Skip to main content

View Diary: Sh** or Get Off The Pot (288 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think we should impeach everybody and (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Timaeus, orestes1963, allenjo

    then start over.

    "America is the Terror State. The Global War OF Terror is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 10:08:54 AM PDT

    •  We Don't Impeach. Boehner Does nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt, bythesea

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 10:13:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm up for that. This diary doesn't go far (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BigAlinWashSt, PALiberal1

      enough!

      The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.-Bertrand Russell

      by Timaeus on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 10:13:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So that we could (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, TheLizardKing

      get the folks who are currently in the guano-loco state legislatures to run to take their places?

    •  There's no such thing as starting over. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, serendipityisabitch

      You can run away (America was colonized by such people), you can replace existing tyranny with even worse tyranny (Europe did that a lot), or you can reform (we did that for a long time, not so much lately).  Pursuing the impeachment of the current SCOTUS majority would be part reform effort in that it would for the first time hold courts accountable to the laws they interpret, and part muscle-flexing to put them on notice that we see what they're doing and won't tolerate it forever or to an unlimited degree.

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

      by Troubadour on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 11:10:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Have you really considered what you desire? (6+ / 0-)

        The argument for an independent judiciary, especially at the highest court, is that the freedom from fear of reprisal for a decision is necessary to protect minority interests.  The argument that the court should be responsive to the people is the conservative argument against the supreme court.  You will find many in agreement with your position at redstate, I would bet.

        If the court were treated in the manner you desire, the civil rights acts (the supreme court had to determine there is a constitutional basis for these acts) and civil rights decisions of the warren court would not have lasted.  Similarly, Lawrence v. Texas, et al., would not have stood.  

        You really need to consider what it is you are advocating.  

        •  The Judiciary needs to be independent (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Praxical

          of the Executive and the Legislative branches of government, not of the very Constitution from which its authority springs.  

          And dismissing what I'm saying as trying to democratize the courts is just a different version of the "just an opinion" fallacy I've noticed occurring a lot in objection to this: If the Supreme Court says 2 + 2 = 5, it's "just my opinion" they're wrong, and thus wanting to throw them off the bench as lawless and arbitrary nutjobs / partisan crooks would be no different from some conservative trying to impeach judges for ruling that people they don't like have Constitutional rights.

          That's not a rational objection.  There is such a thing as a reality, and we have a written Constitution that isn't 6,000 pages long precisely because it's a social contract, not a damn mathematical treatise that only those schooled in the Cosmick Mathematicks can understand.

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

          by Troubadour on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 01:23:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There is your problem. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            orestes1963, DeadHead

            Legal decisions are not math equations. Reducing them to such will never work.

            The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy

            by CenPhx on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 01:54:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But you have to be able to exercise (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Moravan

              independent judgment where fundamental rights are concerned or else there is no social contract and no citizenship - there's just obedience to authority.

              Those five Justices crossed the line of the social contract when they issued the VRA ruling, and this hasn't required a lot of discernment on my part to figure out - they were right on the cusp when they ruled in Citizens United, and this was the last straw.  They abdicated their authority, and put a capstone to long SCOTUS careers of lawless, partisan rulings that have directly attacked the basic rights of the American people in order to empower the Republican Party.

              If you're not on board now, you eventually will be if there is any strict boundary you won't tolerate being crossed, because they will eventually cross every line possible within the scope of their power.  They're not going to stop at the VRA.  Frankly, they're not going to stop at all unless they sense that it's politically a Bad Idea to keep going, which is part of what an impeachment drive would try to accomplish.  Even if it doesn't succeed, it can serve as a warning if it gets enough steam.  I actually think that's what happened with the ruling on Obamacare - the President took the unusual step of warning them that striking it down would undermine the Court itself.  

              That's what I'm saying has happened with the VRA ruling.  No one in their right minds thinks these five people came up with that ruling because of a legal philosophy.  They ruled that way because it improves Republican electoral prospects in 2014 and beyond.  There is no longer an aura of authority around these types of rulings.  They are 100% political.

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

              by Troubadour on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 02:43:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your argument, in principle, though not substance, (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour, CenPhx, DeadHead

                is stronger with regard to Bush v.  Gore.  If there were an abuse of authority by the court, this is the case that satisfies your complaint.  The fact that the court tacitly acknowledged it by expressly stating it has no precedential value is compelling.

                •  Then you would be on board with impeaching (0+ / 0-)

                  the three Justices still on the Court who were in the Bush v. Gore majority?  Personally I consider that decision well beyond impeachable abuse - I consider it treason.  But I don't insist on that.  Still, the consequences are so massive that putting a time limit on accountability for it would be absurd.  

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

                  by Troubadour on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 04:32:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, I think there is a valid argument (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Troubadour

                    for at least challenging the members of the court on that decision.  I don't think that's likely at this point in time, but I would support a movement to at least censure those justices.  

                    •  What's the most likely way to achieve censure? (0+ / 0-)

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

                      by Troubadour on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 04:41:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well, I do not know (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Troubadour

                        for certain the means, but a congressional statement of censure would be nice.  I will note, however, that congress may view this as an encroachment on the separation of powers.  I think there is merit to that concern, especially since the framers were most concerned about the legislature overreaching its power.

                        I would like to add that I have enjoyed this discussion.

                        •  One of the benefits of pursuing a grassroots (0+ / 0-)

                          movement for impeachment is that if it got big enough, Congress could eventually be pressured to appease it through symbolic measures - like censure.  And well before it would pass, the matter of censure would be raised by someone in a floor speech and invade the discourse.  Washington's playbook in dealing with mass movements is:

                          1.  Ignore
                          2.  Belittle
                          3.  Distract
                          4.  Fight
                          5.  Appease
                          6.  Co-opt

                          Get to the appeasement stage and it's just a short jump to the co-option that passes for victory in a democracy.

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

                          by Troubadour on Tue Jul 09, 2013 at 04:50:30 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  And... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Troubadour

                    I think those justices should live in infamy for that usurpation of the political process and fundamental voting rights.  Hopefully, it will mar their legacies for posterity.  

          •  I did not dismiss what you are saying (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CenPhx, DeadHead

            I provided a counter-argument.  I tipped your diary because I appreciated your responses in the comments, notwithstanding I disagree with your position.  I don't see how my comment could be perceived as a dismissal.  

            As CenPhx points out below, constitutional interpretation is not mathematics.  If it were, there would be no need for a supreme court to rule on constitutional issues (which is its primary charge under Article III).  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site