Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site