IMPEACH: Scalia and Thomas attended Koch Bros' secret strategy meetings. Call Senate and House!!!!

[blm]

No surprise the fascist controlled Supreme Court ruled so quickly on Citizens United to give the world's largest corporations total control of every part of this nation's governance.

We need to contact Senate Judiciary Committee and demand impeachment proceedings. Progressive blogs, radio and tv talkers need to pound away on this.


Majority Office
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]

Minority Office
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]

Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts
Majority Office
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]

Minority Office
Phone:[phone]


Senate Judiciary Committee members:

Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, D-Vermont

Herb Kohl
D-Wisconsin

Jeff Sessions
Ranking Member, R-Alabama

Dianne Feinstein
D-California

Orrin G. Hatch
R-Utah

Russ Feingold
D-Wisconsin

Chuck Grassley
R-Iowa

Arlen Specter
D-Pennsylvania

Jon Kyl
R-Arizona

Chuck Schumer
D-New York

Lindsey Graham
R-South Carolina

Dick Durbin
D-Illinois

John Cornyn
R-Texas

Benjamin L. Cardin
D-Maryland

Tom Coburn
R-Oklahoma

Sheldon Whitehouse
D-Rhode Island

Amy Klobuchar
D-Minnesota

Ted Kaufman
D-Delaware

Al Franken
D-Minnesota

From Wikianswers:
Grounds for impeachment: Article III, Section 1 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 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses.

The process: 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, the President (or another 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 prosecutors. If any other official, other than the president, is on trial, an "Impeachment Trial Committee" of Senators act as the presiding judges to hear testimony and evidence against the accused, which is then presented as a report to the remainder of the Senate. The full Senate no longer participates in the hearing phase of the removal trial. This procedure came into practice in 1986 when the Senate amended its rules and procedures for impeachment 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.

House Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
p/202-225-3951


Dem members

Hon. Conyers Jr.
Chairman
(D) Michigan, 14th


Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th


Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th


Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th


Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd


Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th


Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th


Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th


Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th


Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th


Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th


Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th


Hon. Pierluisi
(D) Puerto Rico, Resident Commissioner


Hon. Quigley
(D) Illinois, 5th


Hon. Chu
(D) California, 32nd


Hon. Deutch
(D) Florida, 19th


Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th


Hon. Baldwin
(D) Wisconsin, 2nd


Hon. Gonzalez
(D) Texas, 20th


Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th


Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th


Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th


Hon. Maffei
(D) New York, 25th


Hon. Polis
(D) Colorado, 2nd

[brendan120678]

1. The Senate doesn't impeach, the House does. (nt)

[KansDem]

4. Then let the House impeach and if the Senate finds them guilty in its trial...

...remove them from the SC and throw their worthless asses in prison!

Let's see who Ginny calls this time...

[Recursion]

8. Find them guilty of ____?

I'm still missing the crime here.

[KansDem]

14. The Code...

Fund Raising. A judge may assist nonprofit law-related, civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organizations in planning fund-raising activities and may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee. A judge may solicit funds for such an organization from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority and from members of the judge?s family. Otherwise, a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.

Scalia and Thomas’ participation in these fundraising gatherings also call into question whether they can be impartial in any number of cases brought by Koch-aligned groups seeking immunity to the law.�Most significantly, the Koch brothers have contributed significantly to efforts to stop the Affordable Care Act from going into effect, and a number of attendees at the Koch’s secret meetings include health industry moguls with a direct financial stake in the litigation challenging health reform (Justice Thomas’ wife, of course, actively lobbied against the Affordable Care Act).

LeftWorld

Let's see what deals were made...

[Recursion]

16. Where do you see anything about them doing fundraising?

I haven't heard anything about that.

[blm]

21. Coordinating direction of funds to political groups is part of Koch's political strategy meetings

Why don't you examine what happened BEFORE you spend all your energy here at DU defending their collusion at these meetings? Seems to me you are uninterested in examining what they have done, and are more interested in excusing their role in the fascist takeover of this nation.

[Recursion]

22. Whatever

If you enjoy jumping up and down about this, go ahead.

[blm]

23. What about their secret participation in these meetings DOESN'T alarm you as a citizen?

Especially as a citizen who wants it known he is a defender of 'freedom' here at DU?

[Recursion]

28. I have absolutely no doubt how they will vote on important cases. Never have.

The idea that they're being "influenced" by this is silly; we already know exactly where they stand.

[blm]

33. that's not the charge...they are actively COLLUDING on political strategy...a strategy that Citizens

United would help every step of the way. What is silly is YOUR effort to try and downplay what Scalia and Thomas did here. If being concerned about judiciary acting as players in a political strategy is 'silly' then why would the meetings need to be secret?

[Recursion]

35. I'm not even sure what you mean by "secret", let alone "COLLUDING"

These two douchebags met with two other douchebags. Later, they made exactly the ruling everybody already knew they would make. You're insisting with no basis that there's some sort of connection there, as if Scalia and Thomas weren't already inclined to absolutely deregulate political spending. They've made it very clear throughout their careers they think campaign finance laws are unconstitutional.

[blm]

38. Funny how you REACH to make what they did sound excusable. And you need to pretend the word secret

isn't part of their calculation when they demanded secrecy for their meetings. You don't know what is meant by 'secret' my ass.

Funny how the fascist agenda of their ruling for NWO is OK with you because you 'expected' it. I expected it, too, and will do my duty as a CITIZEN to demand accountability. Your efforts here to suppress outrage notwithstanding.

Funny, how you have decided to use your energy here at DU. Not really funny, but....funny.

[Hannah Bell]

52. oh, boy. that explains a lot.

[Recursion]

58. In this thread I call Thomas and Scalia "scum", "douchebags", "jackasses"...

...and "vaguely human shaped piles of slime".

If it makes me in your eyes a corporate tool to not call for the impeachment of justices when there's no evidence they broke any law or ethical code, well, there it is.

[blm]

63. YOU claim they broke no ethical code - we are saying they did. YOU discourage calls for scrutiny

and argue against our taking seriously our DUTY to be responsible citizens using our right to accountability.

You really want to take such a focked up position, go ahead, but, stop pretending there is no ethical line that has been crossed.

I don't give a fock what kind of rhetorical flourishes you ad to your posts - they don't matter one whit compared to your overall thrust and even insistence that the supreme court justices did nothing wrong in YOUR eyes.

[Recursion]

64. If you honestly think they raised money or endorsed a candidate at that meeting...

...then, yes, call your Congressman and Senator and tell them you want them to investigate it.

I suspect, though, that what actually pisses you off is just that they went to the conference, and you're trying to act like that attendance itself is an ethical problem.

[blm]

69. attendance where the objective of the meetings is to coordinate a plan for elections...and the

biggest advantage they could gain for that plan and its implementation would be from the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling.

[Recursion]

85. Actually the objective of the meetings is to "coordinate a strategy to defend the free market"

or some other nonsense like that. This was not an RNC or RCC or RGA meeting.

[blm]

88. hahah....like there's a difference between what the BushRNC wants and the fascist agenda.

Your agenda on this thread is clear....citizens should mind their own business and pretend that their liberty and their democracy is not their business.

[WinkyDink]

119. Oh, like you have the inside skinny.

[WinkyDink]

118. Are you THAT naive? No, seriously?

[Deadgnome]

110. Cool

Was looking for that information.

[blackbart99]

94. These guys are supposed to be impartial....

They can no longer maintain that they are. They have to go. But of course the spineless Dem's wouldn't dare do this in an election year if ever.

[blm]

102. exactly...and acting blatantly partial is bad behavior for a judge, esp. a Supreme Court Justice

.

[Bitwit1234]

103. Directly from the Constitution--

BETRAYAL of the Constitution..if you read the reports about the Citizens United Case the Judiciary Committee should have immediately started an investigation anyway. The original case was about allowing a video made by the republicans to be shown closer to the time of the elections. Which before that was prohibited. The Supreme Court Judges went into an area that was not mentioned anywhere in the case, that was not requested by the case and it gave the corporations license to contribute with out revealing their identity, which is not allowed by a private citizen. This was a provision that the five republican activist judges ADDED TO THE CASE PERSONALLY.

Now betrayal of the constitution, bribery (remember they attended that Koch Bros meeting to lay out republican ideals to win the election) and there was one other that I forgot all are impeachable offenses. They can site the fact as legal precedent the impeachment of President Clinton for telling the court a lie. They have on record Thomas and Scalia's statement to the committee where they were approved.

I didn't make these up. There is a website where legal experts have laid out a case for impeachment for Thomas and Scalia.

[ooglymoogly]

104. The house can convict a ham sandwich

if they so choose. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing, to stop them other than public opinion and the fear of being booted out of congress.

[blm]

6. Both need to be contacted. IMO, Senate Judiciary members more likely to get media attention.

Corpmedia has a way of keeping Dem congress members away from their cameras and microphones even more than they do Senate Dems.

[SugarShack]

120. where is the source for this?

[KansDem]

2. I think therefore I rec...

We've seen a lot of sleazy, slimy action in both the Legislative and Executive branches of our government, but no way can we tolerate Supreme Court justices on the take! :grr:

[Recursion]

7. On the take?

Is there any evidence they took money?

[KansDem]

12. Why meet secretly with the Koch brothers?

But you're right; let's let the investigators do their job.

I, for one, would like to know what deals were cut...

[Recursion]

17. Because they're all vaguely-human-shaped piles of slime

Which, sadly, is not an impeachable offense.

[blm]

15. On the take for their fascist ideology. Citizens United proved they'll hand over this nation's

governance to corporations intent on strangling what's left of our democracy and citizens' rights in favor of their fascist rule. It's called NWO, Recursion, Global Fascism. They are plotting WITH those who want YOU in subservience to corporate rule.

Citizens United IS evidence of that and was part of the political strategy to make it happen. Their secret actions here call for greater scrutiny at the very LEAST.

And the secret funding of Ginni Thomas' 'teaparty foundations' is another 'on the take' issue that requires scrutiny.

[Recursion]

18. We already knew that about them

They don't need to be bribed to be scum; they do that on their own. And unfortunately we can't impeach them for that.

[blm]

20. Sez you. They can serve 'during good behavior' and you think their blatantly bad behavior shouldn't

scrutinized.

That's a focked up attitude to have. And I disagree with you about what was known about them when they were nominated - you think the social conservatives who supported them knew they were being used to overthrow democracy and the rights of citizens so that corporations could rule this nation at every level?

There was no way the NWO fearing constitutionalists and conservatives would be supporting the fascist takeover of this nation by the NWO's corporate elite if they understood that would be the outcome.

[The Blue Flower]

25. Thomas' wife's salary

They shared in the benefit of the ruling. In other words, he profited monetarily. (edited for spelling)

[blm]

26. Citizens United ruling allows limitless corporate cash that can go undisclosed - blatant FASCISM!

.

[Recursion]

34. Which ruling? Citizens United?

She gets her salary from a fellowhip at Heritage; she runs Liberty Central pro bono. Are you saying Heritage suggested a quid pro quo with Thomas?

[blm]

113. She gets her CAUSE MONEY from fascists intent on overthrowing democracy....

and Citizens United was a huge step in achieving that cause.

[Deadgnome]

111. Yes and no

I was thinking about that the other day and discussing it with a guy at work that is actually very far Right leaning, and both he and I got into a discussion about how Thomas and his wife handle their finances and if they file jointly or not. Now I'm not entirely familiar with the law(s), but it seems to me there might be some sort of loophole in what I mentioned above. Neither of us know the finer points of the law with regard to this situation, but again it was just a thought. Anyone have any idea?

[newspeak]

29. actually two of the supremes should have recused

themselves during the florida decision-since one supreme's son was legal advisor to the * campaign and the other supreme's wife, I believe, was on *'s selection committee. So, I'd say some of the supremes are quite corruptible. I think it is Scalia who enjoyed hunting and meeting with Darth cheney.

[newspeak]

31. actually, I believe their meeting

was about Cheney's little secret energy meeting with all his greed buds. There were quite a few people in this country at the time up in arms about Darth's little secret meeting. Maybe a meeting dividing up Iraq's oil, do you think?

[Scurrilous]

3. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Recursion]

5. For?

What was the offense you want to impeach and remove them for?

[blm]

9. Attending secret political strategy meetings is 'good behavior' to you? Let's investigate and see

how 'good' their behavior was during their participation in these meetings.

Democracy and freedom are at stake. Citizens United is the biggest attack on democracy this nation has ever experienced, and essentially hands over the reigns of this country to the corporations run by global fascists, or, as GHWBush liked to call it, New World Order.

Koch Bros are part of that corporate cabal, and Scalia and Thomas secretly attended his secret strategy meetings.

[Recursion]

10. Maybe I'm completely missing your point?

They attended a meeting with political activists (whom I happen to hate). Are judges not supposed to do that? I've honestly never heard of any rule like that.

[KansDem]

24. Oh, I don't know...first they met with billionaire industrialists behind closed doors..

..then went on to make one of the most bizarre Supreme Court rulings in US history...that happens to benefit those billionaire industrialists.

That reeks of collusion and should not be tolerated.

[blm]

27. Odd that anyone here at DU would spend energy questioning our citizen's right to accountability

for supreme court justices acting in secret as they collude with those intent on installing fascism as the nation's ruling order.

[Recursion]

32. What's the "collusion"?

Seriously, who are you saying influenced whom to do what?

[blm]

36. Colluded for FASCIST agenda. That's apparently alright with you. So...what do YOU think their role

was in these secret meetings?

Since you believe we are all wrong in calling for scrutiny of their roles, why don't you tell us what YOU think their role was in attending these political strategy meetings. And...try telling it from the POV of a concerned citizen who believes in accountability.

[Recursion]

39. First off, "FASCIST" doesn't get scarier with capitalization

Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by "FASCIST". I'm aware of a political movement called fascism; I think applying it to the current right wing in the US is about as meaningful as calling the left "socialist". But I'll put that aside, and assume by "FASCIST" you mean giving extreme deference to commercial interests (despite the fact that actual historical fascists nationalized just about every industry).

Since you believe we are all wrong in calling for scrutiny of their roles

I have nothing against greater scrutiny. I think getting people to call Congress and demand impeachment is silly and hystrionic.

why don't you tell us what YOU think their role was in attending these political strategy meetings

I don't know or care. Unless there's some evidence that

A) Some offer or inducement was made that made them change a ruling, or
B) They were raising money for political purposes

It's none of my damn business what they do at any of the hundreds of meetings of organizations and foundations they go to.

[blm]

41. HAHAHAHAHAHAH. It's none of YOUR business? Then why are you here at a Dem activist forum

where we take our rights as CITIZENS and accountability seriously? And when we EXERCISE our rights as citizens, it usually requires ACTIONS like calling congress.

Fascism is CORPORATISM. That road was assured by Citizens United. Your attempt here to feign obtuse acceptance of that isn't even cute.

[Recursion]

42. Because I'm a Dem activist who takes my rights seriously

Just like I take Scalia and Thomas's rights to be total douchebags and meet with whomever they want within the limits of judicial ethics seriously -- and unless you have some reason to believe that they got bribed, then I have to say they had every right to do that.

[blm]

45. Why is the bar only bribery to you? Why are you insisting judicial ethics were NOT breached here

and why use your energy here at a Dem site to downplay what WAS done in this case?

Scalia and Thomas knew what they were doing was unethical and that is why steps were taken to keep the meetings secret.

But then...Supreme Court Justices attending secret meetings plotting political strategy including the directing of funds to political groups is NOT unethical to you.

[Recursion]

47. Because justices have the right to participate in political organizations with certain restrictions

Scalia and Thomas knew what they were doing was unethical and that is why steps were taken to keep the meetings secret.

I think it was the Kochsuckers who wanted to keep everyting secret because, well, they're rich, paranoid, secretive jackasses.

Supreme Court Justices attending secret meetings plotting political strategy including the directing of funds to political groups is NOT unethical to you.

No, not really. Unless they're receiving the money, or they're advocating for specific political groups to get money, or the meeting itself is party to a case.

[blm]

49. sez you...if that is YOUR standard for unethical behavior then no wonder the fascists gained control

Your extremely low standard of ethical behavior for supreme court justices is appalling.

[Recursion]

50. If you could point to something unethical they did, I'd be appalled and outraged

Simply saying that they attended meetings of like-minded people, even though I hate those people, just doesn't do anything for me.

[blm]

51. Did you even READ the articles? It wasn't JUST a gathering of likeminded people - it was STRATEGY

sessions to coordinate efforts for influencing elections including the direction of MONEY to political organizations.

Geez, Recur...how disingenuous can you get? That you believe supremes court justices have not crossed an ethical bar on this matter is downright creepy for anyone, let alone someone here claiming to be a Dem activist.

[Deadgnome]

112. I see where you are coming from

and partially agree here and there with what you have been arguing on this thread, but when you say "I don't know or care..." It is a bit disheartening for you to say some of things you do and down on those that are calling for some sort of investigation into their actions, behaviors, and possible collusion. How would you ever KNOW if questions weren't posed and the calls weren't made for some sort of scrutiny? Now, I do think calling for impeachment is a bit brash, uniformed at the moment, and hyperbolic. With what we know at the current moment it is about on par with the calls from the Right for impeaching our sitting President.

But it can't hurt to actively seek out answers to why the hell these assjacks are participating in meetings with this organization. Hyperbole aside, and people are obviously fired up here, it can't hurt to inquire about Scalia and Thomas's role here.

[druidity33]

74. as i recall...

the USSC asked to hear the Citizen's United case... it wasn't brought to them normally. Why would that be?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion
Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production.<1> It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".<2> In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.<3>


seems pretty straightforward to me...

:shrug:

[blm]

76. thank you for that additional point...

everything about Citizens United was shady from the getgo.

[Recursion]

83. Where do you get that?

USDCDC upheld the FEC's ruling and CU appealed. Here's the docket:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-205.htm

What was unusual was that SCOTUS asked the sides to re-argue, which isn't very common.

[druidity33]

121. Um, from the Dissenting Opinion?

http://yubanet.com/usa/Justice-Stevens-Dissenting-Opinion-in-Citizens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission.php

<snip>
"‘It is only in exceptional cases coming here from the federal courts that questions not pressed or passed upon below are reviewed,'" Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231, 234 (1976) (per curiam) (quoting Duignan v. United States, 274 U. S. 195, 200 (1927)), and it is "only in the most exceptional cases" that we will consider issues outside the questions presented, Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 481, n. 15 (1976). The appellant in this case did not so much as assert an exceptional circumstance, and one searches the majority opinion in vain for the mention of any. That is unsurprising, for none exists.

Setting the case for reargument was a constructive step,but it did not cure this fundamental problem. Essentially,five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.

<snip>

The unnecessary resort to a facial inquiry"runs contrary to the fundamental principle of judicial restraint that courts should neither anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it nor formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied." Washington State Grange, 552 U. S., at 450 (internal quotation marks omitted). Scanting that principle "threatens to short circuit the democratic process by preventing laws embodying the will of the people from being implemented in a manner consistent with the Constitution." Id., at 451. These concerns are heightened when judges overrule settled doctrine upon which the legislature has relied. The Court operates with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when it strikes down one of Congress' most significant efforts to regulate the role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics. It compounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many state laws as well.

The problem goes still deeper, for the Court does all of this on the basis of pure speculation. Had Citizens United maintained a facial challenge, and thus argued that there are virtually no circumstances in which BCRA §203 can be applied constitutionally, the parties could have developed,through the normal process of litigation, a record about the actual effects of §203, its actual burdens and its actual benefits, on all manner of corporations and unions.

<snip>


II The final principle of judicial process that the majority violates is the most transparent: stare decisis. I am not an absolutist when it comes to stare decisis, in the campaign finance area or in any other. No one is. But if this principle is to do any meaningful work in supporting the rule of law, it must at least demand a significant justification, beyond the preferences of five Justices, for overturning settled doctrine. " decision to overrule should rest on some special reason over and above the belief that a prior case was wrongly decided." Planned Parenthood of South-eastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 864 (1992). No such justification exists in this case, and to the contrary there are powerful prudential reasons to keep faith with our precedents.17 The Court's central argument for why stare decisis ought to be trumped is that it does not like Austin. The opinion "was not well reasoned," our colleagues assert, and it conflicts with First Amendment principles. Ante, at 47–

<snip>

emphasis added

And really a lot more from Justice Stevens there. He eviscerates the Majority's arguments. If you can wade through the legalese it's a pretty stunning dissent.

:)

[Recursion]

30. Did you have any doubt how they would vote on Citizens United?

It's certainly a bad decision, but it wasn't surprizing or out of the blue. I don't even thnk it was "bizarre"; it's entirely in line with how these clowns have ruled in the past.

[blm]

40. why the effort to suppress citizens' outrage over their secret meetings...citizens SHOULDN'T

demand accountability in your book?

Funny you'd spend your energy standing with those Supreme Court justices who would meet secretly to direct funding for a political agenda as you argue here against our rights and DUTY as citizens to demand accountability for those actions.

[Recursion]

43. Well, see, there you go, you added "to direct funding for a political agenda"

Doing that would be bad.

But, then again, there's no reason to believe they did that.

[blm]

46. Did you read all the articles posted about these meetings?

Coordinating which political groups would receive funding was also a clear part of the agenda...so... there is EVERY reason to believe the directing of funds to political groups and political FRONT groups was part of these meetings. Your apologia is now at the point of absurdity.

[Recursion]

48. Look, this was a big conference of conservatives in Palm Springs

And this story "broke" when NYT simply mentioned the already publicly-known fact that Thomas and Scalia had attended in the past (which is why I don't get why you're calling it "secret").

Justices, even conservative jackass justices, have the right to participate in things like that as long as they're not raising money or actually electioneering for candidates. There are all kinds of panels and sessions at these things, including ones on, say, the 2nd Amendment, or commercial aspects of the US Code; these are the kinds of things justices always do.

[blm]

54. sez you.......... again......... apologia express is ON the rails. Look away citizens who dare

their responsibility AS citizens seriously enough to demand accountability.

You claim to be a defender of freedom yet side against citizens use of their right to accountability. In fact you discourage any accountability at all in this case while you defend the indefensible.

That's pretty damn fake ' defender of freedom' credentials in my book.

[rocktivity]

55. Given their participation in the meetings,

shouldn't they have recused themselves from Citizens United?

:shrug:
rocktivity

[Recursion]

56. Why?

They've also met with gun-rights groups; should they have recused themselves from Heller?

(I mean, I'd love it if they recused themselves from every decision before the court, but I don't see how the meeting makes for a conflict of interest.) If they had, for instance, met with the actual group Citizens United, that would be different.

[Uncle Joe]

71. Why do you believe that Citizens United was a bad decision? n/t

[Recursion]

73. Because I think the government's interest in preventing corruption...

...or the perception of corruption far outweighs a corporation's right to political spending. (This also gets to my belief that spending itself is only tenuously "speech", if at all.)

So, basically, it was a bad decision because the law fell well within Congress's authority to pass.

[blm]

75. you don't seem to mind the 'perception of corruption' when it comes to the supremes attending Koch's

meetings....when many of us PERCEIVE there is corruption, you argue against the exercising of our right to demand that congress scrutinize and debate their participation in these meetings and to hold supremes accountable for those findings.

[Uncle Joe]

77. So you believe that broad decision was overreach turning precedent on it's head?

In short legislating from the bench?

[Recursion]

78. Well, "de-legislating" from the bench

And I don't know that it was overly broad; it's not that they applied a legal principle to too many situations, it's that they applied a very bad legal principle to a well-defined set of situations.

[Uncle Joe]

82. The way I understand it, the case was narrow in scope, but they ruled in a much broader context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Dissents

The dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens<21> was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. It concurred in the Court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions and in Part IV of its opinion, but dissented with the principal holding of the majority opinion. The 90-page dissent held that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." The dissent also argued that the Court's declaring of BCRA §203 to be facially unconstitutional was a ruling on a question not brought before them by the litigants, and so they "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law." Stevens concluded his dissent with:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

That to me isn't "de-legislating," that's legislating; which is a De-Facto violation of the Constitution in regards to division of powers.

[Recursion]

84. "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law."

Yes, the request for a re-argument under a different legal theory was unusual (though not unprecedented; it's the same principle by which a bunch of cases get squished into one combined and ultimately fictitious one).

Suggesting that Roberts requested the re-argument because Thomas and Scalia attended a conference at some point in the past is the stretch I don't get.

[Uncle Joe]

87. I could agree with you if Thomas, Scalia and Roberts were on opposite ideological poles, but

they're pretty much in lockstep on any major decision before them.

I don't find it a stretch at all to believe they would influence or persuade Roberts to request a re-argument, knowing his ideological bent as being extremely similar if not identical to their own.

[Enthusiast]

81. Plus one......nt

[AtomicKitten]

11. The ethically challenged have stepped into the light. Not sure of the proper remedy.

Sadly I don't think the Democrats have the stomach for impeachment. I remain appalled that BushCo's war crimes to date have remained unchallenged. :(

K&R because we have to try.

[Frustratedlady]

13. Maybe it isn't an impeachable offense, but a public uproar would slow them down.

Have a hearing and see if there is anything illegal. Sounds like a winner to me.

[newspeak]

37. if one can show that they benefited-partisan political or monetary gain

from a decision, then I believe it could be an impeachable offense, especially if the decision does more harm to the republic.

[glitch]

91. But what about ideological gain? Even without political gain (jobs for their kids?)

Since they seem to idealogues, surely there must be some remedy for that, especially since it appears to be an ideology of the fundamental dismantling of the Bill of Rights (for human citizens, anyway).

Granted they should not have been made justices in the first place, but what is the remedy now other than impeachment? They have exhibited time and time again by their own statements, behavior and decisions that they do not uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Do they have to be caught taking a bribe under a bridge, or is not upholding (aka actively trashing) the Constitution enough?

If enough of our citizens and their representatives believe so, then YES, the Justices on the USSC CAN BE IMPEACHED for even the APPEARANCE of IMPROPRIETY.

[catgirl]

19. Talk about a conflict of interest!

Plus Thomas' wie is a big wig in the Tea Party movement. I say throw 'em off the bench.
Yuck.

[Radical Activist]

44. They should have recused themselves from the Citizens United case.

I agree. They should be impeached.

[Recursion]

57. Was Citizens United at the meeting?

If so, I honestly missed that.

[rocktivity]

59. Well, we'd know if they hadn't kept it a secret!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Recursion]

62. Again with the "secret". This was in the NYT

How "secret" is it being kept? It's not like the Times said "we have discovered despite a massive cover-up attempt that Scalia and Thomas have attended these meetings in the past." The Times stated a publicly-known fact that Scalia and Thomas had attended in the past. The procedings aren't published, so we don't know which sessions and panels they attended (and, yes, that is troubling, but certainly not hair-on-fire disturbing), but I don't see a credible case to be made for the idea that they raised money for politicians or endorsed any politicians at that meeting.

[blm]

80. no one is saying they were there RAISING money - they were at meetings where disbursement

of moneys to political groups were being decided amongst other things. That's OK by YOU. Not by ME and other citizens who take defending freedom seriously...especially defending freedom from the fascist express you choose to defend.

[Recursion]

86. They were at meetings where blowhards like themselves gave powerpoint presentations

about the free market and how oh-so-wonderful it is for rich people like themselves. This is the kind of crap judges do when they're not on the bench.

What makes no sense to me is that as far as I can tell you seem to be claiming that somehow these meetings were coordinating with "the right wing" and to influence the outcome of the Citizens United case a few years later (or you're saying Thomas and Scalia were announcing their intention to rule on a case that hadn't even been filed yet in order to help the right wing better prepare for the results; I can't tell which).

[blm]

60. WTF? Citizens United is being used here in the context of its RULING. Your disingenuousness is

overflowing at this point.

[Recursion]

61. Citizens United was a party to the case that resulted in that ruling

If they had met with Citizens United, they should have recused themselves. As far as I can tell they didn't.

Scalia and Thomas have been very strongly against campaign finance restrictions their whole career. Meeting with other people who share that view is not grounds for recusal unless they're actual parties to the case.

[blm]

65. aww...so sweet how you pretty up what they did...they hand over governance to corporate pals and you

call it being against campaign finance restrictions AS you insist they crossed no ethical line while attending meetings to plot political strategy and the disbursement of funds to political groups.

Look away CITIZENS, do not use your right to demand accountability....Recursion will be a very unhappy fellow if you do.

[Recursion]

66. You keep saying this:

while attending meetings to plot political strategy and the disbursement of funds to political groups

It was a conference that had seminars and panels. You know, the sorts of meetings Supreme Court justices go to all the time. Part of the conference was devoted to fundraising and campaign strategy. If you or anybody else can make a credible case that Scalia and Thomas participated in those parts, then go for it. But simply attending the conference is absolutely not unethical.

You seem so appalled that I don't think it's unethical. Why? What is so inherently unethical about a justice attending a conference?

[tritsofme]

68. I've got to give you a lot of credit.

This was one of the most bizarre exchanges I have read on DU for some time.

[fascisthunter]

105. lol... somebody has to stick for that poster

it may as well be you.

[blm]

89. it was a conference with an AGENDA aimed at funneling $$ and influence in elections...

Yeah...that's exactly what ethical supreme court justices do.

[Hannah Bell]

67. ignore that person. it's just here to stink up the thread & keep others from reading.

[Hannah Bell]

53. knr

[mstinamotorcity]

70. Karl Rove is as crooked

as they come. The Koch Brothers with their Birch upbringing is old and visible. For anyone to think that Justices of the Supreme Court were there by accident or because they wanted to enjoy a nice political seminar is absolutely crazy.But proving any corruption is another thing. Even if 500,000 dollars did end up in Ms. Thomas' little hate filled war chest for her tea party efforts. And every thing is just so coincidental,just so neat. The Citizens United ruling was something that we knew they were pushing for and ultimately got. There may be no outward proof that some hanky panky took place, but the environment was very ripe for corruption. Yes I believe Justices have a right to have a political point of view, but being the impartial entity, they are required to rule on the merits of the case. If there is some discrepancy as to whether it was done with a specific interest at hand then there should be an investigation. But how do you police the police? If they have done this corrupt thing then it will be years and they will have probably died and left the ill-gotten loot to their children before Justice on a Justice could be served.

[SoCalDem]

72. It's a double slap in the face

The reason why supremes reign for life, is to keep them FROM being political..

Political activities should get them an automatic expulsion:grr:

[proud patriot]

79. IMPEACH THEM NOW !

[ProgressiveEconomist]

90. NY TIMES LINK for those like me who missed the news story -- See the third from

last paragraph.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/us/politics/20koch.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

[Roland99]

95. I just love how they equate "Freedom" with their continued wealth grab.

And the dumbfuck 29%ers continue supporting these greedy traitors.

[Tx4obama]

122. WOW. So ,....

if the normal registration fee was waved for the justices then that would be considered a gift, right?
And if the justices went more than the initial time and then paid the registration fee then their money would be considered as part of money raised during a political fund raising event, right?

----

Third paragraph from the end of article on your link:

" To encourage new participants, Mr. Koch offers to waive the $1,500 registration fee. And he notes that previous guests have included Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court, Gov. Haley Barbour and Gov. Bobby Jindal, Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, and Representatives Mike Pence, Tom Price and Paul D. Ryan. "

[jotsy]

92. I've wanted impeachment pursued against these two all year.

Along with anyone else that was on the bench for both the Citizens United decision this January and that pivotal, pitiful call from December 2000; Additionally, Roberts should resign out of sheer embarrassment over the miscarriage of justice that occurred on his court.

When the most authoritative level of the judicial branch in the nation decides to exponentially enhance the voice of non bodied entities in a land said to be of, by and for the people, clearly the court has lost the ability to perform as deliverers of what is just.

I rec'd this thread, and would do it again as many times as allowed.

[Angry Dragon]

93. There is one on here that

has a problem when and if a justice should recuse themselves.

[RhodaA]

96. Definition and Precedent

High crimes and misdemeanors: "High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.

In other words, decisions that intentionally favor corporations over people.

Precedent: Various federal judges have been impeached over the years, but this is the closest I know of to a Supreme Court Justice being impeached:

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase, 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.

Also, Roberts is also impeachable under this definition for the Citizens United ruling. Franken, Whitehouse and Specter built the case for this during the Kagen hearings.

[The Uncola]

97. Good luck with this.

Our daunted "Keepers" haven't even "investigated" the war crimes committed by Bush/Cheney and they bragged about doing them.

meh

[Javaman]

99. Sadly, my feelings as well.

we have been fighting two illegal wars, created whole clothe by a room full of dopes, yet not one has yet to be held responsible for them.

And people think that impeaching sitting right wing judges, whom I might add have the support of countless corporations, lobbyists and republican sock puppets, will actually happen?

I guess now is a good time to buy a bridge, because it appears everyone is rushing out to get one. LOL

[The Uncola]

108. Yep...

.. and don't forget to get your share of that ocean front property in Kansas.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

98. I'm going to be a busy person for the next few days doing my patriotic duty...I'm on it! ....K&R

[harmonicon]

100. Oh, yeah, that'll happen.

Great idea. A Democratic majority in both houses of congress couldn't be bothered to impeach a president for war crimes and any large number of crimes within the country, but I'm sure the new congress will quickly jump on a track to impeach two justices for one crime.

[blm]

109. if you demand nothing you won't even get the possibility of scrutiny reported...

So...it's a citizen's DUTY to demand accountability...no matter what.

[harmonicon]

115. I agree.

However, I don't think there is any point in asking those involved in criminal conspiracy to stop that criminal conspiracy.

[savannah43]

101. It's the "appearance of impropriety" that they have

given into. That is the phrase that can bring them down. High crimes and misdemeanors is a very high hurdle to clear, but the appearance of impropriety is easier and could and should result in their being removed from the bench. They have clearly killed any confidence that thinking people have in SCOTUS. As the final authority of what is legal and what is not, they cannot be seen self-dealing. This Court is corrupt, and the country cannot wait for them to die of old age before the corruption is removed. They need to go now. Remember they are just two of the five that are the problem.

[fascisthunter]

106. kick and recommend (nt)

[ensho]

107. yes, impeach their criminal asses out of our Supreme Court Bldg.

whose idea was it to not let the public come in the front doors anymore?

[Tx4obama]

124. The security guys decided...

they have everyone come thru the side door that has metal detectors, scanners, etc.
I read not too long ago a couple of the Justices aren't happy about the front doors being closed off they had no say in the matter.

Excerpt BELOW from: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/05/03/Supreme-Court-to-close-main-entrance/UPI-41521272905556/

The court statement said the new entry "was designed in light of findings and recommendations from two independent security studies conducted in 2001 and 2009. The (new) entrance provides a secure, reinforced area to screen for weapons, explosives, and chemical and biological hazards."

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, issued a memorandum objecting to the closing of the main entrance.

[breadandwine]

114. Oh. Didn't you hear? We can't impeach members of the Supreme Court.

We don't have enough votes to convict in the Senate....

Only Republicans are allowed to impeach people.

The coup plotters in the Supreme Court have rights TOO ya know............


Leave the right wingers in the Supreme Court alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[breadandwine]

116. From Coke cans to Koch brothers.... What's not to like?

.....

[WinkyDink]

117. Your SCOTUS: Bought and Paid for Since 2000.

[Trocadero]

123. kick