Skip to main content

Back in 2010 when the Supreme Court screwed us, Democrats had the votes in Congress to do something about it. We did nothing.

Now several progressive groups are pushing its overturn. Now 130 Representatives have signed on. Now we have zero ability to get this through the House and all 130 know it.

Tell me why Dems only act when success is out of reach?


The push to repeal Citizens United is

13%2 votes
6%1 votes
46%7 votes
26%4 votes
6%1 votes

| 15 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  I think Stephen Pizzo had a great take (0+ / 0-)

    on the corruption in D.C. when he commented yesterday on Jon Stewarts questioning of Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi denied that money in politics has corrupted the system - and in particular, not congress.

    But corrupt? Never, she says. Never.

    Well yeah, it is corrupt, Nancy, and we all know it is. Stating the opposite reminds one of Big Tobacco's decades of denial that nicotine is addictive, and smoking causes cancer.

    Money in politics IS corrupting. And Nancy, that includes you. Excluding yourself from those who are being "distorted" by big money, while building a pile of the stuff yourself is one spin too far. It makes one's head hurt just hearing you say it, much less trying to make sense of it.

    It's time to start calling this what it is: political corruption ... rampant, open, widespread, growing, insidiously entrenched and self-staining political corruption.

    Both parties are corrupt to the core...and yes, we know it.

    (all emphasis mine)

  •  Does "do something about it" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, coffeetalk

    Mean the Disclose Act? That's about all that can be done legislatively.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 07:08:26 AM PST

  •  Will be destroyed by Koch billions (0+ / 0-)

    Roberts court has screwed the 99%

  •  wrong. It was a decision based (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wdrath, misslegalbeagle, VClib, terrybuck

    On the US Constitution.  To overturn would take a constitutional amendment, which would require 67 senators and about 300 House members and 3/4 of the states.  The only other way to overturn is if the Supreme Court changes it's mind and that won't happen until we get a fifth justice (a current one of the majority on that vote retires and is replaced by a liberal judge).  The entire premise of this post is based on a lack of understanding of our constitution and government.  

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 07:24:12 AM PST

    •  I was going to say the same thing, but you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, TomP

      said it better than I could.  

    •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...yes, overturning will most likely come from another SCOTUS decision. This is not an uncommon path for changes.  

      I'm from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

      by voicemail on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 08:40:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No secret Congress has the power to overturn it, (0+ / 0-)

      by up or down vote. Regulating elections and addressing government corruption are Congressional powers that the Court usurped, therefore it is a legitimate instance for use of the exceptions clause to strip the Court of jurisdiction to review a new anticorruption law. Congressional obedience to CU is a symptom of judical supremacy, which the liberal legal establishment irrationally adheres to in this instance, but Congress otherwise overturns decisions from time to time in passing new laws.

      A previous system-threatening decision Dred Scott was considered by Lincoln as having no binding impact. Why his election on a vow to ignore the Court was considered tyranny, but if a handful of unelected justices can crash the system, then Lincoln defeated tyranny. It didn't last, as a corrupt gilded age Court continued to dismantle legislation and the Constitution. Why it is particularly galling for Americans to be told that to get their old pre-Buckley Constitution back they have amend the Constitution, when the first amendment was perfectly fine before Powell got his hands on it.

      This is a separation of powers war between Congress and the Court, and the pro-democracy solution is to empower Congress. Buckley is the main reason why it has only 10% approval. Congress could go further and pass laws that make the Court answerable for patently unconstitutional decisions by submitting the question to national referendum and dismissing justices who violate separation of powers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site