Skip to main content

We were all heartened that Edward Snowden's leaks cleared the "standing" catch-22 obstacle to the ACLU lawsuit challenging NSA domestic spying, thereby allowing it to proceed.  Unfortunately, there are only two possible outcomes with John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court: If the lower courts find in favor of the NSA, they will simply not hear an appeal from the ACLU.  Or if the highest court beneath SCOTUS finds for the ACLU, then SCOTUS will agree to hear the government's case and inevitably - inevitably - find in its favor.  Will you acknowledge then that the Judiciary is broken and that those five Justices are the reason, or will you demand that we accept their ruling negating the 4th Amendment as law?

You might want to get started building a foundation for a grassroots movement against this Court majority.

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

  •  Tip Jar (8+ / 0-)

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

    by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:12:44 PM PDT

  •  I won't be calling for impeachment... (8+ / 1-)

    ...then again, I'm not a fucking moron.

    "Who is John Galt?" A two dimensional character in a third rate novel.

    by Inventor on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:17:40 PM PDT

  •  No. What's the point? (6+ / 0-)

    This is a bit of an oversimplification, but the judges would have to be impeached by the House of Representatives, which passed and reapproved the Patriot Act, which made much of this NSA activity legal.  Besides, even if they have a change of heart, it would be a whole lot easier for the House to repeal the Patriot Act, and then pass further legislation prohibiting the NSA activity that is objectionable.  But to say it would be easier is not to say it would happen.  In fact, I can guarantee that it won't, because there has been no change of heart.

    •  What's the point indeed? (3+ / 0-)

      Even if they were impeached, the current President can be counted on to nominate more pro-NSA, pro-USA-PATRIOT, anti-Fourth-Amendment justices in their place.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:36:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sotomayor and Kagan are pro-NSA? (0+ / 0-)

        Where are you getting that?

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

        by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:41:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's always nice to have Champions of Liberty (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward, RocketJSquirrel

          as long as they're safely in the minority.

          You don't think Obama is going to let SCOTUS trash a major part of his legacy, now, do you?

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:43:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, I see. So he appointed two liberal (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jennybravo, FG

            Supreme Court Justices as a nefarious trick to deceive us.

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

            by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:44:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You know, you'd probably spend less time (6+ / 0-)

              in the Hiddens if you didn't have such a penchant for twisting others' words.

              And for your information, I don't consider either of Obama's two SCOTUS appointments to date to be "liberal."  They're "liberal" only to the extent our continued red shift defines Rockefeller Republicans as "liberal."  Sotomayor even got her first federal court appointment under Poppy Bush ferchrissake.

              Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

              by corvo on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:47:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But is there any basis in either Justice's record (0+ / 0-)

                to claim that they would issue a lawless ruling on 4th Amendment matters?

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

                by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:49:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I wasn't arguing that they'd issue (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Victor Ward

                  such a ruling . . . remember?  I'm just saying that subsequent appointees will be subjected to additional scrutiny by Obama's vetters to ensure they not rock the security boat.

                  Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

                  by corvo on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:53:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Who knows? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          corvo

          But Obama certainly is. And besides it doesn't matter if one is pro or con NSA. It is whether or not their current activities are constitutional or not.

          •  And what's your position on that? (0+ / 0-)

            Are the NSA's activities constitutional?  And if the Five on the Supreme Court rule that they are, will you edit your opinion accordingly and take no further action on it?

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

            by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:29:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I can see where it is (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, OldSoldier99, corvo

              as I have stated elsewhere to you. I can also see that there are arguments the other way. I am not a constitutional scholar. Are you? What if it is 6 in favor? 7?All 9?  Do you impeach all them as well? You obviously think this NSA action is unmistakably unconstitutional and see no merit to another view. But cases are rarely (if ever?) that cut and dry at the higher court level.

              But again why give the president and congress a pass? The court had nothing to do with this policy.

              •  My views on the NSA case aren't finalized. (0+ / 0-)

                What I've deduced so far is that it would be legitimate to sift internet traffic for foreign information, but limit the use of US-based information to confirming that it is in fact US-based and not just routed from elsewhere, at which point it should be deleted.  HOWEVER, there are complexities because websites and traffic originate all over the world and are routed through everywhere.  I will read the ultimate ruling, if one occurs, to decide whether the inevitable ruling in favor of the NSA has suitable legal basis or is another arbitrary act.

                What if it is 6 in favor? 7?All 9?  Do you impeach all them as well?
                Again, I'm not calling for their impeachment over this case.  I'm asking people for whom this case is black-and-white whether they would do so.

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

                by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:11:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You seem to be thinking this is a matter of (4+ / 0-)

                  degree, rather than character, and that if you just come up with a decision that we really, really, really hate, rather than just really, really hate, that we'll see it your way. You also seem to think our only objection is pragmatic -- we can count votes -- rather than principled.

                  I can't speak for everyone, but I know I'm not alone in saying no, there are no circumstances in which I would call for impeachment -- especially, to leave open the potential for impeachment for cognitive impairment, not of a bloc of judges -- based on the performance of the judicial function. Your declaration that that performance is lawless and arbitrary does not make it so. Being wrong, even devastatingly wrong, is not the same as being lawless and arbitrary.

                  It's not just that we can't achieve what you're proposing (though that is so clear that there's no real need for further analysis), it's that I don't want the structure you're proposing. With all its flaws, and there are many, the current structure is far preferable to this vague stuff about social contract and primacy of the people. The logical result of that is complete abandonment of protections for minority rights, rather than the unfortunate weakening of them we've just witnessed.

                  I'm aware that the catfish is in the Mississippi and the Mississippi is in the catfish, but more than a few people have thought this through in our history. Reasonable humility suggests you might consult them.

                  •  Then you are taking the position (0+ / 0-)

                    that the one branch of government with no explicit authority under the Constitution is the one branch not subject to removal from power for violating it.  That's a very extreme interpretation - far more extreme than simply asserting that courts are subject to the laws they interpret rather than being arbitrary "lawgivers" in the Roman sense.

                    And while I agree that a three-branch government under the Constitution would be a departure from the current paradigm, look at the results of the status quo: Eight years of Bush and all the horrors that flowed from that, air-tight GOP gerrymandering, Republican legislative majorities existing despite losing the popular vote, ALEC legislation sweeping the country, Citizens United legalizing corruption, and now clearing the way for Jim Crow 2.0.  At what point do you say "Enough!"  You can't elect change if you can't vote or your vote is overturned.  You can't legislate change if your reform bills are arbitrarily struck down.  You can't Amend the Constitution meaningfully if they just ignore it.

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

                    by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:48:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Again, we disagree on premises. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      terrypinder, grover, RocketJSquirrel

                      You see a constitutional violation. I don't.

                      You think the only answer to the horrors wrought by the Bush years is impeachment, although you have no clear vision of how you would achieve it. I don't.

                      You seem to think that because one approach has failed, the only other approach you can think of must be a better idea. I don't.

                      But let's pretend you're right. Tell me: And then what? You know my view -- the other four would resign instantly. (They wouldn't have a quorum anyway.)

                      So -- then what? Just what do you think the collateral effects of impeachment and removal for the content of decisions would be?

                      These diaries are beginning to remind me of that classic Sidney Harris cartoon of the mathematicians at the blackboard, where the middle of the proof is "and then a miracle occurs." I think you should be more explicit here in Step Two.

                      •  The other four would not resign. (0+ / 0-)

                        They would sigh in relief.  If you read their rulings, you know they see the lawlessness in the majority up close and personal.

                        And if you think there would be radically negative consequences for removing judges for lawless rulings, why the hell would there be no such negative consequences for removing Presidents for lawless military orders?  Issuing military orders is part of the job of a President, isn't it?

                        And BTW, not all five have to be convicted to achieve positive results.  In fact, none do.  It would be a flexing of the public muscle to assert constitutional authority over courts.  But if any were removed, the next step would obviously be appointing new ones, which have no more and no less of a problem getting passed than if they left the court voluntarily.

                        And in fact, it's entirely possible if subsequent revelations showed new information from investigation, that one or more might in fact choose to resign under pressure from their own side.

                        The repetitiousness of these objections even in the face of being fully addressed is just getting silly and obtuse.  Just because you repeat something that's not true and has been discredited does not make it credible.

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

                        by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:03:08 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                      "one branch of government with no explicit authority under the Constitution "

                      Care to explain?

                      •  The role of the courts in deciding the (0+ / 0-)

                        constitutionality of laws evolved over time, it isn't explicitly encoded in the Constitution.  Whereas the role of Congress in enforcing the 15th Amendment is absolute and explicit.

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

                        by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:04:12 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  man (0+ / 0-)

                      you really have your anger misplaced. All you decry above is totally and absolutely legal. 8 years of Bush? The current NSA deal is an Obama policy. Yes, you can have legislative bodies that win one party when the national vote is not for that party's president. Amazing.

                      So I guess you think over turning DOMA was an awful terrible thing too?

                       I just don't see your point?

                •  Curious (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  terrypinder, corvo

                  What is your training in judging constitutional interpretations?

        •  Where are you getting that they (0+ / 0-)

          aren't?

          I call for universal minimum income,  an end to climate change, and free skittles for all!

          Fantasy is fun!

    •  Bear with me: Do you support single payer (0+ / 0-)

      healthcare?

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

      by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:40:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do not have a definite opinion on health care (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        However, just for the sake of the argument, let us suppose that I was in favor of single-payer health care.  What would follow from that?

        •  There is virtually no chance of single-payer (0+ / 0-)

          healthcare passing under the current Congress.  Supposing you supported it, would the fact that it wouldn't pass at the moment mean that you shouldn't publicly voice your support for single-payer, and shouldn't try to convince others to support it either?  In other words, is it legitimate to engage in self-fulfilling prophecies about what is and is not politically possible and still consider one's self progressive?

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

          by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:31:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I see what you are saying (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour, Villanova Rhodes

            I guess if it were put to a vote, I would not like to see the justices of the Supreme Court impeached.  That is too radical for my taste.  But I would vote to repeal the Patriot Act.

            Of course, when you live in a district so gerrymandered that the opposing party does not even bother to put up a candidate; and when you also live in a state in which the candidates for president have already locked up the nomination before your state has a primary; and when you also live in a winner-take-all state that always goes Republican:  well, it’s hard not be just little nihilistic about the democratic process.

            •  That's reasonable. (0+ / 0-)

              I can understand if people are uncomfortable with signing up to support things if they feel that it's too much of a departure from the status quo.  At the same time, that kind of has to be in the job description of a progressive activist.

              With respect to gerrymandering, I hope you appreciate the role that this SCOTUS majority has played in enabling that, and also in further solidifying the Republican majorities thus created through both Citizens United and the VRA ruling.  A lot of what you're bemoaning came directly from them, and I wouldn't bet they're done yet fortifying Republican electoral power.

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

              by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:14:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Impeachment is impractical (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brecht, VClib, OldSoldier99, Victor Ward

    It can't work given the Congress and gerrymandering. Impossible. Not worth discussing as a remedy to an admittedly serious problem.

  •  when we have a huge house majority (10+ / 0-)

    and 2/3+ in the senate, i will call for impeachment. i promise.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:33:27 PM PDT

    •  Is there any part of the Bill of Rights (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Enzo Valenzetti

      that the Supreme Court could arbitrarily negate that would cause you to demand their impeachment?

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

      by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:43:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You do understand that there is no political will (7+ / 0-)

        to impeach any of the Supremes, right?

        It will never happen.  They made decisions.  It doesn't make them targets for impeachment.  Many of their decisions stunk, but there still is no cause for impeachment.

        Hell, after Thomas' wife was involved in what she was involved in and Thomas lied on his disclosure forms:  No impeachment proceedings.

        I hate this term, but you're beating a dead horse now.  Ain't never gonna happen.  

        •  Political will is created by people. (0+ / 0-)

          It rarely just materializes spontaneously except due to foundations created by the hard work of previous activists.  Earlier generations of Americans - particularly those who set the stage for the New Deal - understood that.  Since then we've sort of been brainwashed into having this kind of mentality of waiting around for the universe to give us our victories, and then they invariably just dissipate like Occupy because no one wants to build on them.

          It will never happen.
          Leaving aside the utter historical bankruptcy of that statement, we can say this: It will happen if we make it happen, and won't if we don't.  Will you accept responsibility for the consequences of the next SCOTUS outrage?  I want to at least be able to say that I stood against lawlessness on our courts.
          They made decisions.  It doesn't make them targets for impeachment.
          Richard Nixon made decisions too.
          Hell, after Thomas' wife was involved in what she was involved in and Thomas lied on his disclosure forms:  No impeachment proceedings.
          Then add that to the list of reasons for impeachment and help work to change the situation.
          I hate this term, but you're beating a dead horse now.  Ain't never gonna happen.
          History is littered with that statement.    

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

          by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:26:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Earlier generations of Americans ... (8+ / 0-)

            ... particularly those who set the stage for the New Deal - understood that."

            How many Supreme Court justices were impeached in the 1930s even after shooting down key New Deal legislation?

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:55:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  None, because their rulings were legitimate. (0+ / 0-)

              Unfortunate and twisted from a philosophical standpoint, but legally grounded nonetheless.

              Moreover, those rulings are not a very good analogy to the VRA ruling.  In fact, I'm not aware of any in American history that provides an appropriate analogy.  

              Even Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were just morally outrageous and Pharisaical, but still accurately reflected the petty letter of the Constitution.  The VRA ruling, however, is a total departure from the Constitution, and practically an invalidation of the enforcement clause of the 15th Amendment.

              Sometimes you just have to admit when something is unprecedentedly radical.  We wouldn't admit that about what Bush was doing, so no one stood to stop it, and now we're still dealing with the consequences - one of them is this Court majority.

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

              by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:21:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Uh... what? (7+ / 0-)

                Have you actually read Dred Scott?  The court found that all African Americans - not just slaves, but even an emancipated man of color in a non-slave state who was otherwise granted all the rights of citizenship* in that state - were somehow not considered citizens by the Constitution.  There is nothing in "the petty letter" of the constitution that suggests that ruling, so Taney had to reach deeply into British slave law to make claims about the legal status of otherwise free people of color that were not at all justified.  

                There's a reason it's considered the worst of all Supreme Court decisions, and it's not just because of changing social mores.

                * Not voting rights, but neither did women, and they could still sue in federal court as citizens of this country.

                Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                by pico on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:38:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, you're right. I confused it with other (0+ / 0-)

                  rulings prior to Dredd Scott.  Then it's actually a pretty good analogy for the VRA ruling, although the VRA ruling is a radical departure from the status quo whereas Dredd Scott was just a ludicrous defense of the status quo.

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

                  by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:01:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  goodservice - there was no basis for impeaching (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Victor Ward, Adam B, Villanova Rhodes

          Thomas and that is why there was no move in the House on impeachment procedings. House Democrats understood that Mrs. Thomas represented organizations who had no direct part in the Citizen's United litigation. While those organizations may have had a benefit from CU, that has never been a standard that required recusal. Many federal judges have failed to file disclosure forms, filed them late, and filed them with errors. In each case where the forms were the only transgression judnes were simply asked to file accurate amended forms, which is what Justice Thomas did. There is no legal consensus that Justices of the SCOTUS even have to file the forms. In addition, the DC press widely reported the names of Mrs. Thomas' clients and none of them had cases before the Court while she was employed by them.  

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:56:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Um... the President (5+ / 0-)

    actually approved this already. Not the SCOTUS. You want to impeach him too? On yeah, and the congress?

    •  This isn't the issue I'd be seeking their (0+ / 0-)

      impeachment over.  I was simply asking whether folks who have really put a lot of effort and passion into the NSA issue would consider standing against the Supreme Court if it gave color of law to the total negation of the 4th Amendment.

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

      by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:54:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, Villanova Rhodes

        I it is indeed found to be constitutional- and there are a lot of scholars who think that it is- why would you want to impeach them? Just because you and a lot of others disagree? And that issue is light years away from the court anyway. A quicker method would be straight to the top. It isn't a total negation of the 4th amendment. But if you feel that strongly why give the President a pass? They didn't come up with the idea. Or lie about it.

        •  The question is, do you think it's constitutional? (0+ / 0-)

          The Constitution is a social contract to which you are a party, so your opinion matters.  

          And here's the problem with saying "If it is indeed found to be constitutional."  Just because a court issues a ruling does not necessarily mean anything has been "found" to be anything.  If SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that up is down, that does not mean that up has been "found" to be down.  So if they just issued a totally arbitrary ruling, how does that have legitimacy?

          But if you feel that strongly why give the President a pass? They didn't come up with the idea. Or lie about it.
          I don't feel that strongly on the NSA subject - I'm bringing it up mainly as an attempt to broaden the range of issues that might interest various constituencies.

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

          by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:07:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can see it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. As confirmed by the rulings of multiple Supreme Court cases, the NSA has the ability to gain access to phone records, email records and other basic information.

            This information is already given to third party companies such as phone and Internet service providers. This precedent, set by these third parties, allowed the SCOTUS to give access to law enforcement officials (e.g. Smith v. Maryland).

            The information, however, may not be accessed without following the respective legislative guidelines. When organizations such as the NSA receive information of suspicion, but not enough to justify probable cause, they may submit an affidavit to either a judge or a grand jury.

            So what you seem to say is your opinion on this matter is superior to the (constitutional) means the nation adjudicates these disputes?

            •  Then your position is legitimate because (0+ / 0-)

              you personally do not think your rights are being violated under the Constitution.  It would only be dubious if you thought otherwise but then edited your own opinion to copy whatever SCOTUS says.

              So what you seem to say is your opinion on this matter is superior to the (constitutional) means the nation adjudicates these disputes?
              Not everything is an opinion, first of all.  The facts about the behavior of this Court establish a pattern of partisan rulings targeted at determining the outcome of elections in advance in favor of one Party, and that is not a legitimate action of a judicial body no matter how you slice it.

              Secondly, since I am an individual human being with my own mind and am party to the constitutional social contract, my views are certainly more important in determining what policies and political activities I support than the arbitrary rulings of some body that lacks even explicit authority under the Constitution.  Especially when those rulings are not grounded in law but rather seek to replace the law with raw partisan power.

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

              by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:52:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again your opinions (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                terrypinder

                are strong, but that is all they are. And again, I do abide by the laws and rulings of the court. They are legit.

                he facts about the behavior of this Court establish a pattern of partisan rulings targeted at determining the outcome of elections in advance in favor of one Party, and that is not a legitimate action of a judicial body no matter how you slice it.
                Huh?
                •  Again, not everything is an opinion. (0+ / 0-)

                  What I said in the quoted text was that the Court is not operating as a court of law, but a court of arbitrary partisan power in defiance of law.  It refuses to even be bound by its own logic, deciding one thing one day when it's convenient for the GOP, then the exact opposite the next day when it isn't.  One set of legal standards for cases where the GOP or its related organs is the defendant, another set for when they are the plaintiff.

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

                  by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:54:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please (0+ / 0-)

                    This is just your opinion. You are entitled to it but it is a bit over the top.
                    "the Court is not operating as a court of law"

                    •  Again, not everything is an opinion. (0+ / 0-)

                      And just because you say it's an opinion doesn't make it so.  I can say the Roberts Five is not operating as a court of law because their actions can be cited to justify the claim.  You, however, can only just keep repeating "that's an opinion" like some sort of magic mantra against the evidence.  What possible motivation can a liberal progressive have to so bend logic and reality in defense of the people responsible for so many politically-authored disasters in this country?

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

                      by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:17:07 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  but but but (0+ / 0-)
        This isn't the issue I'd be seeking their impeachment over.
        aren't they sworn to defend and protect the Constitution?

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:04:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Shhhh (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      Troubador's point is that you're hypocritical for supporting A but not B, while you think he's hypocritical for supporting B but not A.  It's a stupid argument, but it's not worth starting a fight over.

      Read his other recent SCOTUS diaries, they're better.

      The Constitution is a suicide pact.

      by happymisanthropy on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:59:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not trying to engage in namecalling here. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm just saying that for an issue subculture that has taken to occasionally equating Obama with Hitler and NSA spying with holocaust gas chambers, that maybe it's a bit ludicrous to stop short of saying that a Supreme Court Justice who sustains NSA domestic spying might be issuing a lawless verdict.

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

        by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:43:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Valar Morghulis

          That "a Supreme Court Justice who sustains NSA domestic spying" hasn't occurred. And if it did it would be born from the President's policies and congressional blessings. Your rants on the SC about issues they have no bearing upon are quite puzzling to me.

          •  You're confused. (0+ / 0-)
            And if it did it would be born from the President's policies and congressional blessings.
            The Voting Rights Act as written had explicit Constitutional, Congressional, and Presidential backing.  That didn't stop the Roberts Five from gutting it.  So if they sustain NRA domestic spying in total without reservation, where will be your excuse then?

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

            by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:15:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was referring to (0+ / 0-)

              the NSA spying. Not the VRA. I keep getting confused on your antagonism to the SC is it the VRA decisions? DOMA? And what does any of this have to do with Obama's spying?

              •  Four of the five used the exact opposite rationale (0+ / 0-)

                to vote against striking down DOMA.  Their position on that case only further proves their VRA ruling was illegitimate.

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

                by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:29:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well you can see it several ways (0+ / 0-)

                  The reasoning in both decisions was some variation on "times have changed".

                  They said:

                  “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.”

                  Remember, both laws were approved by Congress with large, bipartisan majorities. So if you think the courts should defer to the elected branches, it’s a high hurdle to support either decision. In both cases, the idea behind nullification seems to be that the passage of time has rendered the relevant sections unconstitutional, even though they were (or seemed to be) constitutional when passed: On VRA, it makes no sense to penalize states and localities based on 40-year-old statistics, and on DOMA . . . well, we’ve all learned a lot about homosexuality in the last couple of decades.

                  Roberts cites traditions and interpretations that suggest all states should be treated the same; but the whole point of the original VRA was to treat states differently based on their histories — and if 30 years was not enough to get the job done but 40 years is, shouldn’t that finely calibrated decision be made by Congress (which the Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gives the authority to enforce voting rights)?

                  As a VRA supporter I might say, for example, that we need to wait until most of the people who grew up under Jim Crow are gone, which I can understand that some consider incorrect but at least it is debatable. (If you point out that black turnout exceeds white in many areas, the reply might be: “See? It works!”)

                  So ultimately is it the Supreme Court’s job to weigh in on political questions like this? Or, if it is OK for the Supreme Court to decide that this argument is too weak to accept, why shouldn’t it also be able to decide that in the 21st century, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman in order to reinforce the mental association between sex, marriage, and procreation is also too weak?

                  This to me is not some clear and cut case of partisanship but competing interpretations of subjective laws.

                  But once again why is all this relevant to spying on Americans by this administration which is where I chimed in?

                  •  You make some reasonable points (0+ / 0-)

                    but most of what I'm hearing seems to support the point that I'm making - that the VRA ruling was not legitimate.  As to DOMA, they used the exact opposite rationale to defend, but the main reason why it was legitimately struck down is that the only reason for it was to discriminate against and marginalize people, for which there is no explicit Constitutional authority.

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

                    by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:58:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well we (0+ / 0-)

                      and many others can disagree but it doesn't delegitimize the court nor their opinions. It happens all the time. And that (inflicts an “injury and indignity” on gay couples) isn't the only reason in play as there were also concerns with the initiative process and federalism in the DOMA decision. And that wasn't the issue with VRA. If the VRA decision was not legit- according to you- why was the DOMA decision legit?

                      And let's not forget the Democrats who were behind DOMA which included Chuck Schumer, Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and the president who signed it into law, Bill Clinton. And of course until yesterday Obama himself opposed gay marriage. You obviously feel very passionate about the issue(s?) but I think your intensity on a single issue has spread to other unrelated aspects of the judiciary.

  •  the legal case is far, far from clear. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, VClib, Victor Ward
    •  I can only speak to my views as a citizen (0+ / 0-)

      who is party to the Constitutional social contract.  These five judges are persistently attacking my right to elect my own government, and with the VRA ruling they've now crossed the Rubicon into territory I can no longer consent to.  They're now saying the law is whatever the Republican Party finds convenient at any given moment, and opening the door to naked voter suppression.  We have to both stop the suppression and stop the abuses of power that are enabling it.

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

      by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:46:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why would you call for impeachment... (0+ / 0-)

    of the President for something SCOTUS did?

    Like wtf?

    The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function [Albert A. Bartlett]

    by fToRrEeEsSt on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:33:28 PM PDT

  •  I called for impeachment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Troubadour

    ...of those who were in the majority on Bush v. Gore.  It was a self-interested partisan decision that showed extreme judicial overreach.

    I think there is a good case for impeaching Roberts for his poorly argued decision in the Voting Rights Amendment decision.  Again it was a self-interested partisan decision.

    I don't think that the checks and balances will restore the rights of the people that have been taken away by the application of the state secrets doctrine since World War II.  And I don't see this Supreme Court limiting that doctrine.

    I think we are stuck until we have a fundamental change in our political culture in which people finally get to the point of holding politicians accountable for selling out our country.  And I fear that cannot happen in the money, media, and security environment that currently exists.  You have people in multiple states challenging the overreach of the winner-take-all legislatures running with radical corporatist change.  That movement is going to build.

    I think we are in for some really rocky times over the next five years.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:38:05 PM PDT

    •  There's Presently No Way to Hold Enoug of THem (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, TarheelDem

      accountable. Neither party will produce enough progressive candidates to change government, not for security state, not for climate change, not for economic injustice.

      There needs to be an independent movement of progressive groups to actively create and develop more progressive candidates to feed into the party. Society will never spontaneously do that ever again.

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

      by Gooserock on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:53:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No way within business as usual (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour

        ...but 30% of the population in the streets seems to be holding Morsi accountable in Egypt.

        Another larger-than-last-week crowd at Moral Monday in Raleigh is working on the NC General Assembly.

        A few thousand in Austin are Stading with Wendy against the Texas State Legislature.

        Rereading Madison's Federalist #10, he identifies our current situation as "faction".   And parties can't fix "faction" issues; they just make them worse.

        Egyptians are hoping the threat of military rule will fix faction issues there; we will see if it works or if the factions just double down.

        It's hard to say what happens when a large majority realizes that the social contract has been broken.  We've never had that situation before in the US.  Came close in 1937-1938, but Congress moved then.  And then WWII sealed the wounds shut.

        50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

        by TarheelDem on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:06:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I was also calling for impeachment (0+ / 0-)

      of the Rehnquist court majority after Bush v. Gore.  I heard exactly the same arguments against doing so that we're seeing in the comments here, and the results have been predictably horrific with no end in sight.

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

      by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:32:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not so fast with ACLU and standing. (3+ / 0-)

    There is no guarantee that the ACLU can establish standing by the released information. They were denied because they couldn't show a particularized harm. The Verizon warrant that was released doesn't show that they have been harmed. The FISA court agreed that the collection of business records, but not the searching of them, could take place.

    The ACLU case is about the government searching those records and using the collected information against them. So the government will probably argue that the ACLU still doesn't have standing because they can't show any "search" actually occurred.

    The government is loathe to have this litigated, and I suspect that the Court will be happy to not litigate it as well.

    •  That's a good point. (0+ / 0-)

      I agree the courts - and especially SCOTUS - will take any opportunity to avoid taking a raw position on this, because their inevitable decision would probably catalyze exactly the kind of perception that I and a relative minority have had about them since 2000 and especially now after VRA.

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

      by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:33:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Impeachment is Like General Strike. (10+ / 0-)

    It doesn't matter how compelling the logic when you don't have the support. There's simply nothing that can be done about this court directly, any more than we can do anything about Obama directly.

    We've got to get better message and educational penetration among the people before we will have enough representation for government to do things we need it to do, or before we can put together compelling enough popular demonstrations to force government or markets to respond.

    The only grassroots movement that can challenge the Court is toward winning a Democratic congressional supermajority with as many progressives as possible.

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

    by Gooserock on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:51:08 PM PDT

  •  No. Impeachment will not fix the grid. It is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward, Valar Morghulis

    complicated and takes more than some simplistic political theater.

  •  Not a fan of mint but I do like peaches. Nt (0+ / 0-)

    Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

    by Mike S on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:05:41 PM PDT

  •  Wait, what? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead

    Why are you blaming the Court for the shitty politicians we elected?

    This is well settled:

    [W]e possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
    •  Didn't we cheer that decision? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Valar Morghulis

      I thought we did.  I'm quite certain we did.

      It wasn't that long ago, after all.

      But now, we're supposed to impeach the court comprised of the same people if they uphold policies by the same Administration.

      Honestly, this place makes my spin some days.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:17:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because we didn't elect them. (0+ / 0-)

      The Court did - in Bush v. Gore, in sustaining or refusing to hear challenges to GOP gerrymandering, in Citizens United, and now in VRA.

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

      by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:10:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grover

        You do know that Barack Obama is president, right? GWB's term ended a while back and we have a new one now?

        Why are you blaming the GOP for the things that Barack Obama does?

        Are you not aware that Obama is 100% cool with the NSA spying program?

        How does GOP gerrymandering mean that Obama has to use the NSA domestic spying program?

        Also, how did the VRA decision impact these elections? Until last week, it was in full effect.

        •  What does Barack Obama have to do (0+ / 0-)

          with the Roberts Five's decisions?  Neither Sotomayor nor Kagan are party to them.

          I thought I made clear the NSA thing isn't my issue - that I'm bringing it up as an appeal to other people's priorities.

          Also, how did the VRA decision impact these elections?
          It doesn't - it will affect future ones, which was the intended purpose of it.  It's a partisan abuse of power.

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

          by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:26:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Again, Bullwinkle? (0+ / 0-)

    That never works!

    Tedious repetition does not make you right.

  •  And When SCOTUS Rules UNANIMOUSLY (0+ / 0-)

    In favor of the NSA, are you going to try to impeach all of them?

    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 Jul 02, 2013 at 05:14:09 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site