Congressman Defazio (OR-4) talking about impeaching John Roberts

[Dgov]

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/10/25/congressman-talks-about-impeaching-chief-justice-roberts/

[tpfkaw]

R U SERIOUS?

Anyways, isn't he in a semi-competitive race right now?  This little incident may drop the "semi."

[Lief 🗽]

Defazio is a great American and a great Congressman.

[DrScholl]

He's right to raise questions, the Citizens United decision was very shady. That aside, this won't effect his race at all, no one will care. Plus, his opponent is off the wall, so he's got a little more insurance.

[cinyc]

He's right to raise questions, the Citizens United decision was very shady. That aside, this won't effect his race at all, no one will care. Plus, his opponent is off the wall, so he's got a little more insurance.

Yeah, that First Amendment is so overrated.

[DrScholl]

Yeah, that First Amendment is so overrated.

What part of the First Amendment says that corporations are people and can pour as much money into campaigns as they want? That sort of thing leads to corruption.

[cinyc]

Yeah, that First Amendment is so overrated.

What part of the First Amendment says that corporations are people and can pour as much money into campaigns as they want? That sort of thing leads to corruption.

The part of the First Amendment that would have protected the rights of Thomas Paine to anonymously write Common Sense, Publius to write the Federalist Papers and "Mark Twain" to pseudonymously write for the newspapers of the day.

You know what really leads to corruption?  Well-funded incumbent politicians writing a campaign finance "reform" bill that shuts down the practical ability of people to engage in free political speech against them.  McCain-Feingold is nothing but a veiled attempt at an incumbent protection racket.

[Vepres]

Yeah, that First Amendment is so overrated.

What part of the First Amendment says that corporations are people and can pour as much money into campaigns as they want? That sort of thing leads to corruption.

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

It doesn't say the freedom of speech of people, but freedom of speech, period.

[tpfkaw]

Yeah, that First Amendment is so overrated.

What part of the First Amendment says that corporations are people and can pour as much money into campaigns as they want? That sort of thing leads to corruption.

Freedom of the Press.  Otherwise known as corporate (or collective) free speech.

[Skill and Chance]

Yeah, that First Amendment is so overrated.

What part of the First Amendment says that corporations are people and can pour as much money into campaigns as they want? That sort of thing leads to corruption.

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

It doesn't say the freedom of speech of people, but freedom of speech, period.

Sure, if you believe that a campaign donation is "speech."  If money is speech, then every possible economic activity imaginable is protected under the Constitution.  Note that this directly contradicts the commerce clause.  Note also that someone cutting a private ad or publishing an article about a candidate obviously is speech and should be protected, but I don't buy that merely donating to a campaign or another PAC group is a protected activity any more than buying shoes is speech.    

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Yeah, that First Amendment is so overrated.

What part of the First Amendment says that corporations are people and can pour as much money into campaigns as they want? That sort of thing leads to corruption.

It's near the part of the constitution that says abortions are suppouse to be legal. Roberts isn't the problem, he's simply a sympthom of something that's been wrong with the American legal system for decades, namly that it's based on the judges' own political views and not what it should be based on, the LAW! Let's not kid ourselves, the justices on the Surpre Court today are all there to advance political agenda's, and if you want to impech Roberts for that you'd have to impech them all.    

[Skill and Chance]

Yeah, that First Amendment is so overrated.

What part of the First Amendment says that corporations are people and can pour as much money into campaigns as they want? That sort of thing leads to corruption.

Freedom of the Press.  Otherwise known as corporate (or collective) free speech.

Freedom of the press to publish according to its conscience, yes, but how the press is being funded is the the government's business, especially if the funding crosses state lines.

[DrScholl]

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

It doesn't say the freedom of speech of people, but freedom of speech, period.

Freedom of the Press.  Otherwise known as corporate (or collective) free speech.

Speech is one thing, donations are another. Corporations could fund ads before, they just had to go through a PAC. Now, anyone can anonymous pour millions into races and foreign governments could manipulate elections. If it was all about free speech, then technically, all campaign finance laws would have to be rescinded.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Do you all also think that the current ban on tax-deductible charities endorsing candidates is also a first amendment violation?

[Torie]

Well Defazio just marginalized himself as a kook. He will be dealt with next time, assuming it is too late to dispose of him this year.

[cinyc]

Sure, if you believe that a campaign donation is "speech."  If money is speech, then every possible economic activity imaginable is protected under the Constitution.  Note that this directly contradicts the commerce clause.  Note also that someone cutting a private ad or publishing an article about a candidate obviously is speech and should be protected, but I don't buy that merely donating to a campaign or another PAC group is a protected activity any more than buying shoes is speech.    

I can't afford to put a TV ad on air on my own to defeat my horribly liberal Democratic Congressman.  But if I band with others from the Chamber of Commerce or other corporate entity, maybe I could.   And why should I have to identify myself so that my hack Congressman could retaliate against me for trying to oust him or her out of office? 

We partially fought against England to have a right to criticize the King.  Our little petty Kings and Queens in Congress don't deserve protection from our free speech.

[Ogre Mage]

This is just grandstanding.  In the modern era, virtually all Supreme Court nominees are evasive in their confirmation hearings.  I certainly saw evasions in both Alito and Sotomayor's testimony; Kagan's I didn't watch closely enough or maybe she just is a better liar.

Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are far more ethically suspect than the Chief Justice.  Thomas should have recused himself in both Bush v. Gore and Citizens United due to his wife's political activities.  As for Scalia and his various antics, no comment.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Cook just moved this one out of the "safe" column.