IT´S TIME TO CONSIDER IMPEACHING SOME US SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

Apparently, some Supreme Court Justices had their fingers-crossed when they swore their oaths of office.

...2010 Supreme Court

I´m sure that many of my readers are saying, "Why are you spending so much time and effort writing about the recent disaster of the latest US Supreme Court decision?"

Well, this decision for letting any corporation, including those from foreign countries, contribute unlimited funds for supporting any US political candidate or issue, strikes directly at the core of America´s democracy. Our forefathers did not conceive of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights for the freedoms of "corporations". The word "corporation" does not appear anywhere in the constitution, but the words "citizen" and "freedom" appear frequently. Where did these five conservative justices get the idea that it was OK to make the decision to overturn a number of previous Supreme Court decisions? These are decisions that were originally found to be constitutional, (as recent as six years ago), for keeping campaign finance as fair as possible for the average American citizen´s voice to be heard over giant corporations.

The reason for my current tenacity is that most of the average Americans, that go to work every day, will not actually see how this decision will eventually and gradually take over the control of our democracy. As President Obama said during his State-of–the-Union speech, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." The president went on to say; "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities," Obama continued. "They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."

But what really stresses the importance of this bad court decision was an event that occurred in the Senate last week. This was when Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) lashed into Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito from the Senate floor. The senator called out this final swing voter whose vote overturned a hundred years of precedent.

This one vote legalized deep corporate involvement in future US elections. This is the same justice that also went against long-time protocols by silently mouthing during the president´s State-of-the-Union comments "not true, not true". (And of course this "mouthing" was witnessed on C-Span and videoed by every major broadcast and cable channel on the planet.) Justices are not supposed to applaud, groan, frown or show any attitude, pro or con, toward any issues or comments made when they attend a meeting of the three joint arms of the federal government.

Senator Leahy, as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated that, "In 36 years in the Senate I have never come to the floor to criticize a court decision. But I was moved to do so by the activist nature of last week's 5-4 ruling in the Citizens United case." He then personally attacked Alito, noting that Alito´s previous Senate confirmation testimony was given under oath, yet was now proven false by his "brazen and radical dismissal of a century of precedent".

Leahy stated; "In his [Senate] confirmation hearing, Justice Alito -- and I might say, under oath -- testified that the role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. It has to do what it is supposed to do vigilantly, but it has to be equally vigilant about not stepping over its bounds and invading the authority of Congress," Leahy went on to recall that Alito had apparently lied back then to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "That was then -- when he was seeking [our] confirmation. This is now."

Leahy said that he was speaking on the Senate floor as chair of the judiciary committee and that there are few historical precedents for his direct rebuke of America´s highest court. "The conservative activist bloc on the Supreme Court reached an unnecessary and improper decision that is going to distort future elections," said Leahy. "It creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street."

Senator Leahy went on to say that the court´s Republican party-line decision was the "most partisan" decision since Bush v. Gore, but it was even more damaging because it was an interference by the court in every [future] election, rather than just one." These 5 US Supreme Court Justices have made a critical decision against the rightful voices of 300 million American citizens.

The legal reality is that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both nominated by George W. Bush, also both testified on tape and under oath, saying that the role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. They both had agreed, (still under oath), that the court has to do what it does, while being equally careful about not stepping over its boundaries´ and by not invading the authority of the US Congress.

By not following their own rules of not over turning their own precedents and by invading the authority of elected officials in the US Congress, these justices have now lied while under oath. Based on their own rules, all of the majority that voted for this decision are "legally eligible to be impeached and removed from their lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land".

By US law, the US Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political establishment. But being that all of the justices are nominated by the most powerful politician in the world, being political just comes with the job. But the court´s rules were established such that the justices are supposed to follow certain protocols that prevent such blatant disrespect for their own legal establishment. This is why they are under a sworn oath during their confirmation hearings. What they say during those hearings is supposed to be how they are going to operate as they spend their time on the bench. Based on these hearings, at least these two justices have broken the law by not fulfilling their own commitments that were made while being under oath.

Even if they are not eventually successful, I am hoping a group of elected officials pursue these justices. They should at least make a concerted effort, with a lot of publicity, to go after these two US Supreme Court justices for not performing their sworn duties.

All government individuals that make their oaths to "we American citizens" must be held to maintain what they have sworn to uphold. These individuals have sworn, just as has the president, the members of the US Congress and the members of the US military, to uphold their oaths to protect and defend the US Constitution. They need to be held to that solemn oath.

Copyright G.Ater 2010

Follow me on Twitter: gater01