BreweryYardRat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-03-10 05:50 PM
Response to Original message |
| 63. Maybe if we shut down the right-wing/corporate noise machine first. |
|
Otherwise, fugeddaboutit.
|
| -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 realistic..so 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 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread