highplainsdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:14 PM
Original message |
Could today's SCOTUS ruling become grounds for impeaching those five Justices? |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 11:18 PM by highplainsdem
I hope some House members and lawyers are already looking at this possibility.
|
proud patriot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:15 PM
Response to Original message |
tonysam
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:15 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I doubt there are enough votes in the Senate to remove them. |
|
This decision is less "corporate" than it is to create a one-party country, a Republican Party country.
There will be NO Democratic Party anymore after this.
|
scheming daemons
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:15 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Good luck getting 67 Senators to vote for removal |
|
You think ANY Republican senators will do so?
Keep dreaming...
|
tekisui
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:15 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The better approach is to get Congress to pass laws that exclude corporations as persons.
|
Codeine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:16 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Not a High Crime or a Misdemeanor.
can't impeach them just because we think they made a bad decision.
|
tammywammy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
anonymous171
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
16. It's called investigation. Dig up some dirt on them |
|
If we embarrass/scare them enough they will never do something like this again.
|
Codeine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
anonymous171
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
24. Of course it isn't. That's why it could work. nt |
bemildred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:16 PM
Response to Original message |
6. The Congress can impeach pretty much anyone for pretty much anything. |
|
As long as they are government officials.
|
ManiacJoe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
bemildred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
13. Well, they impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job? nt |
Codeine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
They had at least a figleaf of legality there.
|
bemildred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
25. Anything the Congress says is a crime, is a crime. |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 11:33 PM by bemildred
The Congress is sovereign.
|
ManiacJoe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
|
You need to go find your old civics text book....
|
bemildred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
32. Yeah, actually, they make law. that is what they do. nt |
bemildred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
33. If the Congress impeached and convicted 5 USSC justices, |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 11:49 PM by bemildred
removing them from office, for any reason, who could reverse that decision?
|
Codeine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
The Constitution allows for impeaching a SC Justice for High Crimes and Misdemeanors (another phrase is used, but it has been legally interpreted to mean the same thing), not for "pretty much anything."
|
bemildred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
22. And that is pretty much anything the Congress says it is. |
|
There is NO judicial review, the Congress is sovereign.
|
harkadog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
35. Please brush up on the Constitution |
bemildred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #35 |
36. Could you be more specific? nt |
harkadog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #36 |
|
Congress is not sovereign and can't label a crime "anything it says". Three equal branches. At least that's what my copy says.
|
bemildred
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #38 |
40. Could you quote the particular passages that say that? |
|
I don't see that in mine.
|
harkadog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #40 |
44. No you said Congress was sovereign |
|
Where is that in Constitution? You quote that passage. Articles I, II, and III describe the relationship between the three equal branches but I'm sure you know that and are just playing an internet game. Now go play outside.
|
The Velveteen Ocelot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:20 PM
Response to Original message |
|
There have been some very bad decisions before -- Dred Scott, Buckley v. Valeo, Bush v. Gore, to name a few -- and the only recourse is appointing new justices and overturning the case, or enacting legislation that fixes the problem but still complies with the Court's interpretation of the Constitution. A badly-reasoned decision isn't grounds for impeachment of a Justice.
|
Hugabear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:22 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Ha. You assume that many in Congress would want to impeach them. |
|
I'm sure that many in Congress - in both parties - will have no problem with giant corporations spending billions of dollars to help get them re-elected.
|
SammyWinstonJack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
18. Sure beats having to walk among the masses campaigning/begging for $$. |
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:24 PM
Response to Original message |
11. IMPEACH or RECALL . . . ?? Whatever . . . |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 11:24 PM by defendandprotect
Keep in mind you have Joe Biden to thank for Clarence Thomas being on the
Court -- !!
|
Codeine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
19. No reason to impeach. |
|
No provision for recall.
The SC should be free to make decisions without fear of repurcussions; this is why we got landmark decisions in the Civil Rights era.
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
23. Nonsense . . . this decision LIMITS the rights of citizens .....no decision |
|
should ever be permitted to do that --
You can always EXPAND citizens' rights, but not NARROW them . . .
|
Codeine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
28. And that qualifies as a High Crime or Misdemeanor |
|
how? :shrug: I mean, it's a stupid fucking decision, but that's not a crime.
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
30. Fascism is crime . . . |
anonymous171
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
29. That's why there needs to be some kind of investigation |
|
If they have not committed any impeachable offenses, then at least we can air their dirty laundry.
|
FarCenter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:24 PM
Response to Original message |
12. A majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate vote against allowing corps to give them money? |
|
in great, big, unlimited amounts?
Surely you jest!!!!
|
Smarmie Doofus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
FourScore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
41. Actually , the congress and senate should feel quite threatened. |
|
Corporations can easily replace them now with their own hand-picked candidates.
|
anonymous171
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:26 PM
Response to Original message |
14. It is definitely worth looking into. A Congressional Investigation would be nice |
highplainsdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
21. It would be a way to keep pressure and the media spotlight on them. |
|
And officials have resigned during such investigations...
|
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
26. Let's start the investigation with the 2000 decision -- !!! |
highplainsdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 11:49 PM
Response to Original message |
34. Roberts and Alito stated under oath that they would uphold previous Supreme Court rulings, according |
jillan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #34 |
39. Yep - they said that they would not legislate from the bench like those gosh darn libruls. |
|
Seriously - that's all we heard during the bsh administration....having justices that would not legislate from the bench.
|
vincna
(282 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 12:26 AM
Response to Original message |
37. Unrec'd for being completely asinine - nt |
MilesColtrane
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 01:53 AM
Response to Original message |
totodeinhere
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 02:00 AM
Response to Original message |
43. It will never happen. |
|
They would need Republican votes in the Senate. Hell, they can't even get good health care reform through the Senate and you think they are going to impeach some SC justices? Dream on.
|
melm00se
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 11:36 AM
Response to Original message |
45. You don' like the decision |
|
so they should be run out of town on a rail huh?
the law and Constitution be damned, right?
|
ctaylors6
(362 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-22-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message |
46. I think the ACLU's support of Citizen's United |
|
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 11:54 AM by ctaylors6
along with similar support would rule out any chance of that. ACLU's brief was completely in line with CU, of course, but still. I think any kind of impeachment talk would a non-starter. http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:31 PM
Response to Original message |