Skip to main content

View Diary: When SCOTUS Rules in Favor of the NSA, Will You Call for Impeachment Then? (233 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Political will is created by people. (0+ / 0-)

    It rarely just materializes spontaneously except due to foundations created by the hard work of previous activists.  Earlier generations of Americans - particularly those who set the stage for the New Deal - understood that.  Since then we've sort of been brainwashed into having this kind of mentality of waiting around for the universe to give us our victories, and then they invariably just dissipate like Occupy because no one wants to build on them.

    It will never happen.
    Leaving aside the utter historical bankruptcy of that statement, we can say this: It will happen if we make it happen, and won't if we don't.  Will you accept responsibility for the consequences of the next SCOTUS outrage?  I want to at least be able to say that I stood against lawlessness on our courts.
    They made decisions.  It doesn't make them targets for impeachment.
    Richard Nixon made decisions too.
    Hell, after Thomas' wife was involved in what she was involved in and Thomas lied on his disclosure forms:  No impeachment proceedings.
    Then add that to the list of reasons for impeachment and help work to change the situation.
    I hate this term, but you're beating a dead horse now.  Ain't never gonna happen.
    History is littered with that statement.    

    Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

    by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:26:05 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  "Earlier generations of Americans ... (8+ / 0-)

      ... particularly those who set the stage for the New Deal - understood that."

      How many Supreme Court justices were impeached in the 1930s even after shooting down key New Deal legislation?

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:55:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  None, because their rulings were legitimate. (0+ / 0-)

        Unfortunate and twisted from a philosophical standpoint, but legally grounded nonetheless.

        Moreover, those rulings are not a very good analogy to the VRA ruling.  In fact, I'm not aware of any in American history that provides an appropriate analogy.  

        Even Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were just morally outrageous and Pharisaical, but still accurately reflected the petty letter of the Constitution.  The VRA ruling, however, is a total departure from the Constitution, and practically an invalidation of the enforcement clause of the 15th Amendment.

        Sometimes you just have to admit when something is unprecedentedly radical.  We wouldn't admit that about what Bush was doing, so no one stood to stop it, and now we're still dealing with the consequences - one of them is this Court majority.

        Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

        by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:21:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh... what? (7+ / 0-)

          Have you actually read Dred Scott?  The court found that all African Americans - not just slaves, but even an emancipated man of color in a non-slave state who was otherwise granted all the rights of citizenship* in that state - were somehow not considered citizens by the Constitution.  There is nothing in "the petty letter" of the constitution that suggests that ruling, so Taney had to reach deeply into British slave law to make claims about the legal status of otherwise free people of color that were not at all justified.  

          There's a reason it's considered the worst of all Supreme Court decisions, and it's not just because of changing social mores.

          * Not voting rights, but neither did women, and they could still sue in federal court as citizens of this country.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:38:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, you're right. I confused it with other (0+ / 0-)

            rulings prior to Dredd Scott.  Then it's actually a pretty good analogy for the VRA ruling, although the VRA ruling is a radical departure from the status quo whereas Dredd Scott was just a ludicrous defense of the status quo.

            Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

            by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:01:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site