Skip to main content

Impeach Alito, Impeach Alito.  Impeach Alito.  Sorry I just don't have that much more to say on the issue.  This isn't really a diary so much as an opportunity to say what really does need saying.

Supreme Court Justice heckles the President of the United States of America during the State of the Union address to the nation.

How much more does one have to do? How much further must one go before America stands up and says,"this right wing Republican extremist behavior - this deliberate, co-ordinated effort to show contempt for, and disrespect towards the office of the President of the United States of America and the current occupant of that esteemed position - has gone too far"?  When will America have had enough?  America is a set of ideals that is worth standing up for and defending, isn't it?  

Or is the nation so devalued, is the idea that is/was America so defeated, that the rich, the powerful and their craven lackeys will be allowed to pour scorn upon it with the eyes of the world watching.

Disgusting.

[EDIT: oh i see - i get a diary full of GFY comments and told i'm bringing down the tone, but when clammyc diaries the same f*ck*ng sentiment it's top rated]

Impeach Alito.

Thanks for commenting :-)  

One thing I'd also argue is that if an equivalent left wing justice to Alito's position on the right (there isn't one) doing something similar during Bush's State of the Union would be drummed off the bench by the Republicans and the media in unison.  

And I am shocked that people genuinely don't believe that the Republicans and their right wing compatriots outside of Congress are executing on a deliberate strategy of public disrespect towards Obama to deligitimize him.  That's what the whole birther movement is about.  It's what so much of the refusal to give him any co-operation politically is about.  Not quite sure why that merits the HR hammer.  That's the kind of thing that disincentivizes people from participating in the conversation over here.

---

Oh, and to any Mobile App team volunteers that read this (see previous diary).  Taken a few more days to get set up than planned, but you should get a co-ordinating email this week.  

Originally posted to ResponsibleAccountable on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:03 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Tipped to counteract unjustified HR. (9+ / 0-)

      "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

      by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:09:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kalmoth, debedb, Loli, Whatithink

        Scroll down for my justification.  

        We are not FOX News.  We do not exaggerate like this.  It is (or should be) beneath the standards of this community.  

        •  I agree it's beneath our standards (3+ / 0-)

          but you have to exercise a little discretion in when to assert that.  The specifics are exaggerated, but the proposal is in line with the reality of called-for action: I.e., Alito's breach of decorum was beyond the pale.  

          "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

          by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:13:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Beyond the pale? (5+ / 0-)

            beyond the pale

            Because he didn't sit there like a statue?

            There is a HUGE difference between what Joe Wilson did and what Alito did.  HUGE.  

            HUGE.

            Beyond the pale.  

            Give me a break.  

            •  Not huge. (12+ / 0-)

              Joe Wilson is a Congressman, and though expected to behave with civility, is allowed to express approval or disapproval in an orderly fashion to the points of a President's speech.  He grossly exceeded the boundaries of his discretion, but however egregious it was still an error of degree.

              Samuel Alito is a Supreme Court Justice, is supposed to STFU and make no indication of support or opposition at any point during a President's speech.  He knows this.  They all know it.  He totally ignored and violated the standards of his position.  He should be censured and apologize.

              "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

              by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:19:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He's human, for better or worse.... (3+ / 0-)

                It's possible he slipped.  It's human.  We do it.  Maybe he should apologize for letting his emotions get the best of him.  According to what you've said, I'd think an apology might be necessary.  But I think censure is a bit much.  

                •  Censure is no more extreme (5+ / 0-)

                  than the behavior being censured: It would simply be a public recognition by the Court that one of its Justices violated decorum and made them all look bad.  And noting that the man is human is a little extreme in itself - we're not talking about throwing the man in the Bastille, just a public expression by the institution whose standards he violated that he behaved inappropriately.

                  "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

                  by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:32:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What kind of society do you want to live in? (5+ / 0-)

                    Someone mutters something to themselves (after hearing a comment concerning, um, free speech) in the a free and open democracy and you want them CENSURED by the United States fucking Congress? CENSURED for violating "Decorum"?  He didn't even say anything out loud for pete's sake.

                    You've lost perspective.  The fact that so many around here take this impeachment/censor thing serious speaks volume about the self-parody this place has become....and why most poles in Washington, including the Dems, think we are joke.

                    I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

                    by The Navigator on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:01:52 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  oh no - really (0+ / 0-)

                      you're going to tell us off for our political views and how we should tone it down and do what the Washington insiders thing is the right thing to do, think and say?

                      are you insane?

                      you really think team Washington DC Dems is just crushing it right now?  just hitting it out of the park?

                      they're failing, they're a disastrous mess, they're timid incompetent fools by a large margin on the evidence of their actions and inability to achieve what the country at large supports by every serious poll, with record majorities in Congress

                      so, yeah - thanks for the advice - let's have the Republicans play hardball at every instance and we'll hold hands and sing Kumbayah

                      No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood

                      by ResponsibleAccountable on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:16:35 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If this moronic talk of impeachment... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...is the best we can do at playing "hardball", we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

                        I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

                        by The Navigator on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 11:08:18 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  You don't seem to appreciate (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ubertar, amk for obama, stunvegas

                      that high constitutional offices carry responsibilities beyond that of citizenship.  

                      And frankly, reacting to censure - which is simply a rhetorical expression of consensus against an official's behavior - as if it were some kind of oppressive violation of free speech is just bizarre.

                      It's every bit as bizarre that you think this way as the ruling assigning free speech to corporations.

                      "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

                      by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 11:04:36 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I agree...some perspective is definitely needed (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      littlenomad

                      here! Agreement is not the goal here, this site or country. That's what dictatorships push. Focus on the goal here, not the agreement. We want a certain direction for this country using legislation to get there, not coercion. Get a grip!

                •  Why an apology? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  celdd, valion, Whatithink

                  I'd rsther see a worthwhile debate rather than a worthless apology.

                  With Obama's Presidency, I feel the enduring pain of every teabagger, and believe me, I completely enjoy it.

                  by pollbuster on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:44:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  If Alito wants to (4+ / 0-)

              debate the issue, let him do it publicly and not with childish/immature displays that have the effect of degrading the very court that he sits on.

              With Obama's Presidency, I feel the enduring pain of every teabagger, and believe me, I completely enjoy it.

              by pollbuster on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:42:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  not a diary, please delete... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      debedb, Whatithink

      There already is an actual diary on the subject.

    •  Alito is part of a decision (3+ / 0-)

      to possibly hand this nation completely over to the rich special interests, and he actually has the nerve to show his displeasure that someone noticed it, and is calling him out on it.

      Since he seems to want to discuss this issue, why doesn't he schedule a live debate with President Obama regarding the issue? I'm sure the president would accomodate him.

      With Obama's Presidency, I feel the enduring pain of every teabagger, and believe me, I completely enjoy it.

      by pollbuster on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:39:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree...the entire court dissented on (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        the way they ruled. But rule of law is law. I do respect the law, even if i disagree with it. And i think that's what the court did. I think they expect and even hope congress will pass a clearer law with less nuanced interpretation, and i think congress will. But the court must uphold the law...if we've learned nothing over the last 8 years let's at least have learned to respect the law, like it or not.

    •  I'd like to say stupidest diary of the day, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      valion

      Alas, you're lnly in 3d place.



      I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State.

      by ben masel on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:05:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You're overreacting. (14+ / 0-)

    He wasn't "heckling". And he hasn't committed any impeachable offense.

    Dammit, it's time for some poetry! And some news!

    by Yosef 52 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:07:31 PM PST

    •  If this is "heckling," (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      debedb

      what do we call loud Yankees fans?

    •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

      because a lot of respected people think he's committed a treasonable offense.

      "Take whatever you can, Steal whatever you can't take, Kill what you can't steal so no one else can have it." - Republican Business Philosophy

      by Pen on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:33:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You talk about impeaching Alito (0+ / 0-)

      as if it would be a bad thing.

      I think that Citizens United is in and of itself grounds for impeachment.  If his intemperate behavior tonight helps others to the same conclusion, then the diarist is on the right track.

      "[W]e didn't elect Democrats to pass crap. We elected Democrats to make a difference"

      --Howard Dean

      by mbayrob on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:15:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you misunderstand justice for fairness... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        Justice means that the court will uphold the law as they feel our founders or congress meant it to be or how they feel it should be interpreted. They don't rule on what's fair. That's for congress to determine before they write the law. When there are gray areas, then the courts get involved. I understand you think the law is unfair as we are out-financed by the corporations, but they felt this is how the law read. If it's not meant to be that way, congress will clarify with another law. That's how it works. Just because it sucks doesn't mean it isn't the law.

        Lastly, i get the feeling you don't want any dissent, in any form. What you're proposing is anti-democratic in the extreme and quite scary actually. If that's not what you're proposing, could you please clarify whether you think dissent is bad, and if so what is your deciding factor for allowable dissent.

  •  For.. (10+ / 0-)

    ...a comment mouthed after President Obama criticized the court's decision?

    Assuming he said "that's not true," how is that showing disrespect for the president?

    It's the policy, stupid

    by Alec82 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:07:47 PM PST

  •  Not likely. (6+ / 0-)

    And in all fairness, not reasonable: His action was a serious breach of decorum, but not of judicial ethics (however egregiously he violates them in his rulings).  What we can reasonably demand is that the Supreme Court censure him and that he apologize.

    "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:08:22 PM PST

    •  Impeach him for being a corrupt scoundrel, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mbayrob

      whatever the pretext.

      The well-known phenomena of psychological projection and confirmation bias account for 198% of conservative so-called 'ideas'

      by power2truth on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:17:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bad idea. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        camlbacker, cap76, stunvegas, Whatithink

        We don't scrounge for pretexts to remove duly appointed and approved judges who've broken no laws.  It was our weakness that allowed him on to the bench - it is our responsibility to deal with the consequences, and not trash the constitution in a short-sighted attempt to protect it.

        "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

        by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:22:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Looks like a bad idea only to those who fail to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          celdd, ResponsibleAccountable

          realize the gravity of the situation. At least 4 of the 5 who voted to destroy the constitution and democracy did so in exchange for being put there in the first place. They are corrupt themselves, and seek to make lawlessness a guiding principle of this government. The only way to "deal with the consequences" is to remove them by the speediest, surest and cheapest way possible, then pass a law that will cause a non-corrupt court to issue a corrective ruling. You aren't dealing with the consequences, you are rationalizing the fear to do so.

          The well-known phenomena of psychological projection and confirmation bias account for 198% of conservative so-called 'ideas'

          by power2truth on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:44:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't misunderstand. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            camlbacker

            If Alito does anything that gives legitimate cause for impeachment - legitimate as defined in law - he should be impeached.  But I would refuse to support any proposal along those lines that wasn't thoroughly justified.  A judge's rulings are not a valid basis for removal, only for refusal to confirm, and we failed that test.  

            Hey, if the man is dumb enough to babble like an idiot during a SOTU speech, maybe he's dumb enough to be more than virtually corrupt.  Short of that, we'll just have to be creative in combating the corporate deluge his ruling (and that of the four others) will unleash.

            "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

            by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:52:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  hey - i like your diaries and comments often (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              power2truth

              but that's nonsense...

              it's the "i'll defend your right to your free speech even if you're telling the crowd to torch my house" crap that means Republicans move us to the right by any means necessary, Democrats hold the status quo by trying to be reasonable and "fair", then Republicans get in again (because people like a pendulum swing now and again more than they like to actually think through the underlying issues), and they keep pushing to the right

              it's insane where this country is moving and how it's just throwing away every remaining safeguard

              it's as nuts as the AFL/CIO thinking that they share an interest with the wealthy elite pushing for paid politicians - just think through the economics: how can labor (which gets a small cut of the free enterprise pie) outbid capital (which owns the F*CK*NG pie) for politicians in an age of outright bought elections?

              No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood

              by ResponsibleAccountable on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:02:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's precisely why we need to maintain (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ubertar, HiKa

                a rule-based system.  Yes, they'll rob, and cheat, and steal, but you underestimate the power of having the law unambiguously on our side.  If we just let go of that and turn this into a mutally-agreed-upon   free-for-all for power, then we lose everything.  

                It's easy not to notice the true power of drawing boundaries on your own behavior - that is, until you cross them and realize all you've done is knocked your own walls down, and now you're totally defenseless.

                Everyone is a rebel growing up in a pleasant neighborhood, protected by loving parents.  But then you venture farther afield and find places where there really are no rules, and it's not fun anymore, because those places are ruled by psychopaths.  You think we can out-ruthless Republicans?  Would you actually want to?  What would be the point?

                If there's no strength inherent and truth and fairness, why do we fight for them?

                "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

                by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:15:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  your arguments are not invalid or without merit (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Troubadour

                  but the truth is - just being honest and laying it on the line - i worry that the right wing core of the court are radical extremists and i think they have the intent and opportunity to take this country in a very bad direction

                  No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood

                  by ResponsibleAccountable on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:21:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let them. (0+ / 0-)

                    We'll be waiting for them.  This isn't Weimar Germany: Americans will passively tolerate a lot of disgraceful shit being done to others in their name, but there is no bigger lot of WATBs in the world.  Bush and Cheney were shocked and frustrated by their inability to implement their plans more broadly inside the US - it must have been like trying to strangle a column of water.  

                    No, our biggest danger is feudalism.  Wanton, chaotic, chopping up the country into little petty kingdoms.  That might eventually result in fascism once the last vestiges of democratic civilization arelost, but it's not practical now: Now the right just wants to crush government and public education, so our concerns have to be with building the future.  

                    We fight by being socially productive, because all the other side has is degradation.  Every single factor that works in the other side's favor can be combated by getting people to build things, to work with others, to talk and think, to connect with their neighbors and countrymen.  The other side has no ideas; not even bad ones.  They're entirely degenerate, and can't fight active people.

                    "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

                    by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:31:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                      Feudalism and Fascism are diametrically opposed. Feadalism is strong and powerful locally whereas fascism is centrally located power. I don't see the connection. The right may want to devolve into a feudal society(I don't personaly believe so) but the two are not connected. Actually, the left is more along the lines of fascism with the federal government controlling everything. However, I tend to believe that, left or right, the real thing both sides want is power, total and absolute, and they will use whatever means are necessary to obtain same. Not all assuredly, but some.

              •  That's crap! (0+ / 0-)

                What good is a court ruling that goes against the very freedoms they're there to defend. Yes, some common sense is good, but when you rule in way that isn't part of your country's rule of law (i.e. against freedom of speech and the like) then you're defending a country that it isn't. What good is that? The whole point of defending it, is so freedom of speech is protected. I don't want a court ruling against the basis of this country's founding.

            •  You still are rationalizing the fear to take the (0+ / 0-)

              kind of quick and drastic action that this desperate predicament call for, the kind of drastic action that our Founders, like many great statespeople and great movements in History have been ready to take.

              Our opponents, who thrive by trading on animal instinct instead of reason, smell that fear among our ranks, and it tells them that they can get away with more and more abuses.

              That, friend, is what happens.

              The well-known phenomena of psychological projection and confirmation bias account for 198% of conservative so-called 'ideas'

              by power2truth on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:08:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The Founders merely recognized (0+ / 0-)

                a state of independence that already existed and that the British were trying to extirpate.  There is nothing of the sort to recognize in our case: We grant the corporations that corrupt our politics full license in our homes and communities, and then act shocked when they are able to leverage what we give them against us.  Our response must be something that we create, not something that we destroy.

                "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

                by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:21:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  problem with that is (0+ / 0-)

                  eventually you can't fight back

                  if someone starts putting chains on your limbs - you can fight back after the first, or you can reason with them... after the second you're a going to find fighting back a little harder, but you can still choose to reason with them... eventually you can't find back... at that point there's little incentive for them to even listen to your reason

                  No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood

                  by ResponsibleAccountable on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:23:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But we talk in metaphor. (0+ / 0-)

                    Where are these chains?  The struggle is to guarantee the positive side of freedom, that libertarian/Randian types deny - the freedom of opportunity, that must be actively constructed through appropriate tax policies and services.  It would be easier to cut chains we can see than combat these abstract political forces.  

                    Breaking down a wall is easier than building one, and that's the problem: The other side doesn't really have anything to attack, despite how effectively they wield power - their assets are a shifting, seething, monstrous economic demon, the Corporate State, whereas ours have always been (by necessity) a more explicit and vulnerable animal.

                    "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

                    by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:40:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  again it's not that i have a big disagreement (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Troubadour

                  with you on the principles you outline in the abstract - i just find it difficult to concede to them in the specifics sometimes...

                  i don't know how to square that circle, but these guys worry me

                  No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood

                  by ResponsibleAccountable on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:26:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My philosophy is (0+ / 0-)

                    that I'll keep my eyes open, but I'll worry when there's something to worry about.  That isn't to say we're safe, just that there's no point starting at shadows.  

                    Fear is part of how control works, and not only the direct and obvious ways: Enemies can control you by forcing you to act in ways contrary to your interests, even while convincing you that it's necessary to protect them.  They can make you betray yourself, and believe that the only way to defeat them is to do things that make it easier for them to destroy you.

                    I'm being elliptical by necessity, but just think about this: Don't stare into the darkness, because you'll see both more and less than what is there.  Just stay focused on building, on constructive change, and it will be much harder for them to affect their agenda.

                    "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

                    by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:53:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  That's absurd. There was no state of (0+ / 0-)

                  independence, only arbitrary, undemocratic rule of force by an unaccountable elite, not unlike the elite that gave alito the favor he just returned.

                  If the founders had lost the war, God forbid, they very possibly could have ended up drawn and quartered for treason. And you don't even want to look like you are 'scrounging' for a motive...So much for love of country and liberty.

                  The well-known phenomena of psychological projection and confirmation bias account for 198% of conservative so-called 'ideas'

                  by power2truth on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:32:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm sorry, your understanding is wrong. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    erush1345

                    Americans lived dispersed in farms throughout the colonies, and had their own decentralized, effectively democratic communities (though less so in the Deep South).  

                    And no, please don't waste everyone's time arguing about the 18th century definition of "democratic" - it differed from place to place, but was as generally pluralistic as any democracy that had yet existed.

                    Americans were free people who traded openly in ideas and argued openly in their town halls.  When they started getting restless over policies they felt excluded from deciding, only then did the Crown begin to send in troops and suppress speech, and that's when revolutionary impulses began: Because they were already free and their freedom was being denied, not because a handful of people just arbitrarily decided they were going to make up a country out of thin air.

                    I makes me sad that my fellow Americans are so lacking in understanding about their own country.

                    "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

                    by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:58:48 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  And I refer you to the speeches of John Adams (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    erush1345

                    before the Continental Congress advocating the Declaration of Independence: He argued that Americans were already free, and that the Congress was simply being asked to honestly recognize a fact rather than create freedom that didn't yet exist.

                    "What is great in Man is that he is a bridge and not an end." - Friedrich Nietzsche

                    by Troubadour on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 11:16:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  The 1st Amendment is IN the Constitution. (0+ / 0-)



            I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State.

            by ben masel on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 01:58:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  And why the hell not? (0+ / 0-)

          If impeaching the bastard, and Roberts along with him, will stop decisions like Citizens United, then it's a service to the country.

          "[W]e didn't elect Democrats to pass crap. We elected Democrats to make a difference"

          --Howard Dean

          by mbayrob on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:16:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Raw story article here: (0+ / 0-)

    Subsidies without cost controls, regulatory reform means that citizens get a little more awful insurance at a huge cost to taxpayers. Like Part D but worse.

    by Inland on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:08:26 PM PST

  •  This is really silly. (14+ / 0-)

    Alito was an asshat, but that's not an impeachable offense.

  •  Jesus. (12+ / 0-)

    Supreme Court Justice heckles

    What the @#$! are you talking about?  Heckles?  HECKLES?  

    Joe Wilson HECKLED the President.  Samuel Alito--disagree with him though I do--sat in his seat, shook his head, and mumbled.  

    Big difference.  

    I don't like him, but exaggerating about what happened is beneath us and should not be tolerated.  

    •  That makes him wrong. (4+ / 0-)

      Speech rebuttable by counterspeech ordinarily doesn't get HR'd.  Pick up the flag.

      Show Dems in R-Leaning Districts Who Voted For Health Care, Against Stupak: We've Got Your Back

      by Adam B on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:15:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  HR abuse is what's beneath us. (0+ / 0-)

      You don't understand the rules of the site.  Really, you don't.

      "[W]e didn't elect Democrats to pass crap. We elected Democrats to make a difference"

      --Howard Dean

      by mbayrob on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:19:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      littlenomad, erush1345

      Calling that heckiling stretches the truth to the extent that is not tolerable. If I were to tell someone who hadn't watched the coverage of the speech that Alito heckled, I would be lying.

      To believe that Alito 'heckled' the President is either delusional or dishonest. I haven't HR the diary because I suspect the diarist is delusional. If I were feeling less generous, I would accuse them of lying.

      Alito did not heckle the President. If we don't agree on that, then we need to ask if this is a reality based community.

      Is the diarist delusional or dishonest. If the former, say so and move on. If the latter, then HR at will. I'm opting for the former, but I won't criticise those who are less generous about manipulation of the truth.

      "I, for one, would like to welcome our new Belgian overlords..."

      by Morus on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 01:33:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, this wasn't much of a Joe Wilson moment... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, John Poet, Alec82, BFSkinner

    ...he just got caught on camera whispering a comment ("not true") that will have the opportunity to be tested over the very near future.  That isn't an impeachable offense, but the fact that he was caught muttering it to the Associate Justice sitting next to him - that would be Sonia Sotomayor - should at least be a moment of profound embarrassment for the dimwit...

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Jack K on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:11:59 PM PST

    •  whispering? even I could read his lips (0+ / 0-)

      that was a whisper like I'm Chuck Norris's stunt double.

      Texas: Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Lady Bird & LBJ, Ann Richards, Sam Rayburn, Dan Rather, Ike, Sully Sullenberger, Lloyd Bentsen. It's No Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:42:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Now starts the "Hair On Fire" cycle (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, marina, soms, littlenomad, Alec82

    of diaries.

    "Go well through life"-Me (As far as I know)

    by MTmofo on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:12:20 PM PST

  •  ummm... (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, pico, soms, BFSkinner, cap76, licorice114

    How much more does one have to do? How much further must one go before America stands up and says,"this right wing Republican extremist behavior - this deliberate, co-ordinated effort to show contempt for, and disrespect towards the office of the President of the United States of America and the current occupant of that esteemed position - has gone too far"?

    Maybe actually commit an impeachable offense? Even assuming that him muttering at - not heckling, as you describe it - President Obama was part of a "deliberate, co-ordinated effort to show contempt for, and disrespect towards the office of the President of the United States of America," that still doesn't rise to the point of being worthy of impeachment.

    Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

    by mistersite on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:13:36 PM PST

  •  Off the table (7+ / 0-)

    Look, if we don't impeach people for leading the nation into war crimes, into repeated multiple violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles, if we don't impeach people for illegally spying on American citizens, we're going to impeach a Supreme Court judge for having opinions?

    If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas...They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves. ~ H. Zinn

    by ActivistGuy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:13:48 PM PST

  •  And the other 4 even if it is for spitting on the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phonegery, Irixsh

    sidewalk or saying the f-word in public. Enough of the pretending this is nothing but a gang of 5 corrupt scoundrels whose opinions should must not be taken in the due regard as that of bona fide judges.

    The well-known phenomena of psychological projection and confirmation bias account for 198% of conservative so-called 'ideas'

    by power2truth on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:14:00 PM PST

  •  Guilty (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    debedb, Rich in PA

    I've been guilty of "talking back" under my breath when I disagree with a speaker, including the president. I thought it was a normal reaction to something someone disagrees with.

    If a Justice is going to be impeached, I would rather it be for lying during confirmation hearings, or violating the oath of office. A case could be made for each cause, but we won't realistically get any impeachments.

  •  Its diaries like this that mske this place (8+ / 0-)

    Look like a looney bin.

    Thank god for the comments.

    Diarist, quit making this site look like a bunch of wackos

    Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I will tell you what you believe. h/t MeteorBlades

    by mdmslle on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:28:36 PM PST

    •  hmm (0+ / 0-)

      sounds a bit like abused-victim perspective to me - worrying that some "they" may think we're saying things that are a bit out there

      don't talk nonsense

      places like this are opportunities to move the overton window - instead of racing to a compromise position then finding that you have to give further ground as there's no such thing as a unilateral compromise

      there's a clear pattern of deliberate disrespectful behavior towards the President from Republicans and their allies - the Cheney wing - and has been all year

      this was a public manifestation of it - and it was heckling, and therefore does open up the appearance of political bias and that's inappropriate for a SCJ

      if this were ideologically reversed the Republicans and their team would be baying for blood

      No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood

      by ResponsibleAccountable on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:10:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Disrespect (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        isn't disrespect as you call it a form of free speech? So you would rather no dissent be allowed to be spoken from anyone during the presidents speech? you should really be careful what you ask for. You know that the republicans will be in power again eventually(it always swings left to right to left and back again) and if anyone was to follow the precedents you hope for here. Hmmmmm, wonder what would have happened if there had been no dissent allowed during President Bush's first term. Ever wonder about that?

  •  Blogging while drunk kills (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    debedb, erush1345

    I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

    by The Navigator on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:42:33 PM PST

  •  Only impeach for BJ's (0+ / 0-)

    not for anything else, including Bush's lies and murder. BJ's or nothing.

  •  Oh good grief (0+ / 0-)

    What, is Pelosi going to want a resolution now?

    I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

    by The Navigator on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:56:44 PM PST

  •  Far worse than Wilson (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ResponsibleAccountable

    Renquist didn't want the justices to go since by tradition they show neither approval or disapproval to anything said and Renquist thought they looked like bumps on a log.  For a justice to show partisanship blatantly on such an occasion should at least result in some form of censure by Congress.  This also should lead to closer examination of the likes of the tools nominated by the likes of  the Shrub.

    "The alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is to not think at all" Sir Peter Medawar

    by J Edward on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:09:45 PM PST

    •  yup (0+ / 0-)

      it shows the world clearly that these are corrupt biased right wing operatives

      and if exposing that to the light of day to a broader audience is all that comes of this, it's something

      No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood

      by ResponsibleAccountable on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:11:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Partisanship? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rich in PA, erush1345

      Maybe I saw a different video clip than you did, but what I saw was the President attack the Court, and the normal response. Get serious, if you were sitting in that room, and the President just called one of your decisions foolhardy and stupid, you wouldn't be muttering under your breath?

      •  Greenwalds response, it's TRADITION! (0+ / 0-)

        On a night when both tradition and the Court's role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow -- a conservative Republican judge departing from protocol to openly criticize a Democratic President -- with Republicans predictably defending him and Democrats doing the opposite.

        "The alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is to not think at all" Sir Peter Medawar

        by J Edward on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:00:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  not a troll diary (0+ / 0-)

    if you disagree, disagree for fux sake...put your little donut back in its holster and save it for a republican

    nothing is as precious as my burt bacharach box set

    by memofromturner on Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 10:33:42 PM PST

  •  what a silly diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    debedb, cap76, erush1345

    This is hyperbole and hyperpartisanship at its worst. Impeach Alito over that?? That's simply ridiculous. I guess every blog has its fanatics (even though I'm sure the diarist has good intentions, he's just going way overboard)

    •  Stressing the appearance of democracy over its (0+ / 0-)

      essence.

      It's perhaps a bit over the top, but the diarist has a point.

      Roberts and Alito are impeachable not because of some comment, but they merit it richly for their decisions, which go far beyond the law and precedent.

      You're so quick to protect the surface impression of comity that you no longer know right from wrong.  That's not silly, perhaps.

      Sad though.

      "[W]e didn't elect Democrats to pass crap. We elected Democrats to make a difference"

      --Howard Dean

      by mbayrob on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:25:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nobody likes their handiwork criticized (0+ / 0-)

    Whatever Alito mutters is fine with me.  If this hasn't happened before, it's only because presidents haven't called out Supreme Court decisions before with the Justices sitting there in the front row.  I'm happy Obama did it (even though I don't see the decision as any big deal, unlike most people here), but I don't think Alito is severely out of line to have expressed his disagreement.

    Enrich your life with adverbs!

    by Rich in PA on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 03:52:46 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site