Skip to main content

Quite a few folks don't seem to understand that the Supreme Court ruling on VRA, which I'm calling KKKourtgate, wasn't just a legitimate exercise of authority toward negative ends - that it was in fact a totally arbitrary, legally moribund, and Constitutionally impeachable abuse of power to enable the suppression of voters who overwhelmingly vote against the Party of the Court majority.  So I'd like to offer some analogies as to what the exact same abuse would be like if committed by the Executive branch.

There are a number of Executive analogies that might apply:

1.  The President orders the firing of all Republican military commanders and the promotion of Democratic officers to replace them.  

2.  A law gives the Executive branch the authority to regulate how many widgets are sold each year.  The President "interprets" this authority as giving him the power to order that no widgets be sold to Republicans.  

3.  Congress passes a law with a veto-proof majority that the President doesn't like, but he vetoes it anyway and acts like that's the end of it.  When SCOTUS rules the law valid, he ignores them too and just does whatever he wants.

All of these would obviously be impeachable abuses of power, and if Barack Obama acted like this, his involuntary return to private life would happen very quickly.  But somehow there is a magic aura surrounding the Supreme Court where literally nothing it does is admitted to be a criminal violation, even when it's basically the exact same kind of violation as those identified above.  That's insane, and has brought us to this sorry state of affairs.  

What the majority in the VRA decision did is simply this: They usurped authorities granted to the Legislature under the Constitution in order to stop the Executive branch from preventing voter suppression by states, so that the Republican Party can be protected from demographic changes in the United States and illegitimately "win" elections based on denying the rights of large numbers of voters.  They have...

1.  Usurped authorities granted to another branch of government.
2.  Done so for purely partisan purposes with no basis in law.  And...
3.  Deliberately sought to enable direct attacks on the fundamental Constitutional rights of a quarter of the American people.

Yeah, these people need to be ejected from the Supreme Court immediately, if not disbarred.

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

  •  enough is enough... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, slowbutsure

    ...how about from now on NO democratic senator votes for and gives cover to ANY judicial nominee who is supported by the "federalist society".

  •  The impeachment horse is not merely dead, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slowbutsure, VClib, erush1345

    it's really most sincerely dead. Your flogging won't revive it.

    Meanwhile, for people interested in discussing practical ways to deal with the effects of the VRA decision, here's one link: Making plans to get voters the IDs they need.

    •  Utterly pathetic comment. (0+ / 0-)

      How's your "practical" approach going on dealing with Citizens United?  Got any legislation or Constitutional Amendments passed or even within a country parsec of passing?  If they ever do, it will be a damn shame when the Roberts KKKourt strikes them down or interprets them into nonexistence.

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

      by Troubadour on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:37:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not doing the dance of the seven subject changes (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thestructureguy, terrypinder, Ahianne

        with you, Troubadour. Just commenting in case anyone stops by who doesn't know what impeachment requires and what folly it is to propose as a reaction to a bad decision. Short version:

        1) An impeachment of 5 Republican-appointed justices (or any other) must begin in the House. The House is controlled by Republicans -- most of whom like the decision on which you want to base impeachment.

        2) Conviction and removal requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate. There are not enough votes in the Senate to convict. (I doubt there would be a single vote on the current record.)

        Those basic realities are enough. We don't even have to get to the weakness of the analogies in the diary. But since I promoted someone else's diary, I'll pimp a couple of yours, too. For those who want more detail and comments from lawyers and others who have repeatedly engaged Troubadour in excruciating detail on this topic:

        Change.org Petition to Reject Lawless Partisan SCOTUS Ruling and Impeach Court Majority, which followed: If The SCOTUS Five Strike Down VRA Impeach Them.

        Of course, you know that impeachment is not a possibility. You acknowledged in one of the other diaries that it's not really your goal. So when you continue to talk about ejecting people from the Supreme Court when you know it's not possible, it makes me wonder about your real goal here. I'll leave that for others to suss out.

        •  I have to wonder why you find this so threatening (0+ / 0-)

          if, as you repeatedly insist with a very strange amount of vehemence, that this is just an idle folly.  

          You can't possibly believe it would serve as a "distraction" from your oh-so-"practical" attempts to just deal with an endless series of judicial abuses rather than standing up and saying enough is enough.  After all, you said impeachment was "dead."

          Let me give you a little truism: If you have to keep saying over, and over, and over that something is not credible...you're advertising the fact that you find it threatening.  

          The fact is you have no better ideas.  None.  You treat permanent abuses of power by this Court as an immutable law of the cosmos rather than action by criminal enemies.  Your approach has not done a single thing to mitigate even the abuses they've already committed let alone will commit in the future.  So lead, follow, or get out of the way.

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

          by Troubadour on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 03:57:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Well, not sure I fully agree with your (4+ / 0-)

    analogies... but in intention, you're absolutely right.

    It's an outrageous undoing of an essential part of the VRA, and we're already seeing states rush to make it more difficult for PoC to vote.

    "Throwing a knuckleball for a strike is like throwing a butterfly with hiccups across the street into your neighbor's mailbox." -- Willie Stargell

    by Yasuragi on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 01:39:21 PM PDT

  •  Amen, the VRA decision is right-wing BS. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, Brecht, PhilK

    The legal principle that it's based on does not exist: the idea of "equal sovereignty" among the states. Chief Justice Roberts seems to be trying to invent an absurd right that the Constitution never envisioned (and is directly contradicted by the Constitution itself), and which doesn't make any sense other than as a way for the conservatives on the court to justify future radical opinions.

    This ruling is one of the most activist, reactionary, right-wing decisions in American history.

  •  The five member Supreme Court seems to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK, Troubadour, Habitat Vic

    be moving in the direction of the current 'government' in Wisconsin.  Any outcome they want to see is imposed, one way or another.  

    Time is a long river.

    by phonegery on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:22:56 PM PDT

  •  How about Congress passes a law and it's (0+ / 0-)

    signed into law and the Executive doesn't agree with it and refuses to enforce it?

    Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    by thestructureguy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 02:39:26 PM PDT

    •  Gold-bricking isn't an abuse of power. (0+ / 0-)

      But that's not what the KKKourt Five did.  The analogy to an Executive not enforcing something would be the Court refusing to hear a case.  Instead, they actively usurped legislative authority in order to force the Executive branch to stop enforcing a totally legitimate law.

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

      by Troubadour on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:12:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's what the SCOTUS is suppose to do. (0+ / 0-)

        Declare laws unconstitutional or constitutional. Whether they are right is another story but they were preforming their function.  Enforcing the law is a function of the Executive Branch.  

        Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

        by thestructureguy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:06:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  An alternative (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour

    would be to dust off the 1937 playbook and threaten them with court packing measures or maybe stripping of jurisdiction.

    It's a more feasible, yet less effective, method than impeachment, but hey, it worked once, even while FDR's court packing bill failed.

    But even barring that, there are other things that may have some effect.  A few months before the ACA decision was handed down, the president was holding a press conference with Canadian and Mexican leaders where he received a question about whether he felt the law would be upheld.  The president in no uncertain terms announced that it would have been an extraordinary, unprecedented breach of judicial precedent to overturn the act.  And while there's no way to tell what was in John Roberts' head, there's no question he heard this calling out of sorts.  The justices don't operate in a vacuum.

    So now we actually have a ruling that is utterly divorced from judicial precedent and the Constitution.  The president could hold a press conference and take a VRA question and let the Fab Five know what he thinks.

    •  Ah, I almost forgot about court-packing. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jdsnebraska

      The threat of such a thing might be helpful, although face the same obstacles as impeachment.  And also, let's face it, the KKKourt would just rule it unconstitutional even though it isn't.

      The president could hold a press conference and take a VRA question and let the Fab Five know what he thinks.
      Indeed.  That's why the Change.org petition in my sig line calls for not just impeachment of the Justices, but for the President and Congress to condemn the ruling as unprecedented and illegitimate.

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

      by Troubadour on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:16:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  i really want to know a few things now: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thestructureguy

    1. your age generation
    2. whether you were educated in the United States
    3. whether you had a civics class or classes AT ALL.

    Why is this such a difficult concept: a ruling you do not like IS NOT INVALID just because you don't like it. You do realize your argument is being used about DOMA/Prop 8? It's still a wrong argument. You don't get to impeach judges because you don't like their rulings. Constitutional interpretation, even blatently convoluted ones like Shelby Co. v Holder, is not illegal. Otherwise cite your work. Show me IN THE CONSTITUTION (and you can even twist it to whatever end you want) and in the 200 plus years of jurisprudence WHERE you get to do this. I'll gladly wait.

    Your analogies aren't even close to what happened in reality. And your item 3 is not correct:

    Congress passes a law with a veto-proof majority that the President doesn't like, but he vetoes it anyway and acts like that's the end of it.  When SCOTUS rules the law valid, he ignores them too and just does whatever he wants.
    if it's "veto-proof" and the President doesn't sign it and sends it back to them/vetos it, Congress simply has to overturn the veto with a 2/3rd vote. SCOTUS would not even get involved. Article 1, section 7, Clause 3. Come on.
    •  This bubble of denial is officially reaching (0+ / 0-)

      imbecilic proportions.

      Why is this such a difficult concept: Supreme Court Justices are not above the Constitution.  They cannot just declare themselves whatever powers they please and then strike down laws because they don't like them and because they get in the Republican Party's way.

      What is wrong with you?  

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

      by Troubadour on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 04:40:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They can declare a law unconstitutional. It's (0+ / 0-)

        actually their job under the Constitution.

        Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

        by thestructureguy on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:12:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They can CITE THE CONSTITUION in declaring (0+ / 0-)

          a law unconstitutional, and also precedent.  They can't just make shit up and usurp authorities from other branches.

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

          by Troubadour on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:37:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

            •  The Constitution gives the Legislative branch (0+ / 0-)

              the power to pass appropriate legislation remedying racial discrimination in voting.  They did so.  But the five criminals in the Roberts majority usurped the authority to determine what is and is not appropriate legislation, pulled arbitrary standards out of their ass with no precedence in jurisprudence or written law, and conveniently obliterated the greatest federal law enforcement obstacle to Republican electoral victory in 2014.  

              You are in denial.    

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

              by Troubadour on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 05:43:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  it seems you've never had a civics class. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                thestructureguy

                it's also clear you didn't read the entire ruling. it's very clear you didn't read the ruling that led up to this too.

                Incidentally it's pretty clear you never read the Voter Rights Act of 1965 and its subsequent amendments, and I am really not even sure if you were paying attention when states not subject to preclearance passed blatantly restrictive voter ID laws---which mostly have been upheld at the state and Federal level, and other than writing demands for impeachment without explaining the who, what, where, how, and why (and showing no homework at all about the before, during, and after of your hypothetical impeachment proceedings other than emotive rhetoric_, I don't think you have any interest at all at the already ongoing efforts to fix VRA.

                but anyway, good luck. the most naive people on the planet seem to be [some] American progressives.

                •  It seems your idea of our system of government (0+ / 0-)

                  consists of five people saying whatever they want and that becomes the law, so maybe can the painfully ironic references to civics class.  

                  And what exactly are you asserting about that previous case?  Because in the current one the dissenting 4 lambasted the majority's unprecedented and ludicrous invention of fictitious standards out of thin air.

                  I don't think you have any interest at all at the already ongoing efforts to fix VRA.
                  VRA needs to be expanded, not struck down by partisan Commissars plotting a GOP election strategy from the bench.

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

                  by Troubadour on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:18:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the previous case (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    thestructureguy

                    (Northwest Austin Municipal v Holder) pretty much telegraphed Tuesday's decision and it basically said "If Congress does not fix the preclearance formula, we will strike it down the next time it comes before us because we've found, by our interpretation, serious constitutional problems with it." That was an 8-1 decision (Thomas dissenting, they also added the bail out feature which sadly Shelby County couldn't' bother to stick with).

                    Congress did not fix it. Neither the House nor Senate bothered. The Senate sure is bothering now--hearings begin next month.

                    SCOTUS has been upholding or overturning laws and parts of laws for 200+ years now as is its constitutional function, with some decisions (like the one that gave corporations personhood---that was 1886, or 1819 depending on what case you use and not 2010) using some ridiculous logic "made up out of thin air". That is still not illegal, nor is it impeachable, even if the dissenting opinions lambasted the majority opinions (which would not be the first time that's happened---did we miss Scalia's rather epic dissent on DOMA?). If you want that to change, you know the route you have to take to get there and it'd involve scrapping almost all of Article III and starting over.

                    Conservatives HATED the Warren Court and wanted to have every one of them impeached for their legal opinions. Conservatives now HATE the DOMA decision and want to have every one of them impeached. I am not seeing how your petition is any different.

          •  do you realize this is the exact rhetoric coming (0+ / 0-)

            from rush Limbaugh regarded  roe v wade. gay marriage, Obamacare and all sorts of laws that the right doesn't like.

            the Roberts court is interesting. A lot of split 5/4 decisions on social issues.. but Roberts has taken the progressive side many times (Obamacare, prop8, doma, etc) and less than progressive in cases such as this case and citizen's united. Roberts himself isn't the worst on supreme court and has actually showed quite a bit of independence from political party or ideology. scalia and Thomas are far, far worse.

      •  there is no bubble of denial. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne, thestructureguy

        you have in your mind that what they did the other day is illegal. Outside of your opinion (and this is your opinion), you've not described how, and what constitutional principle makes it illegal. Supreme Court Justices are not above the constitution. you have not shown they are, other than rule in a way you do not like. That is not an impeachable offense. It will be laughed out of the House, and the member who brings it will lose re-election. Your argument is precisely the exact same argument being raised in conservative spheres about the DOMA decision and the Prop 8 punt. They hate it. Therefore it's illegal. Therefore impeach. Oh, and they get to ignore the rulings and they're both invalid rulings because they don't like it and apparently neither does their god.

        Impeaching supreme court justices does not reset and overrule their past rulings. Section 4 will still be dead. Its only fixes are legislative (which the President actually wants and will push for and what the Court actually said do---granted this House of Reps won't bother!) or constitutional (as AdamB pointed out two days ago) And has been pointed out to you over and over and over and over and over again, the most egregious voting rights and voter suppression acts occurred in states and locales where the now dead statutes did not apply. And has been also demonstrated when presented with the barriers of voter ID and the like, people overran them by showing up to vote.

        I'm still waiting for your research. And if you want to talk judicial term limits, totally fair game (but would also require a constitutional amendment).

  •  it didn't seem like the supreme's struck down the (0+ / 0-)

    law. they just simply said that the law's math needs to be reworked to reflect modern data rather than that of the 60s. It actually seems sensible. as racist as the south is... in the 60s it was worse. progress has been made whether anyone admits it and it should be reflected in law even if it flips just one county.

  •  i just have to laught at this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrypinder

    1.  Usurped authorities granted to another branch of government.
     2.  Done so for purely partisan purposes with no basis in law.  And...
     3.  Deliberately sought to enable direct attacks on the fundamental Constitutional rights of a quarter of the American people.

    responses

    1. the courts rule on law. the idea of activists judges is brought up by both sides when they want to throw a tantrum over a ruling not going their way.
    2. the Roberts court has actually been shown to be fairly independent of political party. it's why we're all glued to our seats when they are going to rule on the next big social brew-haha. We genuinely don't know which way it's going to go. I thought they were going to strike down Obama care. they didn't.

    3. this is the most blatantly ignorant comment in your diary. YOU HAVE NO CONSTITIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE. Seriously, go read the whole constitution. YOU'VE GOT NO RIGHT TO VOTE!!!  Thus it technically can't be taken away from a quarter of the American people.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site