Oscar Wilde being an idiot again

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7631920

Oh my.

Cyrano  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 12:51 PM
OSCAR WILDE, THE LARGE-PROBOSCISED PRIMITIVE
Original message

Can we impeach five Supreme Court justices?

It’s highly unlikely to happen, but here’s why I believe it should.

They all swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. And all five of them, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia, have (IMO), done everything in their power, multiple times, to shred the Constitution. Isn’t that an impeachable offense?

The latest “shredding” that took place was the decision that grants “personhood” to corporations. You’d have to be insane to not grasp how insane that is. (The last time something this insane happened is when five justices appointed Bush to the Oval Office.)

I won’t enumerate the various decisions in which each of the current justices has betrayed their oaths which, in my opinion, makes them eligible for impeachment.

I’m not a lawyer and I can’t sit in judgement on “an opinion” as opposed to a vile attempt to subvert the Constitution and undermine our freedoms.

But many of you here on DU are lawyers. Perhaps you can explain why you believe these five should, or should not, be impeached.

NoPasaran  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. Short answer: No

Vincardog  (1000+ posts)      Wed Feb-03-10 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
 
2. Short answer YES. But getting the Senate to convict may be tough

michreject  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
 
3. Not again

Cyrano  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 01:19 PM
OSCAR WILDE, THE LARGE-PROBOSCISED PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #3

25. Sorry that discussions about our basic freedoms bore you.

Snotcicles (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
 
5. Maybe not, but Obama could add some.

cali  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 01:01 PM
THE BITTER OLD VERMONTESE CALI PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #5

11. no, sorry. he couldn't. it would take congressional action to enlarge the court.

Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts)        Thu Feb-04-10 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
 
70. FDR tried that one

The Senate (rightfully) said "absolutely not Mr. President". A good example of checks and balances at work.

Freddie Stubbs (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 12:59 PM
THE STUBBY PRIMITIVE
Response to Original message

6. An impeachable offence is whatever the House says is an impeachable offence

But the practical reality of the matter is that the is virtually zero support in the House to do so.

Cyrano  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 01:24 PM
OSCAR WILDE, THE LARGE-PROBOSCISED PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #6

27. Well, you're right about this House. Odd that a different house found a blow job an impeachable offense.

It seems that Dems and Repubs live in parallel universes and "never the twain shall meet."

Hmmmm.

What was this "different house" that found a sexual act an impeachable offense?

Anybody know?

igfoth (31 posts)      Wed Feb-03-10 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
 
7. Yes they can be but won't happen.

If they won't go after the War Criminals Bush and Cheney where the evidence is overwhelming then they are not going to go after 5 partisan hacks on the SCOTUS.

louis-t (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
 
8. Corperations were granted personhood in the 1880's

This decision just removed any restrictions on how much corporate 'people' can spend on elections.

Hawkeye-X  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 01:03 PM
THE BLOVIATING CROSS-EYED IOWA PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #8

15. They were never granted personhood. You can thank the ****head clerk who inserted a memo in the 1890's that said so.

People are still using the memo as gospel.

avaistheone1  (1000+ posts)     Wed Feb-03-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
 
16. You are correct.

It was only a memo that a clerk inserted.

Sort of like that memo Thomas Jefferson wrote about "separation of church and state," right?  That memo that the primitives think is a part of the Constitution?

cali  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 01:00 PM
THE BITTER OLD VERMONTESE CALI PRIMITIVE
Response to Original message

9. no, and I don't think we should.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems clear to me that impeaching justices for what we believe are wrongly decided cases, is a bad idea.

Demeter  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 01:01 PM
THE DEMENTED PRIMITIVE
Response to Original message

12. Yes, We Can, But Will We?

That remains to be seen. And I would think there were enough people in the Senate who DIDN'T EVER vote for these creeps who would gladly kick them out for new and hopefully saner blood.

Hawkeye-X  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 01:02 PM
THE BLOVIATING CROSS-EYED IOWA PRIMITIVE
Response to Original message

13. Yes, the justices have commmitted treason against the people of the United States and therefore impeachable.

I'm still waiting for Pelosi to introduce the legislation to begin the impeachment process.

Cyrano  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 01:15 PM
OSCAR WILDE, THE LARGE-PROBOSCISED PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #13

22. I too believe they have committed treason. And I also believe that impeaching even one of them would be a political impossibility given the Republican dominance of the media and their vast echo chamber that will repeat the same lies over, and over, and over, ad infinitum.

Republican control of the message can only be making Josef Goebbels chuckle in his grave.

Rebubula (1000+ posts)      Wed Feb-03-10 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
 
29. Treason

You keep using that word...I do not think that it means what you think that it means.

Many times, hyperbole is NOT your friend and this is one of those cases. There may be a case to remove Justices from time to time, but what this court has done certainly does NOT rise to the level of treason no matter how many times you proffer the idea.

Cyrano  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 01:48 PM
OSCAR WILDE, THE LARGE-PROBOSCISED PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #29

32. I'm not about to post the differing definitions of the term "treason."

Anyone interested can look it up on line or in different print dictionaries.

So I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Sebastian Doyle  (1000+ posts)      Wed Feb-03-10 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
 
17. Roberts and Alito should be impeached because their appointments were not legal

Since Chimp was never elected, he had no constitutional authority to appoint judges. Which brings us back to Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy, who all were part of the Florida Fraud in 2000. That's why they should be impeached, and why Billy Rehnquist will spend the rest of eternity spinning on a rotisserie in Hell.

cali  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 01:09 PM
THE BITTER OLD VERMONTESE CALI PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #17

18.  denial of the fact that he was president is pointless. their appointments were indeed legal- much as I regret that they sit on the court.

kctim (753 posts)      Wed Feb-03-10 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
 
39. Impeach them for disagreeing with your opinion?

If that was all it took, you would be needing to impeach and replace nine, not just five.

Cyrano  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 02:13 PM
OSCAR WILDE, THE LARGE-PROBOSCISED PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #39

40. Ummm, I could be wrong, but I don't think they're disagreeing with just my opinion.

Then again, It's possible that I'm the only person in the United States who thinks these five justices have run amok and are totally nuts.

ddeclue  (1000+ posts)        Wed Feb-03-10 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
 
41. NO - stop wasting time and bandwidth on the intertubes on this silliness.

[GOBUCKS]

Now the non-socialist members of the Supreme Court are "shredding the Constitution". The DUmmy is reviving a favorite lament of the previous two adminstrations, when Dubya was "shredding the Constitution", that is, when he wasn't busy "shredding the Bill of Rights". There's too much shreddin' goin' on out there.

[Carl]

Disagree with the far left and they immediately wish to criminalize you for your opinions.

Anyone wonder why giving them vast amounts of power ends up in tyranny?
 

[vesta111]

Now the non-socialist members of the Supreme Court are "shredding the Constitution". The DUmmy is reviving a favorite lament of the previous two adminstrations, when Dubya was "shredding the Constitution", that is, when he wasn't busy "shredding the Bill of Rights". There's too much shreddin' goin' on out there.

We have no say as the public to the appointment of these Judges. The hold life time jobs to hear or not hear select cases.

I am not sure if I understand this latest thing, was it them that passed a law that there was no limit on any contributions to the political contributions from anyone , foreign or domestic?

[franksolich]

I am not sure if I understand this latest thing, was it them that passed a law that there was no limit on any contributions to the political contributions from anyone, foreign or domestic?

Essentially yes, madam, although the Supreme Court didn't "pass" a law; it merely "defined" existing law.

The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights of free speech as labor unions, special interest groups, the Democrat party, &c., &c., &c.

[diesel driver]

Essentially yes, madam, although the Supreme Court didn't "pass" a law; it merely "defined" existing law.

The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights of free speech as labor unions, special interest groups, the Democrat party, &c., &c., &c.

And the Media.  Don't forget the Media.   

[Lord Undies]

We have no say as the public to the appointment of these Judges.

I have a say.  I live in a representative republic.  I vote for/against my senator who has the obligation to confirm or deny Supreme Court appointments.  Where do YOU live?

The hold life time jobs to hear or not hear select cases.

Yep, that's their lot in life. 

I am not sure if I understand this latest thing, was it them that passed a law that there was no limit on any contributions to the political contributions from anyone , foreign or domestic?

You seem to have the same understand as that Boreok Oboma character -- the "understanding" that that got Boreok branded a BIG FAT LIAR by Justice Alito during Boreok's phony State of the Union Speech.

Study the law.  You may be very surprised how right on the money this "controversial" Supreme Court ruling is.

[USA4ME]

Oscar Wilde primitive, your opinion doesn't matter.  Mine does.  Live with it.

.

[Karin]

Vesta, domestic corporations and unions may pay for advertising for or against a candidate, provided they disclose who they are.  No foreign corps and no direct money infusions.  Disclosed advertising. 

Is it my imagination, or has Hawkeye X taken a turn for the stranger, weirder, more insane in recent days? 

[njpines]

Clarence Thomas provides a very lucid explanation of their ruling (sorry for the NYTimes link -- certainly NOT my first choice for reading!):

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04scotus.html?hp

[franksolich]

Is it my imagination, or has Hawkeye X taken a turn for the stranger, weirder, more insane in recent days?

The bloviating cross-eyed Iowa primitive, the "ex-con," the magnanimous benefactor of the treasuries of so many Democrat, liberal, and primitive causes, has always been weird, but I suspect you're right in that there's a different tone, texture, to his weirdness lately.

I'm sensing the rage of impotency.

And I don't think it's going to be pretty.

But all one can do is sit back, relax, and watch.

[BadCat]

Wow, Justice Kennedy routinely votes for THEIR side, now they throw him under the bus because he remembered once upon a time, something he read about the First Amendment?

[The Village Idiot]

Wow, Justice Kennedy routinely votes for THEIR side, now they throw him under the bus because he remembered once upon a time, something he read about the First Amendment?

yuppers. That's quality DUm there.

[delilahmused]

We have no say as the public to the appointment of these Judges. The hold life time jobs to hear or not hear select cases.

I am not sure if I understand this latest thing, was it them that passed a law that there was no limit on any contributions to the political contributions from anyone , foreign or domestic?

If that were the case then Harriet Meyers would be sitting on the court today.

Cindie