If one or a group of Supreme Court judges formulate a decision that it patently absurd..and not

[JohnWxy]

consistent with the obvious intent of the constitution - can they be tried or impeached and the decision rendered null and void because they are forwarding a political belief?

If the Roberts court finds that corporations enjoy any of the rights of people (for example that of free speech), which the Declaration of Independence declares are granted to people by thier Creator, even though corporate stockholders are burdened with none of the responsibilities for the corporations actions (the whole purpose of corporation is to shield stock-holders from liabilty for the corporation's actions - beyond the amount they invested in the corporation) is that not grounds to charge them with violating the sworn duty of their office which is to uphold the laws and constitution of the United States?

"THe word 'corporation' doesn't appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution" -- Michael Moore.


Supreme Court Poised to Overhaul Parts of Campaign Finance System - the Center for Resonsive Politics

If the Supreme Court is currently the dam blocking the flow of unlimited corporate funds used for political expenditures, today's re-hearing of the campaign finance case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission indicated that the justices may be poised to put at least a few holes in that barricade.

At issue is whether corporations, unions and issue advocacy organizations should be allowed to use unlimited amounts of money from their treasuries on independent political expenditures in support or opposition of a candidate.

Today's oral arguments didn't indicate whether the Supreme Court would overturn the current ban on such expenditures or if it would make a more narrow decision about the types of groups and expenditures that the prohibition should apply to.

But the mere fact that Supreme Court re-heard the trial a month before the session usually begins -- coupled with statements justices made today -- suggests that at least a few of the justices may be looking to make some sweeping changes to the campaign finance system.

"The average person should be concerned that a Court decision striking down the ban on business corporation political expenditures will result in a flood of corporate money into the electoral arena that will drown the average person's political speech," said Paul Ryan, an attorney for the Campaign Legal Center.
(more)

[SharonRB]

1. I think they already did that in December 0f 2000

and nothing happened to them then, did it? We paid with 8 years of Bush.

[robinlynne]

3. exactly. you beat me to it.

[JohnWxy]

5. they should have been tried for aborting an election and choosing the president then. That does not

mean we should continue to lay down like sheep. There is always hope that a people will realize they have a right to a just, fair and a democratic government.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. This should be whats on everyones mind ,not what Joe Wilson said ,

but how much of him is Owned by Corporate America.

[elleng]

4. 'Corporation' decision as to characteristics was made a long time ago.

Justice Sotomayor commented on it:

'Because what you are suggesting is that the courts who created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons, and there could be an argument made that that was the Court's error to start with, not Austin or McConnell, but the fact that the Court imbued a creature of State law with human characteristics.

But we can go back to the very basics that way, but wouldn't we be doing some more harm than good by a broad ruling in a case that doesn't involve more business corporations and actually doesn't even involve the traditional nonprofit organization? It involves an advocacy corporation that has a very particular interest.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

We won't learn if one or more justices formulate an absurd decision; that's not the way the Court works.

The argument will be broadcast on CSpan Saturday at 7 eastern time, and I recommend that everyone here watch and listen to it, to get a real world impression about how the Court and the individual justices operate.

[JohnWxy]

7. Well, "there could be an argument made that there was an errot to start with"..I am saying that

corporations can be given powers to engage in business transactions, such as the power to engage in contracts etc. But that does not mean that corporations enjoy any rights as human beings do. Corporations were designed to shield the stock-holdrs from liability. Without liability there is no responsibility. Without responsibility there can be no rights either natural or synthetic (granted by humnans).


The supreme court is supposed to see that the constitution is respected and not abrogated by laws passed by the legislature. The constitution does not recognize any rights being enjoyed by anything called a corporation. Granting powers to egnage in contractual obligations and certain other powers necessary to engage in business can not in any sensible manner be construed to mean corporations have the any of the rights of a person.

[elleng]

8. And I'm saying that decisions as to corporate characteristics were made long ago,

as noted by Justice Sotomayor and many others.

[JohnWxy]

9. and those decisons in no way mean that corporations have the rights of persons. they have some

powers of persons which enable them to form contracts and engage in business. THIS IN NO WAY CAN SENSIBLY BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT THEY ARE THEREFOR ENDOWED WITH THE SAME RIGHTS AS PEOPLE. THE WORD CORPORATION DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THEREFOR DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

ASSERTING THAT CORPORATIONS ENJOY RIGHTS AS HUMANS DO IS NOTHING BUT SPECTACULAR, PATENT BALDERDASH.

[JohnWxy]

10. btw, your link doesn't work.

[elleng]

11. Sorry

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, are you giving up on your earlier arguments that there are ways to avoid the constitutional question to resolve this case? I know that we asked for further briefing on this particular issue of overturning two of our Court's precedents. But are you giving up on your earlier arguments that there are statutory interpretations that would avoid the constitutional question? ...

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, my difficulty is that you make very impassioned arguments about why this is a bad system that the courts have developed in its jurisprudence, but we don't have any record developed below. You make a lot of arguments about how far and the nature of corporations, single corporations, single stockholder corporations, et cetera. But there is no record that I am reviewing that actually goes into the very question that you're arguing exists, which is a patchwork of regulatory and jurisprudential guidelines that are so unclear...

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Going back to the question of stare decisis, the one thing that is very interesting about this area of law for the last 100 years is the active involvement of both State and Federal legislatures in trying to find that balance between the interest of protecting in their views how the electoral process should proceed and the interests of the First Amendment.
And so my question to you is, once we say they can't, except on the basis of a compelling government interest narrowly tailored, are we cutting off or would we be cutting off that future democratic process? Because what you are suggesting is that the courts who created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons, and there could be an argument made that that was the Court's error to start with, not Austin or McConnell, but the fact that the Court imbued a creature of State law with human characteristics.

But we can go back to the very basics that way, but wouldn't we be doing some more harm than good by a broad ruling in a case that doesn't involve more business corporations and actually doesn't even involve the traditional nonprofit organization? It involves an advocacy corporation that has a very particular interest.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_t...

[damntexdem]

6. Oh, do you mean like selecting a president rather than allowing a state fo find out who won?

Well, if such a thing were to happen, I would certainly hope there would be impeachment. ;-)

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Who has a higher authority than the SCOTUS to determine the intent of the Constitution...

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

(1) Show me where "Treason," "Bribery," or other "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are involved. Since Marbury Vs. Madison, the SCOTUS has had the power to adjudicate the Constitution. This would not be the first wrong decision they have made.

(2) Once you show me the crime, show me who has a higher place under the Constitution to determine what the Constitution means. From my reading of the Constitution, the SCOTUS is the top of that pyramid.

If they do throw out all campaign laws, then it will be for us to force our representatives to write new laws or change the Constitution.

[JohnWxy]

14. They have to swear to uphold the constitution when appointed to the SC. If they violate that oath

they are guilty of malfeasance of duty and can be removed. ANy strict constitutionalist would have to respict the fact that in the Bill of Rights there is nothing said about protecting the rights of corporations. Corporations were granted certain powers, to form contracts and others to enable them to act "like" persons in order to engage in business activities. THAT DOES NOT IN ANY SENSIBLE WAY MEAN CORPORATIONS HAVE ANY REAL RIGHTS, SUCH AS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

The legislature granted them these powers. Corporations have NO STATUS in the constitution. they were given powers narrorowly defined in law by legislatures. IT IS PATENT BULLSHIT TO PRETEND THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OF THE RIGHTS OF CORPORATIONS INVOLVED HERE.

This whole matter is bullshit. When Roberts said he didn't see how the FEC could decide on the Rights of free speech of corporatiions he was creating an ignis fatuus. The SC has no business considering something that does not exist.

[pscot]

13. IMPEACH CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS

I'll put a bumper sticker on my truck.