Skip to main content

Ever since the 2000 presidential election, Republicans have used the Supreme Court of the United States as their Fixer when the American people disobey them at the polls.  We chose the "wrong" President, Al Gore, so they fixed that for us.  In 2008, we elected a Democratic President and supermajority Democratic Congress by too wide a margin for them to overrule, so they legalized buying elections just in time for Republicans to do so in 2010 and recapture the House of Representatives.  But even that wasn't enough to stop us reelecting Barack Obama, widening our margin in the Senate, and taking a handful of seats in the House in 2012, so now these unbelievable partisan fucks have now gutted the Civil Rights Act just in time to suppress minority voters in 2014.

These people are no longer even pretending to be agents of law: They are simply partisan Commissars who rule however the Republican Party finds convenient, according to its electoral timetable, and in increasingly brazen and Orwellian ways.  The ruling just handed down strikes down the requirement for historically discriminatory areas to submit their election process to prior federal approval, and the excuse for the ruling is - get this - equality.  Not of people, but of states.  The nebulous equality of abstract entities to be treated the same by the federal government trumps the absolute and fundamental obligation to guarantee the equality of the American people in exercising the most basic act of democratic self-government in a free society, voting.

This "reasoning" is, of course, complete bullshit that no one on the planet buys, least of all these GOP partisan marionette bastards.  Just as in 2010, their timing is impeccable and predictable: With this ruling, GOP governors and legislatures will now get to work reinstituting every heinous Jim Crow law and racist barrier to voting their twisted little un-American lizard minds can conjure.  Well, I say when the GOP Five handed down this ruling attacking the foundations of Civil Rights in America, they finally crossed the line from law to abuse of power and the ruling is illegitimate.  

Rather than swallowing yet another lawlessly imposed barrier to exercising our fundamental rights as Americans and struggling, probably futilely, to pass a Constitutional Amendment addressing it, I say the Roberts Court has created a constitutional crisis that can only be resolved by launching impeachment investigations into the five Justices in the majority and holding this ruling to be null and void.  It's enough.  They've crossed a solid, double-yellow line in the fundamental foundations of American democracy and done it plainly just to empower the criminal electoral strategies of their partisan masters in the GOP, and it's just the latest example of their doing so.  Rule of law cannot exist while these people are in control of the Supreme Court.

Impeach.  These.  Fucks.  Now.

11:26 AM PT: Didn't see this diary before publishing mine, but MoT has one along the same lines:

Striking down voting rights act = Bush v. Gore 2.0 - Partisan SCOTUS Rewards GOP Voter Suppression

1:13 PM PT: I've posted a Change.org petition calling on the President and Congress to condemn and reject the ruling, and call for abuse of power impeachment inquiries into the Five Justices:

http://www.change.org/...

I've also discussed in the petition in a new diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/...

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

  •  Dead on arrival considering impeachment (5+ / 0-)

    has to start in the House. Article III is the mechanism.

    any house member (or as I understand it, non-members such as a special prosecutor but I could be wrong) can of course bring such a resolution, but it'll die in the House Judiciary committee and that'll be pretty much the end of that.

    only one SCOTUS justice has ever been impeached and the Senate acquited him, further suggesting impeachment is dead on arrival.

    •  Doesn't matter. We have to take it as far (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, peacestpete

      as it possibly can go, and the whole while make clear that the ruling is illegitimate and in violation of the basic foundations of the Constitution.

      Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

      by Troubadour on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:28:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  forgot about Abe Fortas (0+ / 0-)

      but he resigned on his own (and he actually did something probably actually illegal. Convoluted interpretations of the constitution are not illegal.)

      •  This is a nakedly partisan decision (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OleHippieChick, Mogolori

        clearly designed to rig an election in advance, and in the process attacking the fundamental rights of a racial minority in this country that still faces massive discrimination and obstacles to exercising the franchise.  The ruling is not merely controversial: It is invalid.  We are in a state of Constitutional crisis because of it.

        Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

        by Troubadour on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:37:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I certainly agree (0+ / 0-)

          it's a partisan decision. I don't agree it's invalid because I don't like it. I don't like that Citizens United happened and I don't like that a mere footnote in a decision over a century ago is why corporations are people in the first place. They're still not invalid.

          they offered a way out (a stupid one, considering THIS congress) and there of course is another way: the constitutional amendment AdamB is talking about in the other diary. Impeachment won't bring Section 4 back. The Senate is already working on a fix.

          I'm perfectly okay with impeaching a bunch of SCOTUS justices if that's the route you want to do but I want to know HOW you're going to do this. WHO will you target to introduce this in the House. If not that, HOW will you convince DoJ to appoint a special prosecutor to spend time on impeaching SCOTUS members over attending to its VRA Section 2 duties, which are going to get totally slammed with work now. These are very important questions to ask and have answered.

          •  But it is invalid. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            terrypinder

            If not, then nothing else could be.  It's not just partisan - it's a partisan attack on the most basic rights of millions, all to help the GOP get elected in 2014.  The brazenness of it transcends mere judicial activism and enters realms that make a lie of our republic if they're allowed to stand, so I say it is clearly an invalid ruling and an abuse of power demanding the impeachment of those responsible.

            Impeachment won't bring Section 4 back.
            I say we have to adopt the attitude that it never left.  That the effect of this ruling was to invalidate the current Court majority, not the section of the VRA they struck down to ensure a GOP victory in 2014.
            The Senate is already working on a fix.
            It's not going to happen, and focusing on that effort just implicitly concedes the legitimacy of the ruling and the ongoing legitimacy of the Court majority that issued it.  Even if we managed to overcome this one, they'd throw another in our way.  They've made it clear that the Constitution can't continue with that Court overseeing it.  They're utterly lawless and brazen, and will just get more so.
            I'm perfectly okay with impeaching a bunch of SCOTUS justices if that's the route you want to do but I want to know HOW you're going to do this.
            I can't off the top of my head see the way to success, but that doesn't really matter: It's necessary.  We have to invalidate this ruling, if not by successfully removing them from the bench, then at least by making such a ruckus that the net political effect is to withdraw consent from the attack on our Constitution.
            WHO will you target to introduce this in the House. If not that, HOW will you convince DoJ to appoint a special prosecutor to spend time on impeaching SCOTUS members over attending to its VRA Section 2 duties, which are going to get totally slammed with work now. These are very important questions to ask and have answered.
            We should all spend the next few days considering the first steps.  The story's only hours old to me, so I don't have any answers immediately.  But we should at least come to consensus that this is a necessary thing regardless of the challenges involved.

            Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

            by Troubadour on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:07:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well and impressively argued but (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Troubadour

              i want to know where or what precedent in civics allows us to simply consider rulings invalid because we don't like them, which is the gist I'm getting here.

              •  For one, that's not what's going on here. (0+ / 0-)

                We're confronted with an unprecedented abuse of power: A Supreme Court that arbitrarily accepts and decides cases in order to maximize the electoral advantages of one Party.  So addressing that abuse of power will require unprecedented corrections, but ones nonetheless provided for in the Constitution.  There's a reason Supreme Court Justices can be impeached, and it ain't for unpaid parking tickets.

                Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

                by Troubadour on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:49:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  The state of our constitutional crisis started (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troubadour, Heftysmurf

          with Bush v. Gore and continued through Citizens United, both of which established the new precedent of gutting precedent for naked political purposes by radicals with lifetime appointments.  This ruling fits neatly with the first two.

          Bush v. Gore
          Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission
          Shelby County v. Holder

          This is a nothing less than judicial warfare on the right to vote.

          "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

          by Mogolori on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:43:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  More at work than "convoluted interpretations" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour

        I'd like to see more investigation into the conservative money going into the Thomas family via his wife, and pulling back some rugs might very well expose some dirt.

        Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

        by Dogs are fuzzy on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:02:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  No. 1 ranking in Bush vs Gore nightmares? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, OleHippieChick, a2nite, KenBee

    It's hard to say what the worst changes to the country and the world are as a result of SCOTUS handing Bush the presidency in 2000. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost, if not more; billions of dollars of American taxpayer's money transferred to the ultrarich of many nations, perhaps trilions; an increase in Americans' denial of global warming and the according rise in emissions and temperatures..... etc., etc.

    But the fact that Bush got to nominate the dominating forces on this court may create the worst legacy of all. Citizen United forever changed the basis of our democracy. Overturning these parts of the Voting Rights Act puts us back in a zone where Republicans can use old-fashioned voter suppression to steal elections rather than the complex electronic maneuvering with which they stole the election in 2004.

    "The law of love will work, just as the law of gravitation will work, whether we accept it or not...." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by waydownsouth on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:35:57 AM PDT

    •  And now this ruling basically puts us in a state (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      waydownsouth, a2nite

      of Constitutional crisis.  The ruling cannot stand, but there's basically no chance of passing an Amendment.  Our only option is to reject the ruling and the judges that issued it.  It's abuse of power, plain and simple.  Impeachment is our only recourse, regardless of its prospects for success.  It has to be pursued vehemently, and this is something that should be ample grounds to get people out in the streets.

      Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

      by Troubadour on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:42:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which justices voted against VRA but for Bush? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour, Sue B, OleHippieChick, KenBee

        As I mentioned in a comment on the Holder diary now on the front page, I want to know how justices who voted against these parts of the Voting Rights Act and also voted for Bush in Bush vs. Gore can maintain any pretense of judicial neutrality. Who is going to ask them how they can possibly maintain that those two decisions reflect the same interpretation of balance of power between state and federal levels of government? Why did they intervene in Florida's counting of its votes but now say the federal government has no right to intervene in states that have a history of discrimination.

        It may get people out into the streets. But, as we've seen in the past, the Supreme Court justices consider themselves immune to those kinds of protests, even if other branches of government are more reactive to them. I hope people get out in the streets, for real. I hope this motivates a crowd of people that weren't as motivated by the financial issues driving OWS to get out in force. Who thought it would have to happen again.

        "The law of love will work, just as the law of gravitation will work, whether we accept it or not...." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by waydownsouth on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:48:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Only three of the current Five were on the Court (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          waydownsouth, OleHippieChick

          at the time, because Roberts and Alito were Bush appointees: Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.  But all of them were the Citizens United crew.  Their one and only function is to help the GOP secure power.  You point up their basic hypocrisy: They'll say and do anything to empower Republicans.

          The Court may ignore protests directly, but they can hound Democrats in Congress to take a stand, and also in state legislatures and governorships.  The response from Democrats has been sickeningly weak, including the President saying he was "disappointed" by it.  That's not even close to being adequate.  They must condemn it and its perpetrators in the strongest possible terms.  This is a Constitutional crisis.

          Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

          by Troubadour on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:54:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree 100% and was ready, in 2000, to follow (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour

            Gore into the streets in that Constitutional crisis, which I look at as similar to the moment when the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire and Napoleon crowned himself emperor. I did look for Gore to take the lead and fight for the majority of the country that had supported him. He acquiesced to the corrupt decision of the court.

            Now, Obama and others will do as you describe, expressing "disappointment" while making sure the boat doesn't get rocked. And the untouchable justices will sit back, with their lifetime appointments, with the knowledge of where the balance of power really ends in this country in modern times.

            "The law of love will work, just as the law of gravitation will work, whether we accept it or not...." -- Mahatma Gandhi

            by waydownsouth on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:03:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I too was ready to answer any call Gore (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              waydownsouth

              might have given.  I couldn't understand why he just bowed out.  But this time we shouldn't wait for politicians to lead.

              Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

              by Troubadour on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:34:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I hear you and knew that was a viable response (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour, KenBee

                even as I wrote I was "waiting" for Gore to lead. But, bottom line is, people were out in the streets then, hugely. It just fizzled out. People have been out in the streets, for OWS, at other times. I do believe it would take both a groundswell from beneath, as we have seen, and a leader who is both within the political sphere and able to risk it all and lay it on the line simultaneously for the kind of change we seek to take place. Maybe Elizabeth Warren is such a person. I honestly don't know. I see groundswells and have seen them..... what it takes to break the stranglehold in this country I do not know.

                "The law of love will work, just as the law of gravitation will work, whether we accept it or not...." -- Mahatma Gandhi

                by waydownsouth on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:47:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hopefully because this targets a specific (0+ / 0-)

                  group of Americans who have been historically persecuted, that will give the movement against the ruling and the criminal Justices a solid and persistent core.

                  Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

                  by Troubadour on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:59:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Roberts, the new Fuller! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, a2nite

    Google Melville Fuller or pay attention who was the concurring CJ when Plessy was decided.

    John Roberts? Melville Fuller?? WTF is the difference???.

    by Walt starr on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:45:29 AM PDT

  •  It is something worse than "partisan" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick, Troubadour

    I don't know the right word for what they just did, but even the most recent Congressional vote on the VRA was overwhelmingly bipartisan. No Republicans voted against it in the Senate, and only a few dozen in the House.

    "Anti-democratic", maybe?

    Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

    by Dogs are fuzzy on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:58:49 AM PDT

    •  Treasonable. (0+ / 0-)

      As I said in the lead-up to the election, voter suppression is treason.  As enabling voter suppression is the plain objective of the ruling, it's hard to avoid applying the same label to it.  Though, of course, I'm not suggesting charging them criminally with that.  Just throwing their corrupt, lawless asses off the bench.

      Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

      by Troubadour on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 01:00:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank God It Doesn't Matter Who Wins in 2014 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour

    /snark

    Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

    by TooFolkGR on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:42:25 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site