General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBREAKING 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.
Its time to rev the engines back up.
Join Senators McCain and Whitehouse.
Its 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.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Not just any letter, mind you, but a BIPARTSIAN and STRONGLY WORDED letter.
Please.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)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)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)When they write history books, the Gang of Five will be villains.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)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)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)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)The Montana case can in effect bring the case back to the SC.
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)savalez
(3,517 posts)There is a challenge from Montana that the SC is going to look at the that could overturn it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/opinion/montanas-challenge-to-citizens-united.html
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)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)Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Woody Woodpecker
(562 posts)If satisfactory, the term is renewed for another 10 more.
CrispyQ
(36,231 posts)syberlion
(136 posts)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:
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.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Will they even read it?
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)These open letters politicians and activists write are just silly stunts to chest puff and show off.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)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?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)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).
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)campaign finance reform.
I call ploy.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)this will accomplish nothing
annabanana
(52,791 posts)Whitehouse is one of the good guys.
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)And try to keep an open mind about that Commerce Clause thingy.
spanone
(135,636 posts)nilram
(2,879 posts)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)supports overturning that disaster of a decision - more power to them.
lamp_shade
(14,796 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Trillo
(9,154 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Worthless effort.