Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law

[MADem]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/03/impeach-the-supreme-court-justices-if-they-overturn-health-care-law.html?obref=obnetwork

Apr 3, 2012 5:32 PM EDT
The Roberts Court’s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them.

...Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Samuel Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.

The problem with the current court is not merely that there is a good chance it will strike down a clearly constitutional law. The problem is that this decision would be the latest salvo in what seems to be a sustained effort on the part of the Roberts Court to return the country to the Gilded Age.

During that period—which ran from the years after of the Civil War to the start of the 20th century—wealth became highly concentrated and corporations came to dominate American business.

At the close of the Gilded Age, the U.S. infant mortality rate was around 10 percent—a number you find today in impoverished Central African nations. In some cities, it exceeded 30 percent. Women could not vote, and their lives were controlled by men. Blacks lived apart from whites and constituted an economic, social, and political underclass. Corporations exerted an unchecked and deleterious influence on the lives of workers....

[teddy51]

1. The Major problem with that is, the Repugs. have a majority in the House and they would

have to do that. Not going to happen, until the November election. Oh and then I think we have some time until the Congress kicks in.

[MADem]

3. Well, it wouldn't happen straight away, but just talking about it is a good thing.

I like this guy's Big Finish:

. In the end, however, it is the duty of the people to protect the Constitution from the court. Social progress cannot be held hostage by five unelected men.

[unblock]

2. they've already given ample grounds for impeachment, at least as far back as bush v. gore.

but no way in hades a republican house will impeach any of the right-wing 5.

[elleng]

4. Foolish blather, this.

Impeach?

'Good chance it will strike down a clearly constitutional law???'

I object to the hyperbole.

[mercymechap]

5. Unconstitutional?

Two conservative (lower court) judges have deemed it Constitutional. The two conservative judges that found it unconstitutional, one was from Florida (the state that gave us Bushwhacked) and Virginia, the state that wanted to make transvaginal ultrasounds mandatory for women seeking abortion. How much redder can you get than that?

You can object all you want, the truth is Republicans stop at nothing - check out what the politicians are doing in Michigan. Rachel Maddow had a whole program on Thurs, April 5, dedicated to their devious and unconstitutional way of doing business and hopefully there are still some honest judges that will expose them and end their charade.

http://eclectablog.com/2012/03/michigan-house-democrats-get-temporary-restraining-order-against-house-republicans-for-violating-the-constitution.html

[MADem]

6. I am with you. If we don't stand up and gripe, we shouldn't be surprised if we get screwed. nt

[elleng]

7. Sorry I wasn't clear.

My objection is Dow said Court likely to strike it down, and NO ONE should say any such; there is NO WAY anyone knows, and to try to get everyone in an uproar over speculation is damaging.

I know damn well that repugs stop at nothing, and am as outraged as Rachel was today about Michigan. Michiganders had better get themselves in gear about that crap.

Please read Linda Greenhouse from NY Times yesterday. People really should understand how the Supreme Court makes decisions.

[MADem]

9. Oh, ok. I don't mind getting a bit huffy and ahead of myself!

It keeps me wheezing along--a little righteous indignation every now and again gets the blood moving!

I think Dow is just looking at recent history, and his point is that this set of Supremes vote along ideological--not necessarily legal--lines. This is a gilded age, and social justice has been taking a back seat in recent decades--I don't like it, myself. As for the Supremes and their history of pisspoor decisions, I don't think anyone in their right friken mind can truly say a corporation is "people" and money is speech. If money is speech, that means that the poor are mutes before the government, courtesy of their economic situation! So much for justice for all!

Nothing would surprise me with this 5-4 crew. And when you've got Kagan going hunting with Scalia....well, I dunno. Why is it I think that Scalia wouldn't be on the wrong end of an accidental discharge?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/visiting-mu-justice-kagan-tells-of-hunting-with-scalia-e84rus1-146048325.html

I've no faith in nine unelected farts anymore.

[MADem]

8. Well, Jefferson liked the concept! nt

[Kablooie]

10. Problem with this is that they could fight it all the way up to the Supreme Court.

[MADem]

11. An impeachment?

That would be a challenge, since the person presiding over the proceedings is a Supreme--remember, it was Rhenquist in his striped costume who oversaw the charade against Clinton.

All impeachment is, really, at the end of the day, is a way to say "You suck! We don't LIKE you!"

[Dan]

12. Are you sure...

If a supreme court justice is subject to impeachment - (which is a political act), and probably would not occur until a change in the house - with a majority change in the congress, it would not matter who presides over said impeachment. The person presiding over has no power to overturn...

I would recommend that congress look into the impeachment of at least two of the justices (who shall remain nameless) and with a change in congress, I suspect that they would be impeached. Once said impeachment were to occur, I suspect that the remaining justices would discover that they might be better served working with the law, rather than worrying about the political aspects of said laws.

They do what they can do, because they can... just like GWB, he did what he did, because he could - and the congress was afraid to curtail his abuse of power.

On reflection, even if the congress were to change hands - do you think that they would have more guts than they have shown in the past?

[MADem]

13. Oh, sure! I like the idea of talking about it, for starters.

Who knows if congress will grow any fortitude--it's nice to discuss it, though, because some times, when people discuss stuff often enough, Congress starts to notice. We call them political leaders, but the truth is, We The People have to lead them more often than not.

[Kablooie]

14. if we can't impeach them...

Maybe we can impair their decisions.

(im-pear . . . im-peach . . . get it? . . . pear . . . peach?)

ahem.

I'm going to bed now.

[MineralMan]

15. Since there is no chance whatever that such an impeachment

would get through the House, it would be a mistake to introduce it. Failed impeachments do more harm than good. As much as I want to see the conservative justices gone, a futile impeachment attempt is a bad idea. Now, if we manage to elect a super-majority House and Senate, it might actually be possible, at least for a couple of Justices.

[MADem]

16. Geez, we don't have to do it THIS WEEK.

It's enough to talk about it. And talk about it frequently! Of course, saying "Shhhh, shut up, don't talk about that possibility, no, no, it will never work!" is just the thing to let those five assholes of the nine think that they can keep getting away with this shit.

I say rattle their cage. Early and often.

[MineralMan]

17. And we won't.

I can't think of a better way, though, to piss off the one Justice who may well vote to keep ACA in force. Of course, I doubt very much if he reads DU, so it probably doesn't matter, anyhow.

[MADem]

18. Well, the original article wasn't from DU, either. The key is to spread the themes around. This is

but one slice of toast upon which to smear the tasty melting butter of impeachment. There are others. I hope people will read, and pass on--rather like a fast spreading virus.

[Hawkowl]

19. Rollover for everything?

Is that your answer? Just sit back and enjoy it because fighting is futile?

The reason the "Justices" act with impunity, is because they fear no consequence. I remind you that impeachment is not a conviction, but just the threat of impeachment may achieve change. Surely you remember Nixon and his resignation.

Now, having no control over the House, impeachment is impossible at this time. However, a threat of impeachment in the Democratic party platform could very swing the House into the Democrats hands. Obama has already singled out the Supreme Court in one of his state of the union speeches for the horrific "Citizen's United" decision. He could very well send a quiet message to the court that the gloves will come off if they overturn health care.

The population would be ready for a Supreme Court restructuring if it strikes down health care on top of Citizen's United and the 2000 election. Of course that would take leadership and the harnessing of citizen outrage; something Obama and the Democratic party have seemed unwilling or unable to do.

Your lack of stomach for fighting on principle, seems to be THE fundamental weakness in the modern Democrat.

[Liber-AL]

20. But what about setting a precedent?

There may come a time when impeachment might be politically viable and in favor of the Conservatives?
I think term limits would probably be a better solution. Six years on the Federal Bench ought to be enough and would preclude 5 justices from constantly holding the country hostage for decades!

As an aside, I often wondered what would happen if all nine justices could no longer serve for one reason or another.
Would the incumbent president choose all nine replacements? What a disaster that would be if the president at that time would be a Conservative Republican.

THE EXCEPTION WOULD BE OBAMA: I would trust his appointment of nine justices over anyone on the political horizon.