Skip to main content

View Diary: When SCOTUS Rules in Favor of the NSA, Will You Call for Impeachment Then? (233 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What's the point indeed? (3+ / 0-)

    Even if they were impeached, the current President can be counted on to nominate more pro-NSA, pro-USA-PATRIOT, anti-Fourth-Amendment justices in their place.

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:36:24 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sotomayor and Kagan are pro-NSA? (0+ / 0-)

      Where are you getting that?

      Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

      by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:41:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's always nice to have Champions of Liberty (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward, RocketJSquirrel

        as long as they're safely in the minority.

        You don't think Obama is going to let SCOTUS trash a major part of his legacy, now, do you?

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:43:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, I see. So he appointed two liberal (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jennybravo, FG

          Supreme Court Justices as a nefarious trick to deceive us.

          Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

          by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:44:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You know, you'd probably spend less time (6+ / 0-)

            in the Hiddens if you didn't have such a penchant for twisting others' words.

            And for your information, I don't consider either of Obama's two SCOTUS appointments to date to be "liberal."  They're "liberal" only to the extent our continued red shift defines Rockefeller Republicans as "liberal."  Sotomayor even got her first federal court appointment under Poppy Bush ferchrissake.

            Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

            by corvo on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:47:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But is there any basis in either Justice's record (0+ / 0-)

              to claim that they would issue a lawless ruling on 4th Amendment matters?

              Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

              by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:49:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I wasn't arguing that they'd issue (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Victor Ward

                such a ruling . . . remember?  I'm just saying that subsequent appointees will be subjected to additional scrutiny by Obama's vetters to ensure they not rock the security boat.

                Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

                by corvo on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:53:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Who knows? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo

        But Obama certainly is. And besides it doesn't matter if one is pro or con NSA. It is whether or not their current activities are constitutional or not.

        •  And what's your position on that? (0+ / 0-)

          Are the NSA's activities constitutional?  And if the Five on the Supreme Court rule that they are, will you edit your opinion accordingly and take no further action on it?

          Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

          by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 05:29:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can see where it is (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, OldSoldier99, corvo

            as I have stated elsewhere to you. I can also see that there are arguments the other way. I am not a constitutional scholar. Are you? What if it is 6 in favor? 7?All 9?  Do you impeach all them as well? You obviously think this NSA action is unmistakably unconstitutional and see no merit to another view. But cases are rarely (if ever?) that cut and dry at the higher court level.

            But again why give the president and congress a pass? The court had nothing to do with this policy.

            •  My views on the NSA case aren't finalized. (0+ / 0-)

              What I've deduced so far is that it would be legitimate to sift internet traffic for foreign information, but limit the use of US-based information to confirming that it is in fact US-based and not just routed from elsewhere, at which point it should be deleted.  HOWEVER, there are complexities because websites and traffic originate all over the world and are routed through everywhere.  I will read the ultimate ruling, if one occurs, to decide whether the inevitable ruling in favor of the NSA has suitable legal basis or is another arbitrary act.

              What if it is 6 in favor? 7?All 9?  Do you impeach all them as well?
              Again, I'm not calling for their impeachment over this case.  I'm asking people for whom this case is black-and-white whether they would do so.

              Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

              by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:11:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You seem to be thinking this is a matter of (4+ / 0-)

                degree, rather than character, and that if you just come up with a decision that we really, really, really hate, rather than just really, really hate, that we'll see it your way. You also seem to think our only objection is pragmatic -- we can count votes -- rather than principled.

                I can't speak for everyone, but I know I'm not alone in saying no, there are no circumstances in which I would call for impeachment -- especially, to leave open the potential for impeachment for cognitive impairment, not of a bloc of judges -- based on the performance of the judicial function. Your declaration that that performance is lawless and arbitrary does not make it so. Being wrong, even devastatingly wrong, is not the same as being lawless and arbitrary.

                It's not just that we can't achieve what you're proposing (though that is so clear that there's no real need for further analysis), it's that I don't want the structure you're proposing. With all its flaws, and there are many, the current structure is far preferable to this vague stuff about social contract and primacy of the people. The logical result of that is complete abandonment of protections for minority rights, rather than the unfortunate weakening of them we've just witnessed.

                I'm aware that the catfish is in the Mississippi and the Mississippi is in the catfish, but more than a few people have thought this through in our history. Reasonable humility suggests you might consult them.

                •  Then you are taking the position (0+ / 0-)

                  that the one branch of government with no explicit authority under the Constitution is the one branch not subject to removal from power for violating it.  That's a very extreme interpretation - far more extreme than simply asserting that courts are subject to the laws they interpret rather than being arbitrary "lawgivers" in the Roman sense.

                  And while I agree that a three-branch government under the Constitution would be a departure from the current paradigm, look at the results of the status quo: Eight years of Bush and all the horrors that flowed from that, air-tight GOP gerrymandering, Republican legislative majorities existing despite losing the popular vote, ALEC legislation sweeping the country, Citizens United legalizing corruption, and now clearing the way for Jim Crow 2.0.  At what point do you say "Enough!"  You can't elect change if you can't vote or your vote is overturned.  You can't legislate change if your reform bills are arbitrarily struck down.  You can't Amend the Constitution meaningfully if they just ignore it.

                  Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

                  by Troubadour on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:48:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Again, we disagree on premises. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    terrypinder, grover, RocketJSquirrel

                    You see a constitutional violation. I don't.

                    You think the only answer to the horrors wrought by the Bush years is impeachment, although you have no clear vision of how you would achieve it. I don't.

                    You seem to think that because one approach has failed, the only other approach you can think of must be a better idea. I don't.

                    But let's pretend you're right. Tell me: And then what? You know my view -- the other four would resign instantly. (They wouldn't have a quorum anyway.)

                    So -- then what? Just what do you think the collateral effects of impeachment and removal for the content of decisions would be?

                    These diaries are beginning to remind me of that classic Sidney Harris cartoon of the mathematicians at the blackboard, where the middle of the proof is "and then a miracle occurs." I think you should be more explicit here in Step Two.

                    •  The other four would not resign. (0+ / 0-)

                      They would sigh in relief.  If you read their rulings, you know they see the lawlessness in the majority up close and personal.

                      And if you think there would be radically negative consequences for removing judges for lawless rulings, why the hell would there be no such negative consequences for removing Presidents for lawless military orders?  Issuing military orders is part of the job of a President, isn't it?

                      And BTW, not all five have to be convicted to achieve positive results.  In fact, none do.  It would be a flexing of the public muscle to assert constitutional authority over courts.  But if any were removed, the next step would obviously be appointing new ones, which have no more and no less of a problem getting passed than if they left the court voluntarily.

                      And in fact, it's entirely possible if subsequent revelations showed new information from investigation, that one or more might in fact choose to resign under pressure from their own side.

                      The repetitiousness of these objections even in the face of being fully addressed is just getting silly and obtuse.  Just because you repeat something that's not true and has been discredited does not make it credible.

                      Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

                      by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:03:08 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                    "one branch of government with no explicit authority under the Constitution "

                    Care to explain?

                    •  The role of the courts in deciding the (0+ / 0-)

                      constitutionality of laws evolved over time, it isn't explicitly encoded in the Constitution.  Whereas the role of Congress in enforcing the 15th Amendment is absolute and explicit.

                      Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

                      by Troubadour on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:04:12 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  man (0+ / 0-)

                    you really have your anger misplaced. All you decry above is totally and absolutely legal. 8 years of Bush? The current NSA deal is an Obama policy. Yes, you can have legislative bodies that win one party when the national vote is not for that party's president. Amazing.

                    So I guess you think over turning DOMA was an awful terrible thing too?

                     I just don't see your point?

              •  Curious (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                terrypinder, corvo

                What is your training in judging constitutional interpretations?

      •  Where are you getting that they (0+ / 0-)

        aren't?

        I call for universal minimum income,  an end to climate change, and free skittles for all!

        Fantasy is fun!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site