So lets all sign the magic petition, take a swig of Happy Juice and let the Petition Fairies solve our problems.

Has 1 of Obama's petitions from his petition page accomplished anything?

(I'm still mad we didn't get a Death Star)

Descent.

I think a petition is one way to start a 'public outcry'.

Next step or another step is to march on the courthouse.

and boener are just as morally bankrupt as Scalia.

in the House, this is a waste of time. Why waste time?

such as PATRIOT Act. The Pubs are real astute at naming vile acts with can't vote against names. What's next the "Warm Puppy Act" to deport any northerners who have immigrated to southern states.

They won't deport them, they'll just require anyone who votes to be a racist with a blue-eyed grandmother (if you have two blue-eyed grandmothers, you'll be able to vote twice).

Southern blue-blood roots.

And I vote solid.....progressive. I get to vote twice? Goody.

And I disagree it's fucking happy juice as a poster stated up thread.
Petitions still send a message, public outcry is needed here.
And short of rioting in the streets, this is the step to take first.

more than you can count to impeach Scalia and Thomas. I was horrified when both were confirmed, especially Thomas. Now I have a Scalia doll and Thomas doll that I stick pins in whenever the corrupt ones are in session. That does about as much good as signing petitions.

where, exactly, do you stick those pins? Hope it is somewhere deliciously painful.

Come to think of it, let's all support him running for Pope. If he win's it'll force him to resign from the Supreme Court and get him out of the country.

this seems appropriate to sign

Sorry, but being an asshat isn't an impeachable offense.

. . . and if we start down the path of impeaching Supreme Court justices because we disagree with their ideology, we will be opening up a can of worms for the GOP to try to do the same with moderate and liberal justices.

So if history is any judge, Scalia is pretty safe.

....as grounds for removal....

SECTION 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

One could easily interpret his latest comments as a violation of holding his office "...during good behaviour....".

the whole lot of them need to be impeached for that decision. some call it reason.

That would explain his lapse in intelligence.

...."high crimes and misdemeanors"

Is the Chase impeachment by the House and acquittal in the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

From this I see no chance of Impeachment happening -- just saying.

I can't agree. Scalia is, in fact, a troll (as Maddow characterized him tonight) but trying to remove justices because you disagree with them is abhorrent.

You get a Republican-controlled House to decide that a) Scalia is racist and b) racism is an impeachable offense. Then get a sizable number of Republicans in the Senate to agree.

it's about his inability to separate his personal views from his duty to be fair and impartial.

can come in 2015 if enough deserving Repugs lose their seats in the House and Senate. The fine Justice Scalia is taking loathsomeness to an art for, imo, as he figuratively shits on the Constitution, the law, and the people, and gives all the middle finger in real time.



Edited to insert a comma for a period

Get out the tar, feathers, and pitchforks!

as soon as "law" means something in the U.S. again.

. . . at least not on the basis of what is likely to be his ruling in the case involving the Voting Rights Act, how ever vile his reasoning. Look, it goes without saying that the man's statements in this case (among many others) were utterly despicable. But, leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that impeachment doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in the House, consider this: if we were to go down the path of impeaching a Supreme Court justice based on his ideologoical stance, it would set a dangerous precedent -- a precedent Republicans would seize upon at the first available opportunity in order to remove a more moderate or liberal justice whose rulings they disliked. Do you really want to open up that can of worms?

(Cross-posted from http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022443338)

Isn't Scalia doing a sharp about-face from his own previous stance on the role of the USSC versus the majoritarian role of Congress?

How many times since 1964 have Republicans campaigned for statewide and national office on pledges to appoint :strict constructionists" rather than judges who "legislate from the bench"?

We need to appreciate the enormity of what Scalia is spouting.

Scalia is advocating overturning majority rule, just what Republicans have accused Democrats of since the 1960s Warren Court.

But recently a historian demonstrated that anri-majoritarian accusations against the Warren Court are false:

Here's a snippet from a favorite MSNBC law professor guest's review of "The Warren Court and American Pollitics". by Lucas A. Powe, Jr. (Harvard University Press).

From http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/the-end-deference :

"THE END OF DEFERENCE, by Jeffrey Rosen

... how did the Warren Court come to be defined as a group of judicial legislators who repeatedly thwarted the political branches? ... In 1964, Barry Goldwater tried to make an election issue of the civil rights, criminal procedure, and school prayer decisions, but he was dramatically rebuffed. Indeed, the Court viewed Johnson's landslide election as a vindication of its bold leadership in Brown. "Never before in American history," Powe writes, "has a Court been told it was so right." ...

Powe argues that at the beginning of the 1960s the Warren Court decided cases on the basis of values that most Americans (with the exception of recalcitrant outliers) shared, such as overcoming segregation, Victorianism, malapportionment, and the use of the third degree. ...

Of course, all three branches of national government will not always agree: the harmony of the Warren era appears to have been the exception rather than the rule. But although the Court should never allow the president and Congress to violate clearly defined constitutional rights, it should give Congress substantial leeway to define and to enforce its own conception of constitutional rights, even when this vision is more expansive than that of the Court. This deference to the competing constitutional views of Congress was clearly anticipated by the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution, who saw Congress, and not the Court, as the primary enforcer of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. But deference to Congress is a virtue that the imperious Rehnquist Court has refused to display. ...

A deferential Court would generally uphold the acts of the political branches, even when it disagreed with them, unless the president and Congress had violated constitutional rights and limitations that were too clear to ignore. It is not surprising, perhaps, that the Court has managed to avoid a political backlash against its high-handedness by keeping its finger to the political winds. But have the political branches become so cowed by the Court's grandiose assertions of its own supremacy that they have lost the will to stand up for themselves?"

Republican imposters. Justice Scalia is an example of what to expect if we elect another Republican.

Scalia should be looking at this strictly from a legal point of view. Any LEGAL argument should NOT be based on political considerations or biases.

But then again, that's what he's been doing for his whole career on the bench.

I think there's a good case for impeachment here.