There is one way, and one way only, that Citizens United is going to get changed.

[TheWraith]

That's for one of the five SCOTUS justices who decided in favor of it to die, to be replaced by a selection from a Democratic President, and for an appeal to be brought to the SCOTUS.

There is no other realistic way. The Republican justices aren't going to voluntarily recuse themselves. There is no method to force recusal; the final authority on whether a SCOTUS judge has a conflict of interest is that SCOTUS judge. (Which is technically a conflict of interest by itself, but that's beside the point.) Likewise, we're never going to get the requisite supermajority to impeach a SCOTUS judge, because the Republicans will never go along with tipping the court balance.

That leaves one and only way to get rid of Citizens United: Have a Democratic President when one of the five dies or retires, and enough Senate votes to confirm that judge's replacement.

[Ineeda]

1. I don't believe a SCOTUS decision can be appealed.

It would take an act of Congress to overturn, IIRC.

[loyalsister]

4. A law that would open the door for a different court challenge would have to be passed?

"Pro-lifers" keep trying to pass laws that will open the door that would challenge some element of Roe vs. Wade. "Proving" life begins at conception, etc

[virgogal]

6. Not according to this------

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm

[Ineeda]

7. I never heard that before. Thanks.

So we can hope it might happen (with a different SCOTUS makeup. No way Scalia and Thomas would reverse themselves!)

[virgogal]

10. I never knew either and you're welcome. eom

[Selatius]

8. The SCOTUS can overturn previous precedent.

It can come in the form of somebody else bringing a legal challenge to an aspect of the Citizens United decision that may or may not be fully resolved, and hopefully, the SCOTUS brings the whole decision back into question instead of just an aspect of if the Supreme Court falls back under a liberal majority.

More likely, the House and Senate fall back under Democratic control and then pass laws to address the Court's overturning of provisions under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to reaffirm McCain-Feingold. Then, predictably, somebody will bring a legal challenge to that action, and when that happens, hopefully, a SCOTUS under a liberal majority will reaffirm Congress' action and reverse precedent set under Citizens United.

[TheWraith]

17. You're right, appealed is actually the wrong word. I shouldn't have used it.

But a SCOTUS case CAN be overturned by another SCOTUS case, if the new court takes it up. For instance, Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, which reaffirmed the legality of sodomy laws, versus Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 that overturned them.

[loyalsister]

2. A voice of reason!

Thanks for that. :thumbsup:

[Taverner]

3. Ain't gonna happen.

How long before you realize the one-party, two-head system is not our friend?

[Major Hogwash]

5. Or, put enough Democrats in the House next year to pass a bill through both houses of Congress

And have President Obama sign the bill into law.

And that leaves the Supremes where they are, untouched.

We, the People, can do this.
We must do this.
Yes, we can!!

We are the people that we have been waiting for.

[Tesha]

11. A bill/law can't change this; it was decided on Constitutional grounds.

Changing the Constitution to make it clear that
artificial humans (e.g., corporations) don't have
human rights *WOULD* solve the problem, but that
won't pass in the foreseeable Republican-dominated
future.

Tesha

[Major Hogwash]

15. New laws supercede old laws every single session of Congress.

No matter what the basis was that the Supremes used to come to their decision.

[BzaDem]

20. But the new law will be ruled unconstitutional just like the old one.

Someone would file a lawsuit within hours of passage, and the lower court would stay the law from going into effect. The law would be struck down and any appeal would be unsuccessful, since until the Supreme Court overrules Citizens United, it remains valid precedent.

[Major Hogwash]

23. Not if we spike Thomas' tea with prune juice.

He'll be so busy elsewhere he won't be able to vote against it!!!

Mueha-ha-ha!!

[TheWraith]

19. No. The ruling would simply be precedent to strike down any similar laws.

And without changing the makeup of the SCOTUS, a legal fight over any such new bill would be wasted.

[nineteen50]

9. Where

 in the constitution does it say seven unelected supreme court
judges can find the work of our elected legislators and signed
by a president unconstitutional?

[Tesha]

12. Are you joking? (NT)

[MineralMan]

14. Oh, for pete's sake. It's clear you have not bothered to read

the Constitution of The United States. I suggest you do so at once, so you won't embarrass yourself further. Pay special attention to Article 3, in its entirety. Then begin paying attention to other things, and you'll learn that the Supreme Court of The United States has 9 justices, not 7. Once you learn some actual information, you will be better able to post here without being ridiculed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[Cats Against Frist]

13. Constitutional Amendment

That's the other way.

[Major Hogwash]

16. Where there's a will, there's a way.

And that is definitely another way to do it.

[TheWraith]

18. It wouldn't pass Congress, let alone the states.

Think about how many state legislatures would have to support said amendment in order to pass it.

[Major Hogwash]

24. You don't know if that will be the case in 2013, though.

By then many of the state legislatures may have control given back to the rational Democrats in those states, who would then ratify an amendment like that.

This decision of Citizens United went against 120 years of precedent, so a Constitutional amendment to clarify that corporations are not persons may have to be done.
It might have to be done to put the robber barons back in their place!!!

[arcane1]

21. Isn't someone trying to nullify it due to justice Thomas and his financial ties?

I read the headline somewhere but not the article.

[Major Hogwash]

25. Yes, and also to impeach Thomas, too.

There are two different approaches to get rid of that schmuck.

[Proles]

22. Wouldn't you need to pass a Constitutional Amendment for it

to now be "repealed?"