The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on October 22, 2010, 11:05:30 AM
-
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 03:42 PM
Original message
IMPEACH: Scalia and Thomas attended Koch Bros' secret strategy meetings. Call Senate and House!!!!
Edited on Thu Oct-21-10 03:55 PM by blm
No surprise the fascist controlled Supreme Court ruled so quickly on Citizens United to give the world's largest corporations total control of every part of this nation's governance.
We need to contact Senate Judiciary Committee and demand impeachment proceedings. Progressive blogs, radio and tv talkers need to pound away on this.
[after which follows the contact information of many democrats about to be unseated and a summation of judicial impeachment]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9360737#9360891
Yet, almost immediately the thread is in trouble...
It's just theRecursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Find them guilty of ____?
I'm still missing the crime here.
KansDem (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. The Code...
Fund Raising. A judge may assist nonprofit law-related, civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organizations in planning fund-raising activities and may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee. A judge may solicit funds for such an organization from judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority and from members of the judge?s family. Otherwise, a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose. A judge should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fund-raising mechanism.
Scalia and Thomas’ participation in these fundraising gatherings also call into question whether they can be impartial in any number of cases brought by Koch-aligned groups seeking immunity to the law.�Most significantly, the Koch brothers have contributed significantly to efforts to stop the Affordable Care Act from going into effect, and a number of attendees at the Koch’s secret meetings include health industry moguls with a direct financial stake in the litigation challenging health reform (Justice Thomas’ wife, of course, actively lobbied against the Affordable Care Act).
LeftWorld
Let's see what deals were made...
Well, thank goodness we have an article from Left World to provide all the objective evidence and summation required.
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Where do you see anything about them doing fundraising?
I haven't heard anything about that.
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Coordinating direction of funds to political groups is part of Koch's political strategy meetings
Edited on Thu Oct-21-10 04:39 PM by blm
Why don't you examine what happened BEFORE you spend all your energy here at DU defending their collusion at these meetings? Seems to me you are uninterested in examining what they have done, and are more interested in excusing their role in the fascist takeover of this nation.
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Whatever
If you enjoy jumping up and down about this, go ahead.
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. What about their secret participation in these meetings DOESN'T alarm you as a citizen?
Edited on Thu Oct-21-10 04:49 PM by blm
Especially as a citizen who wants it known he is a defender of 'freedom' here at DU?
Can just hear his frantic little fingers hammering it out as he hyperventilates.
But it will get worse--much worse--before it is over.
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. I have absolutely no doubt how they will vote on important cases. Never have.
The idea that they're being "influenced" by this is silly; we already know exactly where they stand.
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. that's not the charge...they are actively COLLUDING on political strategy...a strategy that Citizens
United would help every step of the way. What is silly is YOUR effort to try and downplay what Scalia and Thomas did here. If being concerned about judiciary acting as players in a political strategy is 'silly' then why would the meetings need to be secret?
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. I'm not even sure what you mean by "secret", let alone "COLLUDING"
These two douchebags met with two other douchebags. Later, they made exactly the ruling everybody already knew they would make. You're insisting with no basis that there's some sort of connection there, as if Scalia and Thomas weren't already inclined to absolutely deregulate political spending. They've made it very clear throughout their careers they think campaign finance laws are unconstitutional.
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Funny how you REACH to make what they did sound excusable. And you need to pretend the word secret
Edited on Thu Oct-21-10 05:37 PM by blm
isn't part of their calculation when they demanded secrecy for their meetings. You don't know what is meant by 'secret' my ass.
Funny how the fascist agenda of their ruling for NWO is OK with you because you 'expected' it. I expected it, too, and will do my duty as a CITIZEN to demand accountability. Your efforts here to suppress outrage notwithstanding.
Funny, how you have decided to use your energy here at DU. Not really funny, but....funny.
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #52
58. In this thread I call Thomas and Scalia "scum", "douchebags", "jackasses"...
...and "vaguely human shaped piles of slime".
If it makes me in your eyes a corporate tool to not call for the impeachment of justices when there's no evidence they broke any law or ethical code, well, there it is.
C'mon, everybody knows that "scum", douchebags and "jackasses" are just dog whistles for "I like 'em!"
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #58
63. YOU claim they broke no ethical code - we are saying they did. YOU discourage calls for scrutiny
and argue against our taking seriously our DUTY to be responsible citizens using our right to accountability.
You really want to take such a focked up position, go ahead, but, stop pretending there is no ethical line that has been crossed.
I don't give a fock what kind of rhetorical flourishes you ad to your posts - they don't matter one whit compared to your overall thrust and even insistence that the supreme court justices did nothing wrong in YOUR eyes.
Give it to him, blm!
He probably kicks black babies too!
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. If you honestly think they raised money or endorsed a candidate at that meeting...
...then, yes, call your Congressman and Senator and tell them you want them to investigate it.
I suspect, though, that what actually pisses you off is just that they went to the conference, and you're trying to act like that attendance itself is an ethical problem.
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #64
69. attendance where the objective of the meetings is to coordinate a plan for elections...and the
biggest advantage they could gain for that plan and its implementation would be from the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling.
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #69
85. Actually the objective of the meetings is to "coordinate a strategy to defend the free market"
or some other nonsense like that. This was not an RNC or RCC or RGA meeting.
What it comes down to is blm and the moral equivalent of a prolapsed rectum that passes for a cheerleading squad at DU want to criminalize political associations that oppose ther views.
The continuation of the cat-fight spells this out:
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. For?
What was the offense you want to impeach and remove them for?
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Attending secret political strategy meetings is 'good behavior' to you? Let's investigate and see
Edited on Thu Oct-21-10 04:09 PM by blm
how 'good' their behavior was during their participation in these meetings.
Democracy and freedom are at stake. Citizens United is the biggest attack on democracy this nation has ever experienced, and essentially hands over the reigns of this country to the corporations run by global fascists, or, as GHWBush liked to call it, New World Order.
Koch Bros are part of that corporate cabal, and Scalia and Thomas secretly attended his secret strategy meetings.
Not much of a secret if Left World found out.
Geez!
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Maybe I'm completely missing your point?
They attended a meeting with political activists (whom I happen to hate). Are judges not supposed to do that? I've honestly never heard of any rule like that.
KansDem (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. Oh, I don't know...first they met with billionaire industrialists behind closed doors..
..then went on to make one of the most bizarre Supreme Court rulings in US history...that happens to benefit those billionaire industrialists.
That reeks of collusion and should not be tolerated.
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Odd that anyone here at DU would spend energy questioning our citizen's right to accountability
for supreme court justices acting in secret as they collude with those intent on installing fascism as the nation's ruling order.
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. What's the "collusion"?
Seriously, who are you saying influenced whom to do what?
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. Colluded for FASCIST agenda. That's apparently alright with you. So...what do YOU think their role
was in these secret meetings?
Since you believe we are all wrong in calling for scrutiny of their roles, why don't you tell us what YOU think their role was in attending these political strategy meetings. And...try telling it from the POV of a concerned citizen who believes in accountability.
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. First off, "FASCIST" doesn't get scarier with capitalization
Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by "FASCIST". I'm aware of a political movement called fascism; I think applying it to the current right wing in the US is about as meaningful as calling the left "socialist". But I'll put that aside, and assume by "FASCIST" you mean giving extreme deference to commercial interests (despite the fact that actual historical fascists nationalized just about every industry).
Since you believe we are all wrong in calling for scrutiny of their roles
I have nothing against greater scrutiny. I think getting people to call Congress and demand impeachment is silly and hystrionic.
why don't you tell us what YOU think their role was in attending these political strategy meetings
I don't know or care. Unless there's some evidence that
A) Some offer or inducement was made that made them change a ruling, or
B) They were raising money for political purposes
It's none of my damn business what they do at any of the hundreds of meetings of organizations and foundations they go to.
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. HAHAHAHAHAHAH. It's none of YOUR business? Then why are you here at a Dem activist forum
Edited on Thu Oct-21-10 06:11 PM by blm
where we take our rights as CITIZENS and accountability seriously? And when we EXERCISE our rights as citizens, it usually requires ACTIONS like calling congress.
Fascism is CORPORATISM. That road was assured by Citizens United. Your attempt here to feign obtuse acceptance of that isn't even cute.
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Because I'm a Dem activist who takes my rights seriously
Just like I take Scalia and Thomas's rights to be total douchebags and meet with whomever they want within the limits of judicial ethics seriously -- and unless you have some reason to believe that they got bribed, then I have to say they had every right to do that.
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Why is the bar only bribery to you? Why are you insisting judicial ethics were NOT breached here
and why use your energy here at a Dem site to downplay what WAS done in this case?
Scalia and Thomas knew what they were doing was unethical and that is why steps were taken to keep the meetings secret.
But then...Supreme Court Justices attending secret meetings plotting political strategy including the directing of funds to political groups is NOT unethical to you.
"Verdict first, trial later" --Queen of Hearts
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. Because justices have the right to participate in political organizations with certain restrictions
Scalia and Thomas knew what they were doing was unethical and that is why steps were taken to keep the meetings secret.
I think it was the Kochsuckers who wanted to keep everyting secret because, well, they're rich, paranoid, secretive jackasses.
Supreme Court Justices attending secret meetings plotting political strategy including the directing of funds to political groups is NOT unethical to you.
No, not really. Unless they're receiving the money, or they're advocating for specific political groups to get money, or the meeting itself is party to a case.
blm (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. sez you...if that is YOUR standard for unethical behavior then no wonder the fascists gained control
Your extremely low standard of ethical behavior for supreme court justices is appalling.
Notice how he keeps squealing "that is YOUR standard" without ever slowing down long enough to realize his complaint is based on HIS standard.
Recursion (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. If you could point to something unethical they did, I'd be appalled and outraged
Simply saying that they attended meetings of like-minded people, even though I hate those people, just doesn't do anything for me.
Yep, he's a racist. No doubt about it.
-
How quickly the primitives would have volunteered to fill the trains.
-
Yup. Wonder how long until Recursion gets the granite pepperoni.
-
blm is my all time favorite whack job. remember that show, "name that tune"? "I can name that tune in three notes", & etc.? I used to make bets with people; "I can make her head explode in three replies". :-)
-
Ever since the lefty blog started the lie about the Chamber of Commerce using foreign money in U.S. elections I'm weary of stories like this.
It's another "lets throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" piece of crap.
-
IMPEACHMENT FAIL is spelled BLM .... Oh snap...I thought this was going to be about impeaching the Black Loser Muslim.
-
newspeak (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
37. if one can show that they benefited-partisan political or monetary gain
from a decision, then I believe it could be an impeachable offense, especially if the decision does more harm to the republic.
"Harm to the republic"?
Ironic name there.
glitch (1000+ posts) Fri Oct-22-10 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #37
91. But what about ideological gain? Even without political gain (jobs for their kids?)
Since they seem to idealogues, surely there must be some remedy for that, especially since it appears to be an ideology of the fundamental dismantling of the Bill of Rights (for human citizens, anyway).
Granted they should not have been made justices in the first place, but what is the remedy now other than impeachment? They have exhibited time and time again by their own statements, behavior and decisions that they do not uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Do they have to be caught taking a bribe under a bridge, or is not upholding (aka actively trashing) the Constitution enough?
If enough of our citizens and their representatives believe so, then YES, the Justices on the USSC CAN BE IMPEACHED for even the APPEARANCE of IMPROPRIETY.
Thank goodness there are no leftist ideologues on the bench.
catgirl (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-21-10 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
19. Talk about a conflict of interest!
Plus Thomas' wie is a big wig in the Tea Party movement. I say throw 'em off the bench.
Yuck.
So if your wife votes conservative you have no right to participate in the US government.
Hm-m-m...
-
OK Regressives, keep pushing messages like that and the people out of work are going to vote for your guy, your vendetta's are more important to them then feeding their family. ::)
-
I love the "I THINK THINK THEY DID SOMETHING, THEY ARE TOAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!" threads. :loser:
-
Okay, but we get to look into Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg's associations too! Neener, neener, neener!
Cindie
-
Okay, but we get to look into Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg's associations too! Neener, neener, neener!
Cindie
Given that the MSM didn't look into Lord Zero's associations before his election, that would last about as long as a snowball in the hands of the devil.
-
They didn't want to look that is the problem
-
BLM is a nutcase of the highest magnitude. I've often wondered if she and Cali are one and the same since both can get serial suspensions, but never eat the granite cookie. Gosh, Thomas and Scalia have BLM's ovaries in a twist more than the Clinton's usually do.
-
So if they're reallly 'Secret' meetings, how does BLM know about them, hmmmm?
:popcorn:
-
So if they're reallly 'Secret' meetings, how does BLM know about them, hmmmm?
:popcorn:
He knows the super-duper secret codeword that's written in invisible ink! :fuelfire:
-
He knows the super-duper secret codeword that's tattooed in invisible ink! :fuelfire:
Shhhhhhhh ixnay on the codenay
:lmao: