Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
Fri May 18, 2012, 05:21 PM May 2012

BREAKING NEWS -- Senators call on Supreme Court to Overturn Citizens United

from my email...



Dear Scuba,

Just now, Senators McCain and Whitehouse sent a letter to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking them to reconsider the Citizens United case. This is a huge opportunity to reverse the ruling and retake our democracy.

We can help if we act fast. Take a minute, right now, and add your name to the senators’ letter. Demand that the highest court stop billionaires from buying our politicians and laws.

Then forward this email to three friends who are disgusted by politicians auctioning themselves off to the highest bidder.

Stand with the senators, and tell the Supreme Court that we're not going to take it anymore.

It’s time to rev the engines back up.

Join Senators McCain and Whitehouse.

It’s a rare moment when something good happens in Washington. Seize the moment. Join this bipartisan, right-left revolt.

Get money out.

Thanks,
Josh Silver

P.S. The letter is about a case in Montana. Learn about the details here.

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BREAKING NEWS -- Senators call on Supreme Court to Overturn Citizens United (Original Post) Scuba May 2012 OP
I'm sure the Supreme Court is quaking in their boots over a letter two Senators have sent. bluestateguy May 2012 #1
The Supreme Court has damaged its credibility with that ruling. Comrade Grumpy May 2012 #12
This court has had no credibility since its swearing in Doctor_J May 2012 #18
Credibility? After Bush v. Gore? Oh, wait, Roberts had to trash his legacy, too. McCamy Taylor May 2012 #20
"They should be quaking in their boots." Why? rhett o rick May 2012 #32
It's good news that some of our legislators are actually acting. randome May 2012 #2
didn't the SC already rule littlewolf May 2012 #3
The Montana case comes at it in a way the SC did not consider in the prior CU decision FogerRox May 2012 #7
IF they agree to hear it ..... not holding my breath nt littlewolf May 2012 #9
They have not ruled on a challenge to it. savalez May 2012 #8
Hey, Senators Bolo Boffin May 2012 #4
Better yet, impose a 10 year term limits on ALL SCCJ with only one re-election opportunity Woody Woodpecker May 2012 #5
It should still be an appointment process, but I'm down with 10 year terms, two max. n/t Bolo Boffin May 2012 #16
A judicial review from the Congress after the 10 year term is up Woody Woodpecker May 2012 #21
This. CrispyQ May 2012 #28
The Framers wanted the Judicial Branch not to be swayed by politics of the day syberlion May 2012 #23
A letter? KansDem May 2012 #6
I think there is a good 50/50 chance that a college student intern at the USSC will skim over it bluestateguy May 2012 #10
So let's do nothing about it? Comrade Grumpy May 2012 #13
I'm not deeply familiar with Citizens United gratuitous May 2012 #11
The pesky First Amendment gets in the way of that (nt) Nye Bevan May 2012 #15
Often, though gratuitous May 2012 #17
I saw McCain destroy BlueToTheBone May 2012 #14
More histrionics from McGrandstand Doctor_J May 2012 #19
don't care.. If he's teaming up with Whitehhouse, I'm checking it out. annabanana May 2012 #33
Might as well ask Clarence Thomas to get over his confirmation hearing while they're at it BeyondGeography May 2012 #22
k&r... spanone May 2012 #24
I'd think that, being Senators, they might actually write a LAW or an Amendment. nilram May 2012 #25
Hmmm, now that Obama has twice as much money in the can as Robofop. Well, no matter who deacon May 2012 #26
Done and posted on facebook. lamp_shade May 2012 #27
K & R !!! WillyT May 2012 #29
Citizens United tells us that Corporate Personhood needs overturning n/t Trillo May 2012 #30
Wow, Lumpy must think he outgrew his pants or something. lonestarnot May 2012 #31
done...n/t k&r zeemike May 2012 #34
K & R Scurrilous May 2012 #35

bluestateguy

(44,173 posts)
1. I'm sure the Supreme Court is quaking in their boots over a letter two Senators have sent.
Fri May 18, 2012, 05:23 PM
May 2012

Not just any letter, mind you, but a BIPARTSIAN and STRONGLY WORDED letter.

Please.

 

Comrade Grumpy

(13,184 posts)
12. The Supreme Court has damaged its credibility with that ruling.
Fri May 18, 2012, 05:41 PM
May 2012

I strongly suggest reading Jeffrey Toobin's New Yorker article on it. Chief Justice Roberts gamed the system to overturn more than a century's worth of precedent, and just in time to finance the Republican tide in 2010. It makes the court look really petty.

All the court has is its reputation. They should be quaking in their boots.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
18. This court has had no credibility since its swearing in
Fri May 18, 2012, 06:26 PM
May 2012

They have permanently damaged ther reputation of SCOTUS as a body. They are a stain on the nation's history that is never going to go away. If you think they are or can be embarrassed by having their crimes pointed out, you must be on some very dangerous drugs.

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
20. Credibility? After Bush v. Gore? Oh, wait, Roberts had to trash his legacy, too.
Fri May 18, 2012, 06:34 PM
May 2012

When they write history books, the Gang of Five will be villains.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
32. "They should be quaking in their boots." Why?
Sat May 19, 2012, 02:06 PM
May 2012

what's going to be done about it?

"All the court has is its reputation." I think the Citizen's United has proven otherwise. They are the most powerful branch of government thanks to Justice Marshall.

Justice Roberts has an agenda and he isnt about to give it up. Our Democracy is in the crapper.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
2. It's good news that some of our legislators are actually acting.
Fri May 18, 2012, 05:24 PM
May 2012

But I'm not sure how much of an 'opportunity' it is.

The Supreme Court does not make the laws. Congress does. The SC has already rendered their interpretation of existing law. I don't see them changing their ruling based on Congressional pressure.

littlewolf

(3,813 posts)
3. didn't the SC already rule
Fri May 18, 2012, 05:25 PM
May 2012

on this ??? I don't see them overturning themselves
unless there is new evidence ... but I havn't
heard of any ....

FogerRox

(13,211 posts)
7. The Montana case comes at it in a way the SC did not consider in the prior CU decision
Fri May 18, 2012, 05:31 PM
May 2012

The Montana case can in effect bring the case back to the SC.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
4. Hey, Senators
Fri May 18, 2012, 05:25 PM
May 2012

Pass an amendment overturning Citizens and send it to the states. Be the change you want to see in the world.

 

Woody Woodpecker

(562 posts)
21. A judicial review from the Congress after the 10 year term is up
Fri May 18, 2012, 06:41 PM
May 2012

If satisfactory, the term is renewed for another 10 more.

syberlion

(136 posts)
23. The Framers wanted the Judicial Branch not to be swayed by politics of the day
Fri May 18, 2012, 09:00 PM
May 2012

Hence, the lifetime appointment. They envisioned men of ethical character considered for the high position of Supreme Court Justice. The import of the lifetime appointment allowed for a broader view and a narrower approach to the deliberative process. Supposedly, the Justices would be free from the day's political hot potato and be able to look at the law without the pressures of any political party or even a mob mentality trying to push the agenda one way or the other.

As we have found out in the Supreme Court's recent history, this doesn't always happen. Citizen's United is what the conservatives have warned against when decrying the "liberal" nominees for the court. Legislating from the bench. That is what this Supreme Court did, plain and simple. There were no major decisions the Supreme Court could hang its collective hat on allowing them to decide Citizens United the way it did. In fact, there were multiple decisions supporting the total opposite, limiting corporations and limiting "Soft Money" spending in elections.

Granted, this is not the first time the Supreme Court decided on the wrong side of history... Plessy vs. Ferguson 1896 "Separate but Equal" not the Supreme Court's finest hour. Yes, it took 59 years before Brown vs Board of Education 1955, but eventually it did change.

Fortunately, with the Montana Supreme Court defying the Federal Court in a 5-2 decision upholding its state law limiting corporate election spending, this issue will probably be re-visited. One of the dissenting Montana Justice wrote:

“Corporations are not persons,” writes Nelson. “Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government." Just in case that wasn’t crystal clear, Nelson goes on to add that “while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons." - "In Montana Corporations Aren't People" - Slate


Because there is a divided Congress (House - Republican / Senate - Democratic) there is no way to impeach either Thomas, Alito or Roberts for unethical behavior. We have to suffer through their reign of activism by electing a solidly progressive Executive and Congressional Branches of Government. Control what you can so you can put a leash on what's been unleashed.

bluestateguy

(44,173 posts)
10. I think there is a good 50/50 chance that a college student intern at the USSC will skim over it
Fri May 18, 2012, 05:34 PM
May 2012

These open letters politicians and activists write are just silly stunts to chest puff and show off.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
11. I'm not deeply familiar with Citizens United
Fri May 18, 2012, 05:39 PM
May 2012

But is it possible to pass a law that will overcome the Supreme Court's asinine ruling in this case? This is getting pretty deep into the weeds, but I do know that oftentimes the Supreme Court hands down a ruling that this or that law is unconstitutional, but in the opinion, the Court gives a pretty clear signal of (if not outright saying) what would be constitutional.

Instead of sending letters, perhaps the Senators could draft some legislation that would pass constitutional muster?

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
17. Often, though
Fri May 18, 2012, 05:52 PM
May 2012

The Court's decision will signal in some way what the constitutional violation was, and suggest how a statute can be crafted to achieve Congress' intent without violating the Constitution. As I say, I'm not deeply familiar with Citizens United, and if the Supremes granted money an absolute right to talk, then writing a law may be impossible. But there may be a way to craft legislation such that an overriding public concern is safeguarded by limiting the free speech rights of money (the public's right not to be trampled in a panic by a spurious alarm of "Fire" in a crowded theater is one such generally recognized limit on free speech).

annabanana

(52,791 posts)
33. don't care.. If he's teaming up with Whitehhouse, I'm checking it out.
Sat May 19, 2012, 03:34 PM
May 2012

Whitehouse is one of the good guys.

BeyondGeography

(39,284 posts)
22. Might as well ask Clarence Thomas to get over his confirmation hearing while they're at it
Fri May 18, 2012, 06:50 PM
May 2012

And try to keep an open mind about that Commerce Clause thingy.

nilram

(2,879 posts)
25. I'd think that, being Senators, they might actually write a LAW or an Amendment.
Sat May 19, 2012, 04:11 AM
May 2012

But write a letter? That's an action that's worth exactly as much as it costs them to mail it -- which, considering they have franking privileges, is exactly nothing.

If McCain really cares about having the SC overturn Citizens United, he'll have to cast the right vote -- for Obama, who will appoint more liberal justices than Romney would.

deacon

(5,967 posts)
26. Hmmm, now that Obama has twice as much money in the can as Robofop. Well, no matter who
Sat May 19, 2012, 05:55 AM
May 2012

supports overturning that disaster of a decision - more power to them.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»BREAKING NEWS -- Senators...