Can we impeach five Supreme Court justices?

[Cyrano]

It’s highly unlikely to happen, but here’s why I believe it should.

They all swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And all five of them, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia, have (IMO), done everything in their power, multiple times, to shred the Constitution. Isn’t that an impeachable offense?

The latest “shredding” that took place was the decision that grants “personhood” to corporations. You’d have to be insane to not grasp how insane that is. (The last time something this insane happened is when five justices appointed Bush to the Oval Office.)

I won’t enumerate the various decisions in which each of the current justices has betrayed their oaths which, in my opinion, makes them eligible for impeachment.

I’m not a lawyer and I can’t sit in judgement on “an opinion” as opposed to a vile attempt to subvert the Constitution and undermine our freedoms.

But many of you here on DU are lawyers. Perhaps you can explain why you believe these five should, or should not, be impeached.

[NoPasaran]

1. Short answer: No

[Vincardog]

2. Short answer YES. But getting the Senate to convict may be tough

[michreject]

3. Not again

:popcorn:

[Cyrano]

25. Sorry that discussions about our basic freedoms bore you.

[T Wolf]

4. I say, offer them free rides in a Toyota. Problem solved. nt

[Snotcicles]

5. Maybe not, but Obama could add some. nt

[cali]

11. no, sorry. he couldn't. it would take congressional action to enlarge the court.

[Snotcicles]

23. They would have to confirm. nt

[cali]

26. nope. still wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937

[Snotcicles]

28. Yeah guess I was just wishful thinking.nt

[Hippo_Tron]

70. FDR tried that one

The Senate (rightfully) said "absolutely not Mr. President". A good example of checks and balances at work.

[Posteritatis]

94. Wouldn't that set a wonderful, non-abusable precedent. (nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. An impeachable offence is whatever the House says is an impeachable offence

But the practical reality of the matter is that the is virtually zero support in the House to do so.

[Cyrano]

27. Well, you're right about this House. Odd that a different house found

a blow job an impeachable offense.

It seems that Dems and Repubs live in parallel universes and "never the twain shall meet."

[Posteritatis]

98. For this House that means cannibalism on the House floor *might* qualify. (nt)

[igfoth]

7. Yes they can be

but won't happen.

If they won't go after the War Criminals Bush and Cheney where the evidence is overwhelming then they are not going to go after 5 partisan hacks on the SCOTUS.

[louis-t]

8. Corperations were granted personhood in the 1880's

This decision just removed any restrictions on how much corporate 'people' can spend on elections.

[Hawkeye-X]

15. They were never granted personhood. You can thank the fuckhead clerk

who inserted a memo in the 1890's that said so.

People are still using the memo as gospel.

[avaistheone1]

16. You are correct.

It was only a memo that a clerk inserted.

[cali]

9. no, and I don't think we should.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems clear to me that impeaching justices for what we believe are wrongly decided cases, is a bad idea.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. I honestly believe that the decision opens up Amercian elections

to manipulation by foreign corporations and foreign government owned corporations.

The majority ruled the way they did even after that was brough up as a prudent reason to limit the amount of paid "free speech".

I hate to throw around words like "treason" because they are tossed around so lightly nowadays, but I think that the decision itself is treasonous, since it degrades the sovereignity of the nation. I don't know what you do with something like that. I think the judges who made a decision that is prima facie wrong for the safety and security of the country need to be questioned and possibly impeached for malfeasance.

[Demeter]

12. Yes, We Can, But Will We?

That remains to be seen. And I would think there were enough people in the Senate who DIDN'T EVER vote for these creeps who would gladly kick them out for new and hopefully saner blood.

[Hawkeye-X]

13. Yes, the justices have commmitted treason against the people of the United States

and therefore impeachable.

I'm still waiting for Pelosi to introduce the legislation to begin the impeachment process.

[Cyrano]

22. I too believe they have committed treason. And I also believe that

impeaching even one of them would be a political impossibility given the Republican dominance of the media and their vast echo chamber that will repeat the same lies over, and over, and over, ad infinitum.

Republican control of the message can only be making Josef Goebbels chuckle in his grave.

[Rebubula]

29. Treason

You keep using that word...I do not think that it means what you think that it means.

Many times, hyperbole is NOT your friend and this is one of those cases. There may be a case to remove Justices from time to time, but what this court has done certainly does NOT rise to the level of treason no matter how many times you proffer the idea.

[Cyrano]

32. I'm not about to post the differing definitions of the term "treason."

Anyone interested can look it up on line or in different print dictionaries.

So I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[onenote]

42. Then I'll do you a favor and post the only relevant definition of treason in the US

That would be the one specifically found in the Constitution. You support the Constitution, right?

Its in Art III, Sec 3 and it is very short and narrow in scope: "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 upon confession in open court."

That's it. And as much hyperbole as you might want to throw around, the decision(s) of this Supreme Court do not "consist" of levying war against the United States nor does it consist of adhering to the nation's enemies by giving them aid and comfort.

No serious constitutional scholar would conclude that the Treason clause of the Constitution would be applicable to a decision of the Supreme Court. Not even to the Korematsu decision which upheld FDR's order to inter US citizens in camps during WWII without trial or anything approaching due process of law -- an action repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution as any I can imagine.

[Cyrano]

45. And what if a corporation of a foreign state, that some consider to

be our enemy, decides to make political contributions during our elections? It's very difficult these days to identify an "American" corporation from a "foreign" one when they all keep their assets in offshore banks.

Would some "foreign" corporation donating large sums of money to an American presidential election be considered treason under Art. III, Sec. 3?

Without going too far off the deep end here, it seems to me that a "Manchurian Candidate" scenario becomes a possibility through the decision renedered by this court.

[onenote]

48. what if?

Foreign corporations are not "enemies" of the US. They aren't levying war against the US. Maybe some jingoistic crazies think so, but they are no more enemies of the US than immigrants who come here for a better life but are reviled by some who consider them "enemies."

[Cyrano]

65. What about the corporation we call "Saudi Arabia?"

Yeah, I know that there's no "corporation" called Saudi Arabia, but what reasonable person can doubt that they are an entity that has most of the oil reserves in the world? And whether or not they're called a corporation, one can only wonder why George W. Bush can (literally) stroll hand in hand with one of their pooh bahs?

Most of those who flew planes into the WTC were Saudis. Yet, does anyone doubt that Saudis will be donating to our next Republican Presidential candidate.

The Bush Family has ensured that the Saudis were not declared "Enemies of the United States," while labeling Iraq as "Enemies of the United States." You really don't need a grade school diploma to figure out which of these two countries are our enemy.

So let me say that this "jingoist" considers Saudi Arabia to be among one of the most egregious, dangerous enemies the United States has ever had.

And whether or not you want to label them a "corporation" is meaningless.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. Don't hold your breath.

[Emit]

14. That's what this group is trying to do

Via Email:


The Supreme Court 5 And Their Magic Fact Appearing Cabinet, Because Only The People Speaking Out Can Reverse The Dreadful Corporate Personhood Decision

This is the third in our series of lambasts against the various
multitude of gross errors in the ruling by the Supreme Court 5
(Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia & Thomas) to turn corporations into
super citizens. The first alert addressed their constructive treason
in expressly empowering foreign corporations to speak in our
elections, the second vivisected their haste and derelict abandonment
of all prudent procedure.

Be sure to submit the two action pages on this issue from which we
are just starting to build the movement and political will to
repudiate the rogue Supreme Court 5.

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

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

And if you have a web page of your own, please get the simple code
from one of the pages above to place a button to help us give away
bumper stickers to protest this hideous injustice.

This third installment will demonstrate their ad hoc prestidigitation
of findings of fact on which to ground the opinion. Again we will
reference specific page citations to the actual opinion, together
with our review of all the legal filings in this case, including the
so-called "amicus" (friend of the court) third parties, and the
transcript of the oral argument, itself telling in many ways.

We had already pointed out that Kennedy, writing for a skin's teeth
of a majority, plowed ahead without sending the case back down to the
lower court for the development of a factual record on the issue THEY
wanted to rule on (in a predetermined and unprecedented way as it
turns out). Instead he conjured facts out of thin hot air to justify
his holding, and we will have to play detective somewhat to figure
out where this factual garbage even came from.

Critical to Kennedy's justification for why corporations should for
the first time be awarded the right to spend unlimited amounts of
money to tilt the tables of our elections was the finding, as a
matter of fact, that existing PAC (political action committee)
alternatives were too BURDENSOME and suppressive of this magical new
corporation free speech right to drown out the voice of actual
citizens in our elections. (opinion pp. 21-22).

And as support this sweeping and totalitarian assertion of factual
reality, what source does Kennedy lean on?? Why, little more than his
OWN DISSENT in the one of very Supreme Court cases (McConnell) this
opinion revisits and overrules (so much for respect for stare
decisis), where HE made that assertion in DEFIANCE of the majority
ruling in that case. Again here, he just recites his personal grudge
list of the cruel and unusual (in his opinion) filing requirements
for PACs, absent any determination by any trier of fact (besides his
absolute self) that these requirements are per se onerous.

Oh, but it gets worse. For you see, no actual party to this
litigation made any such factual claim that we can find in the record
on appeal. Instead, in this part of the opinion Kennedy is just
essentially regurgitating verbatim the ARGUMENTS of one of the THIRD
PARTY amicus briefs!! (opinion p. 22) What he did here was take the
assertions of a non-party in a tangential filing, the ONLY one to
make such arguments, totally after the fact of anything tried in the
actual case, and he elevated those arguments to the pedestal status
of a complete factual record from the court below.

How much more offensive to any sense of judicial fair play could it
possibly get? The point of a TRIAL is to take testimony, to try
factual assertions in the crucible of a fact finding court, to have a
judge determine based on a full and fair record what facts are to be
given weight, with both parties given an opportunity to present any
relevant evidence. But in our new Supreme Court of the Five
Kangaroos, they can sit as judge, jury and executioner of all facts
without any such procedural fairness, and based on their OWN
prejudicial predetermination.

To her credit, in oral argument Justice Sotomayor attempted to
address the fact that the Court appeared to be bent on proceeding in
the absence of an adequate factual record on the issue it purportedly
was to decide (oral argument p 25, lines 12-22). Here was attorney
Ted Olsen's response to her question.

"It is the government has the burden to prove the record that
justifies telling someone that wants to make a 90-minute documentary
about a candidate for president that they will go to jail if they
broadcast it. The government has the obligation and the government
had a long legislative record and plenty of opportunity to produce
that record and it's their obligation to do so." (oral argument p.
25, line 25 - p. 26, line 7, and please take careful note of Olsen's
unbelievably snaky reference to a "legislative" record, as contrasted
with a FACTUAL record by trial in a lower court, and his inflammatory
use of the word "jail").

Where did this guy get his law license ... out of a cereal box??

In the first place, the government was not the "plaintiff" (the one
bringing the case) here. The government was not prosecuting a case
here to put anybody in jail. The plaintiff in this case was so-called
Citizens United, both on appeal and in the court below. In our system
of justice the plaintiff is ALWAYS the one with the burden of proof,
and where, as here, they ABANDONED the issue that the Supreme Court 5
raised from the dead by a wave of their unilateral godlike hand,
there was NO requirement for the government to make a case to the
contrary. Indeed, on the issues that WERE tried below, the government
DID develop whatever factual record was necessary to win, even by the
biased standards of this Supreme Court (opinion p. 10).

What kind of dishonest advocate would try to throw the obligation of
proof back on the defendant so long after the fact of an issue
waived?

And what kind of dishonest Supreme Court would try to pass off as
justice such a short shrift of a factual record? Kennedy asserts in
the opinion that it's really all OK because in one of the stare
decisis cases (which they are REVERSING) there was a record of
100,000 pages on roughly the same issue (opinion p. 15), so they can
rely on that, totally disregarding that THAT case ruled AGAINST
Kennedy's zombie proposition. What has changed? Nothing has changed
but an additional right wing drop kick ideologue on the court to vote
to take the SAME facts and arrive at the diametrically contrary
result many years later. 100,000 pages of record that went the other
way against a new record in this case of ZERO pages. Some record!

It just so happens that Anthony M. Kennedy is the LAST person who
should ever be allowed to make a finding of a fact about anything in
the real world, let alone from the bench of the Supreme Court.
Consider this pearl of cave dwelling mentality from his mouth in the
oral argument, in defense of the admittedly ad hominem corporate hit
piece about Hillary Clinton in this case.

"But, No. 1, the phenomenon of -- of television ads where we get
information about scientific discovery and -- and environment and
transportation issues from corporations who after all have patents
because they know something, that -- that is different." (oral
argument, p. 73, lines 5-10)

Oh sure, that's what corporations do all day long with their TV ads,
finance educational and enlightening public service announcements.
You mean like all those ads from defense contractors pitching their
new missile system as being people friendly? If any court ever needed
a factual record to tell them what is actually going on out here in
the real world it surely must be this one.

But alas, at this point this alert is already quite long, and we have
still only scratched the surface of the totally bogus findings of
purported fact on which this outrageously heinous decision was based.
So we will have to keep you in suspense until the next installment of
the analysis of this shameful decision in ... the ongoing and tragic
Saga of the Outlaw Supreme Court 5.

Bumper Stickers Shipping Today!!

We have all the labels printed for the many thousands of you who have
already requested your "Corporations Are NOT The People" bumper
stickers and your "Impeach The Supreme Court 5" bumper stickers
protesting the Supreme Court decision, and will be shipping all of
those in the next day or so by first class mail. Otherwise, please
get your request in from this page so we can all demonstrate our
opposition together.

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

You can have your choice of either action bumper sticker for no
charge, not even shipping. If you want both at the same time please
make a donation of any amount, and especially please make a donation
if you CAN, because this is what allows us to send free bumper
stickers to anyone who cannot make a donation right now.

And again, be sure to submit the two action pages on this issue from
which we are just starting to build the movement and political will
to repudiate the rogue Supreme Court 5, comprising Roberts, Alito,
Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.

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

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

Facebook participants can also submit the ALTERNATE action pages at

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

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

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

@cxs #p1029

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

@cxs #p1030

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

21. great post!

[howaboutme]

51. I agree

I'll have to bookmark those links.

[Sebastian Doyle]

17. Roberts and Alito should be impeached because their appointments were not legal

Since Chimp was never elected, he had no constitutional authority to appoint judges. Which brings us back to Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy, who all were part of the Florida Fraud in 2000. That's why they should be impeached, and why Billy Rehnquist will spend the rest of eternity spinning on a rotisserie in Hell.

[cali]

18. denial of the fact that he was president

is pointless. their appointments were indeed legal- much as I regret that they sit on the court.

[Romulox]

20. Ironically enough, THAT would not be a Constitutional basis for Impeachment...

Impeachment turns on the behavior of the official, not the process that seated him...

[Romulox]

19. It'd be easier to appoint 5 more. nt

[TexasObserver]

75. True. That's the approach I favor.

Double the court size. Minimize the votes by the five GOP fascists. Pack the court with liberals and let them go to work.

Double the size of the federal judiciary, too, and fill all those seats. How long will it be until we have the executive and both houses with large majorities again? I say go all-in this year, double the judiciary, and make sure the Obama administration leaves a real legacy no matter what else happens. The impact such a slew of judges could have on gay rights, women's rights, and corporate excess would be substantial.

[spanone]

24. shit, 'we' couldn't even question a president who started a WAR because he wanted to.

[onenote]

30. no. at least not until they do something that the public thinks is impeachable

which isn't the case today.

[harkadog]

31. The decision did not grant "person hood" to corporations.

That issue was settled over 120 years ago. Yes I know the clerk's memo but the point is that it became part of the decision -- and agreed to by the justices at the time -- and is now settled law. If corporations didn't have person hood you couldn't sue them in court. You would have to sue all of their employees individually as well as their shareholders. Potentially millions of people. It would be ridiculous.

[Cyrano]

34. I think we're arguing semantics here.

Assuming they did not grant personhood to corporations, what is it you believe they did?

[NoNothing]

35. They extended First Amendment rights to corporations

But not because they are live persons, but because the First Amendment is not limited specifically to "live persons."

[Cyrano]

38. Okay. I can't disagree. But then shouldn't we amend the words

"We the People ..."

[DatManFromNawlins]

87. But they didn't extend anything

The First Amendment itself is explicit on this matter:

"Congress shall make no law."

All they did was clarify that what was written in the Constitution is simply as clear as it reads.

People are getting all bent out of shape when there is a perfectly logical solution to the issue: another constitutional amendment.

Have we ever, in this nation's history, gone so long without one?

[harkadog]

36. They removed some -- not all --restrictions on corporations

labor unions, groups like the NRA and the ACLU, --to issue ads and the like concerning candidates. Previously these groups had a 30 day window before elections where they could not do that. Corporations and unions still can't contribute directly to candidates. That has been the law for about 100 years and it has not been changed.

[onenote]

47. the flaw in the SCOTUS ruling wasnt that it recognized the first amendment rights of corporations

That corporations are protected by the first amendment is not controversial -- even the dissenters in Citizens United acknowledged that no one seriously contends otherwise. The problem is that the court wrongly concluded that, in the context of political speech, corporations shouldn't be distinguished from natural persons. That is a bonehead ruling because the rights granted under the first amendment are not absolute, even as to natural persons. And the courts have long distinguished between different types of speakers in how (not whether) the first amendment applies to them. Prisoners are treated differently than non-prisoners; minors differently from adults; etc. Heck, even corporate entities heretofore have been distinguished from one another when it comes to the application of the first amendment -- if you are a radio or television broadcaster, you can't utter the word fuck because, even though its not obscene, it is deemed to be "indecent" and its been held that notwithstanding the first amendment, which applies to radio and television stations in some measure, indecent speech can be regulated on the broadcast medium On the other hand, if you are a corporate entity that publishes books or magazines or operates a satellite or cable service, you can publish (or transmit) the word fuck to your heart's content. Its not obscene. DU is operated by a corporate entity. But Skinner doesn't have to censor the language used here. But you couldn't go on broadcast television or radio and read some of the posts from DU, including this one.

The court, straining to reach a particular result, ignored the history of line drawing that marks first amendment jurisprudence. That was what was wrong with the decision.

[LLStarks]

33. History says "no". Hasn't been done since 1804.

Chase was impeached.

Taney was almost impeached.

[Cyrano]

37. I believe that political reality also says "no."

If the Dems tried to throw these five barbarians off the court, the price would be that we'd never see another Dem elected to congress for decades.

This would not be because they were wrong. It would be because of the tremendous power of the Republican propaganda machine and their well-developed echo chamber. A majority of the American public will buy whatever shit is sold to them, as long as it's repeated often enough and long enough.

[kctim]

39. Impeach them

for disagreeing with your opinion?
If that was all it took, you would be needing to impeach and replace nine, not just five.

[Cyrano]

40. Ummm, I could be wrong, but I don't think they're disagreeing with

just my opinion.

Then again, It's possible that I'm the only person in the United States who thinks these five justices have run amok and are totally nuts.

[NoNothing]

43. He's pointing out that

On the issue of whether corporations have consitutional rights, the Court agreed unanimously that they do. They only disagreed on whether the harms of the regulation to the First Amendment were outweighed by the harms that the regulation sought to address.

[kctim]

46. And other justices did not disagree

with just one righty's opinion either and he also was not the only person in the US who thought they were running amok and totally nuts.

The point is that you cannot impeach just because some with extreme views are mad because the ruling did not favor their extreme view, opinion and interpretation. You have to have majority support and the facts on your side.

[ddeclue]

41. NO - stop wasting time and bandwidth on the intertubes on this silliness.

[Swamp Rat]

44. Supreme Court justices CAN be impeached, so it is not "silly".

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_Supreme_Court_justice_be_impeached_and_removed_from_office

Under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice is awarded a lifetime commission.

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Article I and II of the Constitution.

Section 1 of Article III states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness the 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses.

In addition, any federal judge may prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.

In the United States, impeachment is most often used to remove corrupt lower-court federal judges from office, but it's not unusual to find disgruntled special interest groups circulating petitions on the internet calling for the impeachment of one or all members of the High Court.

The Impeachment Process

Impeachment is a two-step process; the impeachment phase is similar to a Grand Jury hearing, where charges (called "articles of impeachment") are presented and the House of Representatives determines whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a trial. If the House vote passes by a simple majority, the defendant is "impeached," and proceeds to trial in the Senate.

The Senate trial, while analogous to a criminal trial, only convenes for the purpose of determining whether a Justice (or other officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment.

At the trial a committee from the House of Representatives, called "Managers," act as the prosecutor, and an "Impeachment Trial Committee" of Senators act as the presiding judges. This procedure came into practice in the 1980s, with the passage of Senate Rule XII, and has been contested by several federal court judges, but the Supreme Court has declined to interfere in the process, calling the issue a political, not legal, matter. At the conclusion of the trial, the full Senate votes and must return a two-thirds Super Majority for conviction. Convicted officials are removed from office immediately and barred from holding future office.

Impeachment and Near Impeachment

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

In 1957, at the height of McCarthyism, the Georgia General Assembly passed a joint resolution calling for "The Impeachment of Certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices" believed to be enabling Communism with their decisions. The resolution targeted Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom Campbell Clark, Felix Frankfurter, and Stanley Forman Reed (as well as several unnamed deceased Justices) for "... the congressional power to make law in violation of Article I, Sections I and 8, and violated Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment and nullified the 10th Amendment of the Constitution."

[Cyrano]

49. Thanks for some valuable facts, Swap Rat.

My OP was a "what if" type post. I fully understand that there's no way that any congress is going to impeach five Supreme Court justices. (Then again, if there were five Dems on the court and a Repub majority in congress, who knows?)

Nonetheless, some of the responses here have been interesting. I really do wish we could scrap the Scalias and Alitos of the world, but it just ain't gonna happen.

[Swamp Rat]

52. It is very likely they will not be impeached, but it is good to discuss the possibility.

That is one of the purposes of this website.

There are plenty of other, inane topics that can be criticized, or 'shut down', which is a better expense of energy.

[onenote]

56. it actually is essentially certain that they will not be impeached and its a waste of time

to discuss it. A better use of time and creative thinking would be in the pursuit of ideas for overturning or getting around the decision.

Or to put it another way, I'd be willing to bet my life that no scotus justice is impeached over this ruling (let alone five).

[Swamp Rat]

66. Your opinion is wrong.

:D

[howaboutme]

53. Media benefits - so you won't hear much against it.

I haven't heard much about this decision from the media. Could it be because they are the biggest beneficiary? The unlimited dollars that this will pour into all media will certainly cause them to think twice to help reverse it.

The corporate media today has become more about enabling their special interests and politicians than as the protector of our rights and the 4th estate.

[ddeclue]

58. and I CAN win the PowerBall too.. actually that's more realistic..so YES it IS SILLY.

[Swamp Rat]

67. And your opinion is wrong too.

:)

[jgraz]

55. As opposed to the unending significant and purposeful work that usually takes place online?

Gee, I think our 2k worth of text might have slowed someone's donkey-porn download by 7 or 8 nanoseconds. :eyes:

[howaboutme]

50. I agree the issue needs debated

But why would we expect a Democratic Congress that didn't have the leadership guts to impeach Bush and Cheney, to actually take an aggressive approach or action against any individual or branch of government regardless of what they've done?

"No guts no glory" and that is at the crux of what is wrong with Democratic leadership. They all believe if they cater to the right and don't rock the boat that they'll be liked and then get reelected. Poor Nancy P. - I can still hear her whining about the need to take impeachment off the table and look to the future.

She and Hoyer forget that if you don't hold accountable those (especially pols) that do wrong, the past will be repeated again and again.

[jgraz]

54. We can also appoint MORE Supremes

There's no constitutional limit on the number of justices the court may hold. You just need a simple majority vote in Congress to change the numbers, then you can appoint however many Congress allows.

Nuclear option, appoint 5 more justices: instant liberal (well, centrist) majority.

[onenote]

57. almost as politically unlikely as impeachment

It is not without reason that there is a saying that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[jgraz]

59. Key word: "almost"

I doubt it will happen, but this could be done without incurring the problems that FDR ran into. Of course, it would take Dems with spine and a different President -- but it could be done.

[onenote]

61. I'm interested in how it could be done without running into the problems that FDR ran into

Keep in mind (a) FDR tried to rationalize his plan by claiming that he had not gotten a chance to nominate a SCOTUS justice during his entire first term; (b) he waited to introduce the plan until after being reelected; (c) the Democrats had a huge majority in the Senate (76-16 with four third party/independent senators most of whom were supportive of FDR's agenda), yet his plan lost in the Senate by a 70/20 margin.

Those are the facts. I am open to hearing how you think the size of the SCOTUS (unchanged since the mid 19th century) could be increased today without the problems that FDR ran into. Keep in mind, of course, that anyone trying to change the size of the court today would have one problem FDR couldn't have had -- the historical fact that FDR tried it and failed.

[jgraz]

62. Here's how you do it

You have Republican majorities in the House and Senate and a Republican President. Then, you have a liberal court overturn the Hyde Amendment on a 5-4 vote. You'll get an extra couple of justices within a week.

In other words, this could be done today if the Democrats played hardball like the Republicans do.

[Swamp Rat]

69. Now we're cookin'!

:thumbsup:

I sure am glad you aren't wasting energy in the opposite direction. Maybe we can get all our friends here onboard? :shrug:

[jgraz]

73. Well, most people use the topic as an excuse to show they read the Wikipedia entry on FDR

Of course, the Republicans don't care about history.

[Swamp Rat]

76. Exactly. My time is precious, but I will always spare the time to investigate how to stop the GOP.

It is WAY past time to play hardball, including looking into any (reasonable and legal) means to stop them.

If one idea does not work, then move on to the next.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. It was a bad idea when FDR tried it and it is a bad idea now

[Posteritatis]

95. And a few years down the road they can appoint seven more Republican ones!

What could possibly go wrong?

[jgraz]

101. If the Dems grew spines, went hard populist/left and started playing hardball

we'd never see another Repuke majority in our lifetimes.

[Posteritatis]

105. Bull. (nt)

[jgraz]

106. Your stellar reasoning has conclusively destroyed my argument

:eyes:

[guardian]

60. In theory-yes. In practice-no. n/t

[BreweryYardRat]

63. Maybe if we shut down the right-wing/corporate noise machine first.

Otherwise, fugeddaboutit.

[B Calm]

64. There's no reason why we can't appoint two more Justices to offset

the 5 to 4 bullshit!

[Swamp Rat]

68. It's been done before.

;)

[onenote]

81. the last time the court changed in size was 1869

and that made the court smaller.

In the first few decades of the nation's history, as the country grew geographically and there was need for more circuits, the size of the Supreme Court grew. Its not going to change now as much as you might to believe it has a chance of happening.

[B Calm]

89. But, legally we can do it!

[onenote]

90. true. and legally we can amend the constitution

Both would be heavy lifts. And if there is the political will to do both, its probably less risky to amend the constitution than to set the precedent of impeaching justices because of the outcome of a particular case.

[Swamp Rat]

92. It might have happened in 1937, but an old justice died, so FDR was able to replace him

Whether I "believe" anything will happen one way or another is irrelevant.

[Posteritatis]

97. Actually there's any number of reasons why you can't. (nt)

[TexasObserver]

72. Yes! All it takes is the House voting Articles of Impeachment.

They are the sole judges of what constitutes an impeachable offense.

The senators are the sole judges of what consitutes sufficient cause for removal.

Removal is the only punishment or remedy for the impeachment proceeding. It is not a criminal proceeding. It does not come under the judiciary, as it is a political, not a legal, matter.

[earth mom]

74. If there was REAL justice in this country the five Supreme Court justices would be impeached.

But there is NO real justice in this country any more.

Not since * stole the election in 2000.

And the deal was sealed when Pelosi took Impeachment off the table in 2006.

[onenote]

82. if your definition of real justice is impeaching justices who make bad decisions

then there has never been real justice in this country.

Unless of course you believe that no Supreme Court until now has ever made a bad decision.

By the way, if the decision had come out 5-4 the other way, would you still think that "real justice" demanded impeachment of the dissenters? Should the dissenters in every case be impeached or just those in cases you feel strongly about?

[earth mom]

86. Are you actually defending that the Supreme Court just gave corporations

the ok to buy any and everyone in Congress and the White House? :wtf:

[onenote]

88. not at all. it was a extremely bad decision as Stevens dissent convincingly shows

but bad decisions aren't grounds for impeachment. If they were, there would be nothing but nonstop impeachment proceedings and the concept of an indpendent judiciary, tarnished as it may seem, would be utterly lost.

[earth mom]

91. WTH-Nonstop Impeachment?! Those jerks in Congress are afraid to Impeach anyone because

they know for damn sure that the Impeachment finger could easily land on them too.

So they do NOTHING to save their own asses.

[apocalypsehow]

77. Littered throughout this quixotic OP of yours is the accusation of "treason" by repliers. "Treason"

defined as, as best any reasonable person can determine, "they voted the way I didn't like on a court case before them."

Joe McCarthy smiles from the grave: his "treason" meme when it comes to mere political/ideological/judicial disagreement has survived not just his physical existence, it has been picked up by those he once employed it against the most, the hated "liberals."

And polluted them with his stench, in the so doing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. Well said.

[1]

80. +1. and check me if i am wrong, sandy... but...

this court of last resort rules on laws.

if the citizens united case couldn't pass judicial muster, then all our representatives have to do is understand the weakness in the citizens united case and pass whatever law necessary to resolve the problem.

why is everyone's panties in a bunch? scotus told you what the legal issue is.

fix it...

[chrisa]

83. People here also fail to see the precedent it would set.

Impeaching 5 judges, and putting in 5 replacements of a different ideology is a horrible idea, because it would be open season on the Supreme Court for Conservatives being elected in the future.

[Posteritatis]

96. The word really has been diluted to a terrifying pointlessness, hasn't it? (nt)

[mmonk]

84. Not we, it would take "our" representatives to do so.

[zoff]

85. They won't impeach.

Simply because it benefits politicians of all stripes and abominations.

[alfredo]

93. What if they committed perjury during their confirmation hearing?

[FLDCVADem]

99. How did they commit perjury during their confirmation hearings? n/t

[alfredo]

100. It's illegal to lie to congress

Title 18, Chapter 47, Section 1001 of the U.S. Code.

"whoever willfully (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress shall be fined or imprisoned

[FLDCVADem]

103. And I'll ask again - what did they lie about?

[alfredo]

107. Note : What if. I'm asking, not saying they lied.

[alfredo]

108. Why should I say what they may have lied about, that is for

anybody that thinks they should be impeached for lying to congress. I'm saying, if they lied there is a penalty under US law.

[RedCloud]

102. Just declare them to be sentences (U R what U write). Then erase them,

[deaniac21]

104. What you mean we, kemosabe?