IMPEACH!! ...Supreme Court Justices Participating in Political Fundraising!

The current Supreme Court -- already considered among the most activist due to its historic and paradigm shattering Citizen's United decision giving corporations the same free speech rights as humans (some would argue more rights) www.nytimes.com... -- is now breaking new barriers. Specifically, I am referring to the political fundraising activities of the conservative justices Thomas, Alito and Scalia. These justices are using the influence and prestige of their office to fundraise for candidates of the Republican party, to the extent that they are even guest speakers at some of these events.

Alito in particular -- you know, the same justice that shook his head and mouthed "that's not true" during Obama's State of the Union when Obama claimed the Citizen's United decision would open the floodgates to corporations throwing money, often hidden, into campaigns (we all now know Obama was right about this) -- well, Justice Alito thinks his fundraising activities are not important and have nothing to do with his work.
thinkprogress.org...
www.rawstory.com...

Yet, so far, these justices have sided with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (which no longer really represents small and medium companies, but rather is a front for the mega giant corporations around the world) 80% of the time. That should alarm those of you who truly care about freedom.
thinkprogress.org...

And a recent study, which compared the Roberts court to the Burger court found the Roberts court has pretty much been a rubber stamp for corporate interests. theusconstitution.org...





Scalia and Thomas have been active too, and are frequent guests and attendees at secret billionaire Koch brothers' retreats and gatherings.
climateprogress.org...
thinkprogress.org...

But it gets worse. Are you aware that Justice Thomas's wife founded a Tea Party group? www.libertycentral.org... Among their causes, Libert Central is actively seeking the impeachment of the sitting president?
Her activities are increasing the wealth of the Thomas household. Do you find any conflict of interest? Oddly, he doesn't. www.whorunsgov.com...

I can tell you that this is all new ground and the moderate and supposedly liberal justices, to their great moral credit, do NOT do this.

Did you further know that participation in political fundraising is ILLEGAL for federal judges...except the Supreme Court because the four justices have enacted an exception just for them.

Am I the only one that finds this problematic, to say the least? Do you agree with me that these justices should be removed? The are laws and then there are ethics. There may be nothing illegal about some of this, but it is darn sure unethical.

reply to post by pajoly


Those guys are just BEGGING to get impeached aren't they?

I'd hate to see the core of conservative justices get themselves thrown out while Obama gets to choose their replacements.

Then again, that may be part of the whole master plan to destroy America; they are intentionally abusing their positions to get tossed out and clear the way for the triumph of progressivism. It just goes to show that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties; they both jump when their globalist elite master demand them to jump, even if it means career suicide.


BTW, here's the vid you tried to embed:

reply to post by FortAnthem


I could respect their views so long as they stayed out of the politics. I think this shows a clear bias. Roberts in particular considers himself an "Originalist." Let's forget for a moment my problem with that (same as my problem with literal interpretation of the Bible) to recognize that there is nothing in the Constitution that remotely hints of personhood and speech right to corporations...ESPECIALLY when taking an Originalist view.

Conservatives constantly rail against "activist" judges, when in fact these five -- Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito -- are the most activist in a century and they have single-handedly changed the nation forever as being plutocratically weighted.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Thanks for fixing my embed. I am a thread-posting rookie.

reply to post by pajoly


Judges, especially supreme court Justices should never have anything to do with partisan political fundraising, it destroys the impression of impartiality that they should work to maintain.

I did a thread earlier about some of these justices possibly conspiring with big business to bring about that horrible decision.

This guy poses some provocative questions:

technorati.com...

Why would two Supreme Court Justices attend meetings aiming to subvert public policy?

And what if a conspiracy was planned? Would it then be possible to engineer a court case on which those two justices could influence a desired outcome?

Think about it, Keith Olbermann got yanked off the air, at least temporarily, for failing to disclose his political contributions because even NBC likes to at least feign the impartiality of it's highly partial ideologue host.

But a Supreme Court Justice totally dismissing political contributions as no big deal? Come on.

Drat. I fear I might need to edit the headline to make it National Inquire-esque in order for it to get noticed.

reply to post by pajoly


Much could be said if the Court was a Liberal Court much like the 9th Circuit in California in years past. Thank goodness you can't be impeached from the Supreme Court- the court would be a joke if that were possible. Presidents could at will replace "problem" judges at will. If a law that you really liked for what ever reason is over turned, it just means that the law was flawed. Write a better law next time.

I find it interesting that this particular topic popped up there, since this was in the news on a few sites just yesterday. Impeaching doesn't solve the problem from either side.

reply to post by ShadowMaster


Actually, there are ways to change the Court than most are aware. The Constitution does not dictate the number of Supreme Court justices. It is a simple matter to dilute the court by adding members, which can be done with a vote of Congress. Tradition weighs against it, but it has been done before and Article III specifically grants the Congress the power to do it.

To bring some objectivity into this thread, no where is it stated that the Justices are themselves to be nonpartisan.

Specifically, Article III of the United States Constitution.

When it comes to impartiality, Justices (among all other judges) are to base their rulings by the facts, precedence, and knowledge of the law. Sometimes, as cultural changes, interpretation changes based upon the makeup of the Supreme Court. This can be seen throughout our nation's history, not just in the small modern era most want to look at.

This is not to say that they cannot engage as private citizens in their political beliefs. It is and always has been based upon ethics that Justices remain neutral, but only upon the bench in which they are serving. They go home just like the rest of us, yet you are advocating that the law should not be extended upon them because of their status within the Government.

That all said, if it be shown that a Justice's political contributions are in direct conflict or their previous contributions have caused a breach of trust in their position, then I am all for impeachment of that Justice.

Until then, just because they hold an office of Public Trust does not exclude them from the American experience and experiment in redefining a Republic.

Originally posted by ShadowMaster
reply to post by pajoly

 

Thank goodness you can't be impeached from the Supreme Court-

Absolutely Congress can impeach a Supreme Court Justice.

For reference, as per Article III; if a judge is to be found not in 'good behavior', then by Article II, Section 4, Congress has the authority and ability to impeach said judge.

Actually, any position within an office of Public Trust is held to such standard.

reply to post by ShadowMaster


I have an issue with public servants who enact rules that exclude them from the rules they impose on others. There are ethics rules that prevent at least federal adminstrative judges from such activities as spelled out in the Hatch Act. ethics.od.nih.gov...

To me, it is like when Congress votes for its own pay raises, benefits, pension plans, etc. No one will convince me that officials empowered to give themselves more money or the power to exclude themselves from rules that govern others will act with objectivity and impartiality. The temptation is simply too great. Such things should be outside their authority, if only to preserve their moral and ethical standing and remove them from any temptation.

As I said before, what is illegal and what is unseemly and unethical are entirely two different things. They should be barred from secret meetings where policy and political strategies are being contemplated and hatched.

reply to post by pajoly


You brought up the Hatch Act, a little known Act unless you have been directly involved under it.

The Hatch Act was implemented to restrict Federal Employees employed in the Executive branch from engaging in partisan politics campaigning while holding a position at the following:

Federal Election Commission;
Election Assistance Commission;
Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Secret Service;
Central Intelligence Agency;
National Security Council;
National Security Agency;
Defense Intelligence Agency;
Merit Systems Protection Board;
Office of Special Counsel;
Office of Criminal Investigation of the Internal Revenue Service;
Office of Investigative Programs of the United States Customs Service;
Office of Law Enforcement of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms;
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency;
Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice;
National Security Division of the Department of Justice; as well as

Persons employed in positions described under Sections 3132(a)(4), 5372, 5372 (a), or 5372(b) of
Title 5, United States Code, including:

Senior Executive Service [career positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 3132 (a)(4)]
Administrative Law Judges [positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372]
Contract Appeals Board Members [positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372 (a)]
Administrative Appeals Judges [positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372(b)]

No where on that list, does it say the Supreme Court Justices because they lie within the Judiciary branch. This is not to say, as you have pointed out that they do not have their own Code of Ethics that they live by and dictate their politics.