You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #19: It'd be easier to appoint 5 more. nt [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
19. It'd be easier to appoint 5 more. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Can we impeach five Supreme Court justices? Cyrano  Feb-03-10 11:51 AM   #0 
  - Short answer: No  NoPasaran   Feb-03-10 11:53 AM   #1 
  - Short answer YES. But getting the Senate to convict may be tough  Vincardog   Feb-03-10 11:56 AM   #2 
  - Not again  michreject   Feb-03-10 11:57 AM   #3 
  - Sorry that discussions about our basic freedoms bore you.  Cyrano   Feb-03-10 12:19 PM   #25 
  - I say, offer them free rides in a Toyota. Problem solved. nt  T Wolf   Feb-03-10 11:57 AM   #4 
  - Maybe not, but Obama could add some. nt  Snotcicles   Feb-03-10 11:58 AM   #5 
  - no, sorry. he couldn't. it would take congressional action to enlarge the court.  cali   Feb-03-10 12:01 PM   #11 
  - They would have to confirm. nt  Snotcicles   Feb-03-10 12:16 PM   #23 
     - nope. still wrong.  cali   Feb-03-10 12:21 PM   #26 
        - Yeah guess I was just wishful thinking.nt  Snotcicles   Feb-03-10 12:24 PM   #28 
  - FDR tried that one  Hippo_Tron   Feb-03-10 11:32 PM   #70 
  - Wouldn't that set a wonderful, non-abusable precedent. (nt)  Posteritatis   Feb-04-10 04:12 PM   #94 
  - An impeachable offence is whatever the House says is an impeachable offence  Freddie Stubbs   Feb-03-10 11:59 AM   #6 
  - Well, you're right about this House. Odd that a different house found  Cyrano   Feb-03-10 12:24 PM   #27 
  - For this House that means cannibalism on the House floor *might* qualify. (nt)  Posteritatis   Feb-04-10 04:16 PM   #98 
  - Yes they can be  igfoth   Feb-03-10 11:59 AM   #7 
  - Corperations were granted personhood in the 1880's  louis-t   Feb-03-10 11:59 AM   #8 
  - They were never granted personhood. You can thank the fuckhead clerk  Hawkeye-X   Feb-03-10 12:03 PM   #15 
     - You are correct.  avaistheone1   Feb-03-10 12:05 PM   #16 
  - no, and I don't think we should.  cali   Feb-03-10 12:00 PM   #9 
  - I honestly believe that the decision opens up Amercian elections  Phoebe Loosinhouse   Feb-03-10 12:01 PM   #10 
  - Yes, We Can, But Will We?  Demeter   Feb-03-10 12:01 PM   #12 
  - Yes, the justices have commmitted treason against the people of the United States  Hawkeye-X   Feb-03-10 12:02 PM   #13 
  - I too believe they have committed treason. And I also believe that  Cyrano   Feb-03-10 12:15 PM   #22 
  - Treason  Rebubula   Feb-03-10 12:40 PM   #29 
     - I'm not about to post the differing definitions of the term "treason."  Cyrano   Feb-03-10 12:48 PM   #32 
        - Then I'll do you a favor and post the only relevant definition of treason in the US  onenote   Feb-03-10 01:21 PM   #42 
           - And what if a corporation of a foreign state, that some consider to  Cyrano   Feb-03-10 01:37 PM   #45 
              - what if?  onenote   Feb-03-10 01:44 PM   #48 
                 - What about the corporation we call "Saudi Arabia?"  Cyrano   Feb-03-10 05:53 PM   #65 
  - Don't hold your breath.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Feb-04-10 12:12 AM   #78 
  - That's what this group is trying to do  Emit   Feb-03-10 12:03 PM   #14 
  - great post!  Phoebe Loosinhouse   Feb-03-10 12:12 PM   #21 
     - I agree  howaboutme   Feb-03-10 02:00 PM   #51 
  - Roberts and Alito should be impeached because their appointments were not legal  Sebastian Doyle   Feb-03-10 12:07 PM   #17 
  - denial of the fact that he was president  cali   Feb-03-10 12:09 PM   #18 
  - Ironically enough, THAT would not be a Constitutional basis for Impeachment...  Romulox   Feb-03-10 12:11 PM   #20 
  - It'd be easier to appoint 5 more. nt  Romulox   Feb-03-10 12:10 PM   #19 
  - True. That's the approach I favor.  TexasObserver   Feb-03-10 11:50 PM   #75 
  - shit, 'we' couldn't even question a president who started a WAR because he wanted to.  spanone   Feb-03-10 12:16 PM   #24 
  - no. at least not until they do something that the public thinks is impeachable  onenote   Feb-03-10 12:46 PM   #30 
  - The decision did not grant "person hood" to corporations.  harkadog   Feb-03-10 12:47 PM   #31 
  - I think we're arguing semantics here.  Cyrano   Feb-03-10 12:57 PM   #34 
     - They extended First Amendment rights to corporations  NoNothing   Feb-03-10 01:00 PM   #35 
     - Okay. I can't disagree. But then shouldn't we amend the words  Cyrano   Feb-03-10 01:08 PM   #38 
     - But they didn't extend anything  DatManFromNawlins   Feb-04-10 10:47 AM   #87 
     - They removed some -- not all --restrictions on corporations  harkadog   Feb-03-10 01:01 PM   #36 
     - the flaw in the SCOTUS ruling wasnt that it recognized the first amendment rights of corporations  onenote   Feb-03-10 01:43 PM   #47 
  - History says "no". Hasn't been done since 1804.  LLStarks   Feb-03-10 12:52 PM   #33 
  - I believe that political reality also says "no."  Cyrano   Feb-03-10 01:05 PM   #37 
  - Impeach them  kctim   Feb-03-10 01:09 PM   #39 
  - Ummm, I could be wrong, but I don't think they're disagreeing with  Cyrano   Feb-03-10 01:13 PM   #40 
     - He's pointing out that  NoNothing   Feb-03-10 01:28 PM   #43 
     - And other justices did not disagree  kctim   Feb-03-10 01:43 PM   #46 
  - NO - stop wasting time and bandwidth on the intertubes on this silliness.  ddeclue   Feb-03-10 01:14 PM   #41 
  - Supreme Court justices CAN be impeached, so it is not "silly".  Swamp Rat   Feb-03-10 01:33 PM   #44 
  - Thanks for some valuable facts, Swap Rat.  Cyrano   Feb-03-10 01:52 PM   #49 
  - It is very likely they will not be impeached, but it is good to discuss the possibility.  Swamp Rat   Feb-03-10 02:07 PM   #52 
     - it actually is essentially certain that they will not be impeached and its a waste of time  onenote   Feb-03-10 04:37 PM   #56 
        - Your opinion is wrong.  Swamp Rat   Feb-03-10 11:13 PM   #66 
  - Media benefits - so you won't hear much against it.  howaboutme   Feb-03-10 02:08 PM   #53 
  - and I CAN win the PowerBall too.. actually that's more YES it IS SILLY.  ddeclue   Feb-03-10 04:41 PM   #58 
     - And your opinion is wrong too.  Swamp Rat   Feb-03-10 11:13 PM   #67 
  - As opposed to the unending significant and purposeful work that usually takes place online?  jgraz   Feb-03-10 02:28 PM   #55 
  - I agree the issue needs debated  howaboutme   Feb-03-10 01:57 PM   #50 
  - We can also appoint MORE Supremes  jgraz   Feb-03-10 02:24 PM   #54 
  - almost as politically unlikely as impeachment  onenote   Feb-03-10 04:39 PM   #57 
  - Key word: "almost"  jgraz   Feb-03-10 04:45 PM   #59 
     - I'm interested in how it could be done without running into the problems that FDR ran into  onenote   Feb-03-10 05:35 PM   #61 
        - Here's how you do it  jgraz   Feb-03-10 05:40 PM   #62 
           - Now we're cookin'!  Swamp Rat   Feb-03-10 11:15 PM   #69 
              - Well, most people use the topic as an excuse to show they read the Wikipedia entry on FDR  jgraz   Feb-03-10 11:43 PM   #73 
                 - Exactly. My time is precious, but I will always spare the time to investigate how to stop the GOP.  Swamp Rat   Feb-03-10 11:58 PM   #76 
  - It was a bad idea when FDR tried it and it is a bad idea now  Hippo_Tron   Feb-03-10 11:35 PM   #71 
  - And a few years down the road they can appoint seven more Republican ones!  Posteritatis   Feb-04-10 04:13 PM   #95 
     - If the Dems grew spines, went hard populist/left and started playing hardball  jgraz   Feb-04-10 04:38 PM   #101 
        - Bull. (nt)  Posteritatis   Feb-04-10 05:20 PM   #105 
           - Your stellar reasoning has conclusively destroyed my argument  jgraz   Feb-04-10 05:33 PM   #106 
  - In theory-yes. In practice-no. n/t  guardian   Feb-03-10 05:08 PM   #60 
  - Maybe if we shut down the right-wing/corporate noise machine first.  BreweryYardRat   Feb-03-10 05:50 PM   #63 
  - There's no reason why we can't appoint two more Justices to offset  B Calm   Feb-03-10 05:52 PM   #64 
  - It's been done before.  Swamp Rat   Feb-03-10 11:14 PM   #68 
  - the last time the court changed in size was 1869  onenote   Feb-04-10 06:33 AM   #81 
     - But, legally we can do it!  B Calm   Feb-04-10 12:17 PM   #89 
     - true. and legally we can amend the constitution  onenote   Feb-04-10 02:26 PM   #90 
     - It might have happened in 1937, but an old justice died, so FDR was able to replace him  Swamp Rat   Feb-04-10 04:00 PM   #92 
  - Actually there's any number of reasons why you can't. (nt)  Posteritatis   Feb-04-10 04:16 PM   #97 
  - Yes! All it takes is the House voting Articles of Impeachment.  TexasObserver   Feb-03-10 11:40 PM   #72 
  - If there was REAL justice in this country the five Supreme Court justices would be impeached.  earth mom   Feb-03-10 11:46 PM   #74 
  - if your definition of real justice is impeaching justices who make bad decisions  onenote   Feb-04-10 06:35 AM   #82 
     - Are you actually defending that the Supreme Court just gave corporations  earth mom   Feb-04-10 09:32 AM   #86 
        - not at all. it was a extremely bad decision as Stevens dissent convincingly shows  onenote   Feb-04-10 10:53 AM   #88 
           - WTH-Nonstop Impeachment?! Those jerks in Congress are afraid to Impeach anyone because  earth mom   Feb-04-10 02:46 PM   #91 
  - Littered throughout this quixotic OP of yours is the accusation of "treason" by repliers. "Treason"  apocalypsehow   Feb-04-10 12:09 AM   #77 
  - Well said.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Feb-04-10 12:14 AM   #79 
  - +1. and check me if i am wrong, sandy... but...  1   Feb-04-10 12:27 AM   #80 
  - People here also fail to see the precedent it would set.  chrisa   Feb-04-10 06:39 AM   #83 
  - The word really has been diluted to a terrifying pointlessness, hasn't it? (nt)  Posteritatis   Feb-04-10 04:15 PM   #96 
  - Not we, it would take "our" representatives to do so.  mmonk   Feb-04-10 06:42 AM   #84 
  - They won't impeach.  zoff   Feb-04-10 07:12 AM   #85 
  - What if they committed perjury during their confirmation hearing?  alfredo   Feb-04-10 04:07 PM   #93 
  - How did they commit perjury during their confirmation hearings? n/t  FLDCVADem   Feb-04-10 04:20 PM   #99 
     - It's illegal to lie to congress  alfredo   Feb-04-10 04:31 PM   #100 
        - And I'll ask again - what did they lie about?  FLDCVADem   Feb-04-10 04:57 PM   #103 
           - Note : What if. I'm asking, not saying they lied.  alfredo   Feb-04-10 05:50 PM   #107 
           - Why should I say what they may have lied about, that is for  alfredo   Feb-04-10 08:47 PM   #108 
  - Just declare them to be sentences (U R what U write). Then erase them,  RedCloud   Feb-04-10 04:46 PM   #102 
  - What you mean we, kemosabe?  deaniac21   Feb-04-10 05:04 PM   #104 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC