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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

syberlion

(136 posts)
23. The Framers wanted the Judicial Branch not to be swayed by politics of the day
Fri May 18, 2012, 08:00 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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»BREAKING NEWS -- Senators...»Reply #23