiously, fine, impeach him. But nothing of the sort has happened, in all likelihood.

[nimvg]

86. As I Said Above...

...even Jonathan Turley says he would have ruled with the majority. He would have held his nose, but the law is the law.

I'm wondering how long it'll be until the Union itself starts to come apart.

[Enthusiast]

229. Turley also agreed with Ken Starr.

He was wrong then and he is wrong now. Turley doesn't have a monopoly on the correct interpretation of the law.

[alofarabia]

71. Impeachment or constitutional amendment

would require a solid majority of the American people in favor to motivate the politicians. Otherwise even to propose either would do more harm than good. Let's wait and see what the polling says. If either would get 55+% I say go for it.

[RoccoR5955]

72. Time to impeach Roberts and Scalia, at very least n/t

[skepticscott]

73. By your logic

Justices who ruled that detainees suspected of terrorism could not be held indefinitely without charge or trial would also be impeachable. It could be very plausibly argued that this is far more clearly a case of "giving aid and comfort" to our enemies than the current case. If corporations qualify as "enemies", then any justice who rules in any case in favor of any corporation could be impeached. Is that what you're really trying to argue?

As far as bribery, your reasoning is similarly flawed (and deeply so). This decision facilitates, not to say legalizes, massive bribery the likes of which the world has never known.

How political advertising and advocacy qualify as "bribery" is something I'd love to hear you try to justify. Even if it did, impeachment can only be based on the official being impeached directly accepting or offering a bribe themselves. I'm guessing you have not a shred of evidence that this has happened.

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.

Again, by your logic, any justice who votes to overturn long-standing precedent (Brown, Mapp and lots of others, for example) or who votes for a ruling that goes beyond what was absolutely necessary (Roe) should be impeached. It's a good thing you don't get to make these decisions, or there would be no one left on the SC.

In order for your argument to have even a shred of credibility, you need to first answer the question of how this decision fundamentally violated the constitutional principle that Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of speech. Sadly, you and so many other emotionally blinded posters here seem to be proving that the definition of "judicial activism" is exactly the same for liberals as it is for conservatives: Decisions that we don't like, regardless of whether they conform to the law.

[cowman]

79. Hear Hear

this conversation is ridiculous becaus most of the posters hear are going off of emotions instead of logic. We have alot bigger fish to fry as in the mid-term elections where we are probably going to get our assess handed to us because our congress critters have no balls to stand up to the repubs and the people know that most of them are a bunch of P*****s

[Amonester]

77. I stopped reading at: "forceful, bipartisan"

I stopped reading at: "forceful, bipartisan"

Those two words R contradictory (now).

So why bother?

[W T F]

82. In contrast to the Morse V. Frederick decision....

The Filthy Five deny free speech to a high school student because they disagree with the content. WTF?
ACTIVIST JUDGES LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH!
IMPEACH FOR TREASON!

[reformist]

83. They should not be impeached for this.

You don't impeach judges for being "wrong". If you could prove that they were corrupt, incompetent and/or insane, well that's another matter....

[cascadiance]

90. Attempting to use stare decisis over a decision rendered by a "court clerk" is impeachable...

It is one thing to say that a past court (the JUSTICES, not the court clerk in a head note) rendered a decision and that such a decision validly affects subsequent cases.

But it seems to me that the notion that a court clerk can create law through what that person writes is unconstitutional, and a breach of the power of the Judiciary, and therefore those who research and explicitly support this notion should be subject to impeachment.

Now if this court were to say (and EXPLAIN) how they THEMSELVES interpreted the constitution without benefit of using stare decisis to give corporations rights as persons, that would be different.

And if they are overextending their authority in this opinion, I think that would be impeachable too, especially if it can be found that favors were done such as bribes to render this decision too.

[reformist]

102. Can you elaborate on this court clerk??

Sorry, I don't know about this.

[cascadiance]

106. There are many articles on this issue with the Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific case...

... that is used as the basis for "corporate personhood" rights.

One article:

http://www.ratical.com/corporations/humanVcorp.html

...
Lincoln's suspicions were prescient. In the 1886 Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state tax assessor, not the county assessor, had the right to determine the taxable value of fenceposts along the railroad's right-of-way.

However, in writing up the case's headnote -- a commentary that has no precedential status -- the Court's reporter, a former railroad president named J.C. Bancroft Davis, opened the headnote with the sentence: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Oddly, the court had ruled no such thing. As a handwritten note from Chief Justice Waite to reporter Davis that now is held in the National Archives said: "we avoided meeting the Constitutional question in the decision." And nowhere in the decision itself does the Court say corporations are persons.

Nonetheless, corporate attorneys picked up the language of Davis's headnote and began to quote it like a mantra. Soon the Supreme Court itself, in a stunning display of either laziness (not reading the actual case) or deception (rewriting the Constitution without issuing an opinion or having open debate on the issue), was quoting Davis's headnote in subsequent cases. While Davis's Santa Clara headnote didn't have the force of law, once the Court quoted it as the basis for later decisions its new doctrine of corporate personhood became the law.

...

[reformist]

111. OK. I have heard about this,

but I didn't know the whole story. Is it generally accepted by legal scholars that this is how this idea got started???

Instead of impeachment, maybe Congress should call in the Supreme Court in for questioning - demand that they explain their view on why they think corporations are persons with any rights beyond those given by their charters.... because if what you sent me is true, they sure have some 'splaining to do!

[spanone]

87. let me guess...it's sunday, the outrage is gone and all is back to normal.....

congress won't do a damned thing imho

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[reformist]

107. It would backire politically.

As much as I would love to see some of these clowns booted off the court, I'm guessing impeachment wouldn't have a) popular support or b) the 67 votes in the Senate needed to convict. The whole thing would be a waste of time and would backfire on the Democrats.

Never forget James Carville's words: "It's the economy stupid!" Once we've fixed that, THEN we can move on to other issues.

[fascisthunter]

92. Is this going to be another "Dog-and-Pony Show"?

Obama makes it sound like they are going to try to do something, but inevitably falls short. Then he and the admin can say... "we really really tried, so sorry."

I am very cynical these days.

[peace frog]

128. Cynicism

it's the new 'Change'.

[paparush]

101. These people are above the law. Laws are for chumps like us. They act with impunity

and implicit immunity.

[Moochy]

119. To your point about impunity

...the evidence of the murder of David Kelly in the UK was just sealed by their Lord High Coverup commission, to pave over the illegal start of the war, and to try and whitewash Blair's public image. It seems likely that someone aged in their 20s was directly involved in his death.

[dorkulon]

108. U.S. Gov''t is already an influence auction--I don't really see how this changes much.

I agree it's an asinine decision, but it flows naturally from the even more asinine precedent that money=speech.

[cascadiance]

112. Note that Rehnquist perhaps looked to avoid impeachment himself in a past decision...

... where he became aware of the details of the Southern Pacific vs. Santa Clara case beyond the text of the head note. I wonder if he knew that with his knowledge of this case's details that he might be subject to impeachment without the comments he made in Boston vs. Belotti case.

From Thom Hartmann's comments on this in Buzzflash:
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05004.html

...
It's interesting that in one of the most recent cases decided by the Supreme Court expanding corporate personhood, Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented. The case was First National Bank of Boston versus Bellotti, in 1978, and the bank was asserting that, as a "person," it had the right of "free speech" to interfere in politics. This was the case that kicked wide the door to corporations corrupting our political process in the last twenty-five years, and has led directly to the corporate capture and manipulation of Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Dubya as well as the majority of both houses of Congress, the Republican Party, and the DLC wing of the Democratic Party.

In opening his dissent, Rehnquist said: "This Court decided at an early date, with neither argument nor discussion, that a business corporation is a "person" entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396 (1886)."

This makes it pretty clear that neither Rehnquist nor his clerks actually read the Santa Clara case, but, as has been done for over a hundred years, were relying on the headnote. But, to his credit, Rehnquist disagreed with the headnote, saying:

"Early in our history, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall described the status of a corporation in the eyes of federal law: 'A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created.'" Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819).

Rehnquist then added, brilliantly in my opinion:

"The appellants herein either were created by the Commonwealth or were admitted into the Commonwealth only for the limited purposes described in their charters and regulated by <435 U.S. 765, 824> state law. 2 Since it cannot be disputed that the mere creation of a corporation does not invest it with all the liberties enjoyed by natural persons, United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698 -701 (1944) (corporations do not enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination), our inquiry must seek to determine which constitutional protections are "incidental to its very existence." Dartmouth College, supra, at 636.

"The free flow of information is in no way diminished by the Commonwealth's decision to permit the operation of business corporations with limited rights of political expression. All natural persons, who owe their existence to a higher sovereign than the Commonwealth, remain as free as before to engage in political activity."

In this dissent, Rehnquist demonstrated the difference between a classical conservative, as he is, and the new corporatists who call themselves conservatives. Interestingly, this interview would probably be just as interesting and agreeable to readers of the website of William F. Buckley Jr. as it is to the readers of BuzzFlash. This is an issue on which both classic conservatives and classic liberals agree.

[reformist]

117. Great article.

It is paramount that Americans know that today's so-called conservative ideologues have nothing in common with traditional conservatism.

[W T F]

116. What is impeachable is...........

That the question brought before them was if a political video could be sold and advertised during the embargo period before an election. the answer is clearly yes but what they did was to over reach beyond the case brought before them and declare that bribery is protected free speech but if a high school student making a statement that references using marijuana is not.

[perdita9]

118. Let's do a Tom Coburn!

All the liberals in the country, including the atheists, need to start praying for John Roberts to die. The man has had two seizures already. Do I feel bad about suggesting this? Sort of, but then Roberts is the biggest threat to democracy that this country has ever faced.

[nvme]

120. in a classroom discussion this might be achievable

When the court made the eminent domain blunder a few years back, states responded by creating their own laws in this regard. the only thing you can hope for is another retirement.

[MilesColtrane]

122. Treason as defined by the Constitution is:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Treason is not waging metaphorical war against the U.S.

You can't convict them of third party bribery, you have to actually show that a SC justice received something tangible in exchange for his or her decision.

I'm not sure what high crime you are talking about.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was heard because Citizens United filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

As with every other petition to the Court, the Justices are completely free to pick and choose which cases they hear.

[Codeine]

126. Voice of reason.

We can't be havin' any of that here, sir. ;)

[MilesColtrane]

131. Sorry. I forgot where I was for a minute.

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

130. You need to read your Constitution

especially the definition of treason.

[onenote]

136. Swanson needs to buy a copy of the constitution and read it

Treason? Not hardly under the very specific and very narrow definition in the Constitution.

Bribery? Really-if Swanson has evidence that the five members of the majority were bribed to reach this result he really should put it forward.

Bad decision? Sure. Impeachable offense? No. And the idea that every time the SCOTUS issues a 5-4 decision on a significant constitutional issue one side or the other has a case for impeachment strikes more deeply at our system of government than this stupid ruling.

Swanson gets one thing right -- there is a mechanism for overturning the decision -- a constitutional amendment. And if he doesn't think the public would support such an amendment, then he's obviously hallucinating if he thinks there is the remotest chance that the public would support an effort to impeach a majority of the SCOTUS. Its absurd on its face.

Consider the following: This is hardly the first (nor will it be the last) bad decision by the SCOTUS, Yet in the nation's history there has been one impeachment of a SCOTUS justice -- Samuel Chase -- and his acquittal established a critically important principal: the independence of the judiciary. Impeachment of a justice (or a bunch of justices) because of their judgment on a specific case is off the table as it should be.

One final point to consider: Would those who support impeachment in this instance also support impeachment of the members of the minority in any case where they don't like the decision? What if a decision comes out 8-1 with a good result. Impeach the dissenter? That' a bizarre concept that should have no support in progressive circles.

[cascadiance]

140. So would you support a consitutional amendment to get rid of impeachments of judges...

... for the "independence of the judiciary"?

If not, based on one of your arguments here, please explain. Otherwise that argument you present is meaningless.

The Judiciary is not an unelected set of rulers that have no restrictions on their power. They are not appointed to CREATE law. They are appointed to interpret it. And in this case they only interpreted the head notes of a COURT CLERK to make their decision, who arguably was corrupted in the authoring of his head note as a former railroad exec.

Even the Republicans had to spend a lot of money and endless investigations by Kenneth Starr before they settled on using a perjury trap as an argument to prosecute Clinton when there was no "there there" on the substance of most of their allegations. They didn't jump directly to an impeachment vote.

There is far more "there there" in this case to justify a prosecutor to investigate these justices now.

This isn't a "partisan" view of their verdict. It is a fundamental destruction on the notion of democracy for some other persons' partisan interests.

We already have evidence that this decision wasn't normal, when it implicitly gives court reporters the power to VETO any SCOTUS decision from this point forward. That in my book is unconstitutional use of power. It either does that, or shows that it was a manufactured verdict without proper review.

[skepticscott]

160. Do you understand anything?

An amendment like that isn't necessary at all. The Constitution already protects federal judges from being removed from office because people don't like their decisions.

And every "interpretation" of existing law by appellate courts expounds a principle not already explicit in that law (or it wouldn't have been necessary in the first place), which then becomes part of the future application of that law, at least in that jurisdiction. Consequently, your argument that "interpreting" and "creating" law are entirely separate and distinct is just flat-out ignorant.


And sorry, but this makes me think should be fitted for a tinfoil hat:

We already have evidence that this decision wasn't normal, when it implicitly gives court reporters the power to VETO any SCOTUS decision from this point forward. That in my book is unconstitutional use of power. It either does that, or shows that it was a manufactured verdict without proper review. :silly:

[cascadiance]

162. Just because I don't like a decision does NOT mean it isn't impeachable either!

How is using a

COURT CLERK'S FLAWED WRITING OF A HEAD NOTE

as the basis of a constitutionally important decision like this a power that a judge has been given. Should we just pay another supreme court clerk to write another opinion that DOES NOT REFLECT what was decided in a case (AS WAS DONE IN THIS CASE) so that when we have a "friendly" court later, they can use that court case's headnote as a basis for another decision as supported through stare decisis?

I tell you, if the left tried that you can BE SURE that Republicans would be shouting impeachment! They're already shouting to reverse Roe v. Wade. Can you imagine if the current court clerk inserted a comment in a current case's head note that the court decided that the court found that gays have the right to marriage, even if the court didn't do so, and a later liberal court used that to state it was law? You'd have them carrying guns next to judges' houses.

You're right that just "not liking" a decision doesn't mean a justice can be impeached. But just because "I don't like it", doesn't mean that there aren't impeachable actions this court has taken. I think I've explained a number of them in this thread.

A court reporter who's not appointed as a judge HAS NO POWER to render his own opinion into law according to our constitution (we pay judges to do that), and justices that would support that happening to further another agenda in my book (and I would guess in others' books too) are impeachable.

[onenote]

211. Impeach Thurgood Marshall!!

Excuse my attention getting hyperbole, but its to make a point:

Whether they are the product of reliance on a flawed head note or independent analysis, the cases holding that corporations have first amendment rights through the fourteenth amendment are legion. That there is "little doubt that corporate communications come within the scope of the First Amendment" has been recognized even by those Justices, like Marshall, that argued (convincingly in my view) that a greater measure of regulation of corporate speech than individual speech is permissible under the constitution. See First National Bank v. Belotti, 435 US 765 (1978) (dissenting opinion of Justice White, joined by Justices Marshall and Brennan)

Put another way, I believe that the Court reached the wrong conclusion in Citizens United, just as I think they reached the wrong decision in Belotti (which, more than 30 years ago, struck down on first amendment grounds a Massachusetts statute that barred the use of corporate funds to publish views about referenda issues having no material effect on the business, property, or assets of the corporation.

But I don't recall anyone demanding the impeachment of the five Justices in the majority in that 5-4 decision (Powell, Blackmun, Stevens, Stewart and Burger). Nor do I recall people lionizing Rehnquist, whose separate dissent went beyond anything in the White/Marshall/Brennan dissent in arguing that the constitution does not generally protect a corporation's right to engage in political speech.

My point is that while Citzens United is, in my opinion. wrong, its not the first or last time the court will reach such a conclusion and suggesting that these particular justices should be impeached for it ignores the history of the court and the history of this issue.

[onenote]

190. huh?

I would support a constitutional amendment to overturn this decision. I would not -- and no one should -- support a constitutional amendment that would mean that members of the judiciary could be removed at the whim of whatever party has a majority.

And its interesting that your argument that the judiciary does not "create" law is exactly the argument that repubs use against Democratic judicial nominees. Very interesting.

Also, if you think the CItizens United case turned on a court clerk's "headnote" you obviously haven't read the case. By the way, do you think the dissenters should be impeached since they didn't totally disclaim the idea that corporations are protected by the constitution. The issue is whether those protections should apply equally to corporations and individuals. I don't think they should (and the dissenters agree).

There is not "there there" and no prosecutor is going to "investigate" these justices. Reality. Try it.

[cascadiance]

197. uh...

And its interesting that your argument that the judiciary does not "create" law is exactly the argument that repubs use against Democratic judicial nominees. Very interesting.

It is NOT the same. In Roe v. Wade it WAS the SCOTUS judges that interpreted the law to give women the rights to an abortion. There IS NO law NOR IS THERE any original case where JUDGES issued an opinion that corporations have the rights of persons. All cases based stare decisis on a case where the opinion was formed by a court clerk, NOT the court itself. Are Democrats arguing to be able to use a faulty head-note as a basis for stare decisis? NO!!!!

And it is interesting that these justices describe themselves as "constitutional constructionists", when they are far further from it in this decision than ANY other liberal justices.

Also, if you think the CItizens United case turned on a court clerk's "headnote" you obviously haven't read the case. By the way, do you think the dissenters should be impeached since they didn't totally disclaim the idea that corporations are protected by the constitution. The issue is whether those protections should apply equally to corporations and individuals. I don't think they should (and the dissenters agree).

I don't need to read the case when they cite the rights of "corporate personhood". That is derived from the Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific case, where the headnote created that notion and all other cases citing "corporate personhood" since then have used this case as a basis for their decisions. If they didn't have this notion of corporate personhood, they'd have no argument for "free speech" rights for corporations at all, let alone "restricted free speech" that they had previously based on corporate personhood.

There is not "there there" and no prosecutor is going to "investigate" these justices. Reality. Try it.

Only if you (or they) choose to either stay in denial or be complicit with their corporatist BS!

[onenote]

206. since you acknowledge you haven't read the court's opinion, there is no reason to continue

[cascadiance]

212. Why don't you save me time. Where did this court derive the "laws" of "corporate personhood"

I challenge you to quote me part of it that doesn't derive back to that one Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific case, whether through another case that is also based on it, or directly to that case. There IS NO LAW supporting corporate personhood. The word corporation isn't even in our constitution.

[onenote]

239. so, your argument is that only natural persons have First Amendment rights

and that any decision that upholds the First Amendment rights of an entity other than a natural person is traceable to Santa Clara and thus impeachable.

Or, in other words, you don't think the companies that publish newspapers (which aren't natural persons) don't have any First Amendment rights. In other words, when the government sought to enjoin the New York Times Company and the Washington Post Company from publishing the Pentagon Papers, you believe that the entire Supreme Court (including Justice Douglas) should have been impeached for concluding that enjoining those corporations from publishing the Pentagon Papers violated the First Amendment rights of those companies.

[onenote]

205. delete

[Johnny Harpo]

139. A Seat On The High Court 'For Life' Is A Concept That Needs To Be Re-Examined

n/t

[AlbertCat]

146. Perhaps it's time to have "persons" declared "Corporations".

[cascadiance]

149. Yup, and then empty the prisons!

Since corporations can't go to prison. See how the "law and order" Republicans like that!

[AlbertCat]

188. Why not?

I'd like to see someone seriously argue that a person is indeed a corporation. I can hear it now: A person, science tell us, is a collection of inter-connected systems that work in harmony to keep the whole alive and well. If that's not "corporate", what is? The very word "corporation" comes from the word for "body". So individuals have the same rights a corporation. They can't outsource the pumping of blood, but they can outsource the matenence...to France or Canada... and pay what the going rate is there. What about subsidies and taxes? And every individual corporation/person is too big to fail.

Of course that's all absurd and I'd expect a judge to think so too. But if "person" as "corporation" is absurd, then how absurd is "corporation" as "person"? Can a person buy up another in a take over (legally?) Do you think of your children as satellite companies? Can you use one as a tax shelter? More absurd. Or at least as much. I ask the court! ...does a metaphor have rights?

[glinda]

151. Where is the Petition for Impeachment?

[tritsofme]

152. Maybe Kucinich can spearhead the movement.

That will really get your well thought out plan moving.

[Codeine]

157. .

:spray:

[zorahopkins]

156. Works For Me

This totally works for me.

IMPEACH the "Justices" that voted YES on this awful decision, and then remove them from the SC.

[winyanstaz]

158. This would redeem Obama in a lot of people's eyes...

"This ruling strikes at our democracy itself." = means the supreme court has committed treason against America.
Hell,...with this ruling..China or Osoma Bin Ladin (if he were alive) or even Russia could buy our Congress.

[Codeine]

159. That's not what "treason" means.

People throwing that term around don't seem to know the actual definition.

[winyanstaz]

191. To attack our democracy is not treason?

To betray their sacred oath? To turn on the people they are supposed to be protecting? Sorry...still sounds like treason to me.

[Codeine]

195. Then I recommend looking up the legal definition. nt

[cali]

202. could you be anymore vague? you do realize that the wingnuts

say exactly the same shit about liberal justices? your kind of thinking- and theirs- is dangerous.

[winyanstaz]

213. ok...how is this since you don't have the ability to look it up or understand the word itself.

"In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation.

Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petite treason).

A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "......citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the ."

In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavor"

When the Supreme court makes a ruling which enable anyone..including corporations AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS to BUY OUR CONGRESS AND MAKE OUR LAWS. That is treason.
When the Supreme court, which is supposed to be the last word in upholding the Constitution...THE contract by which we run our nation deliberately undermine the foundations of our Constitution and our government and knowingly and willingly FAILS to do their job...that is TREASON.

And when a citizen is too stupid to know when they are being betrayed...that is just sad.

[onenote]

214. wow, You not only are unfamiliar with the court opinion, but you haven't read the constitution

Here is how the Constitution (not a partial law dictionary definition pulled off of wikipedia) defines treason: Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. "
Your definition describes what is considered treason "in many countries." But the USA isn't one of them. Sorry.

And let me ask you this: do you think the ACLU, which filed a brief supporting the plaintiff, should be charged as an accessory to Treason? The ACLU brief expressly disclaimed addressing whether Austin should be overturned but was clear in its argument that McConnell should be overturned and further was quite clear in its view that a "corporate" entity such as the ACLU has First Amendment rights.

[winyanstaz]

220. I guess I do understand and have read the Constitution...

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I would say that they are waging a war against the states and they are adhering to our enemies ...giving them aid and comfort when they allow them to buy our Congress.

President Obama also seems to agree.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7556948

"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."

As to any Corporation...ACLU included being given the rights of a person...I say it is wrong and I am against it 100 percent.
Got that?
Now go bug someone else...I have made my position clear...you have made yours clear...and we obviously do not see eye to eye.
I can live with that.

[onenote]

232. suggesting that because Obama agrees that the court is guilty of treason is laughably crazy talk

David Swanson thinks so, but his argument is so horrifically flawed as to be laughable. Foreign corporations do not legally equal foreign enemies. A generalized ruling does not equal treason. Ten minutes in law school would teach someone that and even someone without formal legal training should be able to read the words of the Constitution and understand them.

As for bribery, I've asked before and I'll ask again-- where is Swanson's evidence, let alone proof, that any or all of the justices were 'bribed' to reach their decision? Were all of the other SCOTUS justices over the years that have restated the proposition that corporations have first amendment rights through the fourteenth amendment also bribed? That's a lot of bribery to have gone undetected over the decades.

[cali]

222. your ignorance is shocking. at least you have that excuse.

try reading the Constitution. It's in simple language. even someone as, er, limited in the intellectual fire power department, should be able to grasp this, sweetiepie:

THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF TREASON IS NOT THE FUCKING STANDARD FOR IMPEACHMENT.

your understanding of the issue is beyond pathetic.

[pleah]

165. K&R

[deaniac21]

170. You are really smart.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

171. K&R

:kick:

[glinda]

174. Somehow I don't think anything is going to happen and this makes me really sad..

[brooklynite]

176. Conviction after Impeachment requires 67 votes in the Senate

so even in the best of circumstances, there would be no successful conviction and the SC members would "win". Meanwhile, months of time would be spent not working on the economy, health care, etc.

[Land Shark]

200. kick n/t

[hulegu2]

201. Link to the Ruling

In the internet age, we can read originals sources of information. Here is the actual ruling: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Yes, corporations will be allowed to spend all the money they wish trying to elect people, but so can unions. The next federal election will be a novel one.

[cali]

203. Horribly irresponsible post from someone who should know better.

[arthritisR_US]

208. given the state of your banana republic I don't expect anything to be done. n/t

[Odin2005]

209. Treason it is. IMPEACH!!!

[LeftHander]

210. Create massive fees on a license and alter taxation of corps that spend

more than X numbers of dollars that is the average for a "PERSON".

i.e. if you average out the amount that all individuals spend on supporting campaigns then you cam make a law that says that the corporation that is considered a person cannot spend more than that.

[grahamhgreen]

216. How bout we PULL THE CORPORATE CHARTERS AND BREAK THEM UP?

[DatManFromNawlins]

217. You have a very fragile grasp of reality

The people you should be chastising are the four justices who disagreed with the majority. They clearly were trying to inject personal bias into a free speech issue.

The affect of the decision is unsavory. The decision itself was correct and based on precedent.

The solution isn't impeachment. Impeachment would be such a sham that it would utterly destroy the party. The solution, instead, is on the party to come up with legislation either to define corporations such that they are not persons or a constitutional amendment, either of which would be highly popular.

And if you don't trust them to do that, then what the hell did you vote them in for in the first place?

[cascadiance]

219. A court clerk's OPINION is NOT valid precedent, and I challenge YOU to give us reasons why!

The precedent was flawed, and unless you have a better means of correcting it, impeachment seems like a good avenue to pursue to try and correct this FLAWED look at "precedent" that isn't based in law NOR by stare decisis of decisions by actual JUDGES and not opinions of corrupt court clerks.

[DatManFromNawlins]

221. I will respond with a simple answer:

An internet message board is not a court of law and your opinion has no bearing on the fact that precedent has been acknowledged by far greater legal minds than anyone posting here. There are hundreds, if not, thousands of cases that have been tried which support what you are railing against.

You look every bit as foolish as the birthers. You don't even know what an impeachable offense for a Supreme Court justice is, and you really don't care either, so long as you think you can pull a fast one. They committed no treason, they committed no crime, and they were not bribed. All the arm waving and make believe you care to endure isn't going to change those facts.

You wanna see REAL public outrage? Let Congress try to push through the farce you're aiming for and you'll see how pissed off this country can REALLY get. The Democratic party will be reduced to absolute rubble, and will be relegated to a party for snobbish yuppie pricks in heavily populated coastal cities.

I can see it now: in 2012, a Republican gets elected to office, along with a huge number in the House and Senate for backlash over the BS impeachment hearings, the economy, health care, etc, etc. Stevens is an old man and retires, Scalia retires, and the president decides that since the Democrats wanted so badly to mitigate supposed abuses, he'll just add 2 more seats to the bench. Now you're stuck with a court of 11 justices, 8 of which are conservative, and with at least one of the liberal justices in bad health.

Or, you know, we could just cut through all the delusionary bullshit and demand that Congress and the President provide a balance to the court opinion with legislation and leadership.

[cali]

225. +1

[cascadiance]

228. Why do I feel like I'm talking to Republicans?

I'm not claiming to be a lawyer, nor is this a court of law, but I HAVE studied this subject, and I do know when something stinks. "Greater legal minds" I would argue aren't necessarily not CORRUPT!

Again! How do you KNOW they weren't bribed? How do you explain their actions that sets precedent for their rulings later to be overuled, if some court clerk writes a head note that counteracts their ruling like the one that is the basis for corporate personhood has been? If they weren't done favors to do something like this, why would they do it? You are NOT answering that question! You are just trying to rationalize that you are smart and others like me aren't. That won't fly until you provide an answer to that question.

Do you REALLY think that most Americans like corporations having unlimited power over us? Because sitting back and doing nothing, which you seem to be advocating is exactly that!

I don't think the Republicans got SMASHED for having impeached over something far more ridiculous like you claim the Democrats would be if they tried impeachment here! Now if you want to say that their impeachment of Clinton is less ridiculous than impeachment over this matter, then I would say you are ridiculous.

[vincna]

233. Clinton was impeached for perjury

That is a serious crime. Regardless of how bad the ruling was, the justices committed no crime. Sorry, but the arguments that the ruling is treasonous are simply ridiculous. Nawlins has it exactly right.

[cascadiance]

235. He committed perjury covering up WHAT crime?

It is arguable that Clinton didn't commit a crime lying about a personal secret, and NOT lying or withholding evidence of another investigated crime.

Those conducting that PERJURY TRAP were guilty of crimes of trying to use the grand jury process to CREATE a crime (perjury) instead of finding one, which they didn't find... Kenneth Starr and company should have been brought up on charges for conducting a perjury trap...

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/perjury.htm

[vincna]

236. The facts of Clinton's case speak for themselves

The point is that he was impeached for an actual crime, "perjury trap" not withstanding. To my knowledge, there is no exception in the law for personal secrets and the obligation to answer truthfully when under oath is absolute, even if the prosecutor is overstepping his power. Assuming that this "perjury trap" were shown to be prosecutorial misconduct, then I believe the only remedy is to appeal to the court and have the relevant testimony stricken or the conviction overturned, as appropriate. Lying under oath is not an option and doing so is a felony. I'd like to hear from a criminal attorney on this point.

The situation with the 5 Supreme Court justices is very different. They interpreted the law in a way that many here disagree with vehemently. The SCOTUS has made other terrible decisions (e.g. Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson) but they were not ciminal and were eventually overturned by a future court. The blather on DU about the decision being criminal is just that - blather. I haven't seen anyone cite sections of the US Code that apply. Have you?

[Crabby Appleton]

230. I agree completely. nt

[clear eye]

237. I guess the long delay before the ruling was to get Pelosi to agree not to impeach.

There was plenty of time for the Justices to negotiate w/ House leadership.

Because, as you say, the ruling was treasonous.

[clear eye]

238. The impeachable offense is not in the OP.

It is violation of the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. Issuing a ruling that permits foreign contributors to U.S. elections is a gross violation of that. If impeachment on those grounds were seriously attempted, it would be political suicide to maintain that it isn't.