Common Cause & Citizens United

[Anonymous]

I just got an email from Common Cause asking readers to join in requesting the Justice Department to investigate possible conflict of interest in the Citizens United ruling on these grounds:

It appears Justices Scalia and Thomas have been featured guests at secretive political strategy sessions sponsored by Koch Industries, the second largest privately held company in the U.S.* Koch Industries was a major beneficiary of the Citizens United decision, using the ruling to expand its multi-million dollar investment in political campaigns and causes.

CC wants the ruling vacated because Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves. My question is whether there is any constitutional basis for an executive branch investigation of the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just got an email from Common Cause asking readers to join in requesting the Justice Department to investigate possible conflict of interest in the Citizens United ruling on these grounds:

It appears Justices Scalia and Thomas have been featured guests at secretive political strategy sessions sponsored by Koch Industries, the second largest privately held company in the U.S.* Koch Industries was a major beneficiary of the Citizens United decision, using the ruling to expand its multi-million dollar investment in political campaigns and causes.

CC wants the ruling vacated because Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves. My question is whether there is any constitutional basis for an executive branch investigation of the Supreme Court.

cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just got an email from Common Cause asking readers to join in requesting the Justice Department to investigate possible conflict of interest in the Citizens United ruling on these grounds:

It appears Justices Scalia and Thomas have been featured guests at secretive political strategy sessions sponsored by Koch Industries, the second largest privately held company in the U.S.* Koch Industries was a major beneficiary of the Citizens United decision, using the ruling to expand its multi-million dollar investment in political campaigns and causes.

CC wants the ruling vacated because Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves. My question is whether there is any constitutional basis for an executive branch investigation of the Supreme Court.

cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo

Me cuckoo? CC cuckoo? Scalia & Thomas cuckoo? Or were you just chiming the time?

[Anonymous]

Interesting....

There was an article in the Post today about Scalia which expressed similar concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting....

There was an article in the Post today about Scalia which expressed similar concerns.

Here is a link, if anyone is interested: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/21/AR2011012102923.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 For me, the most interesting part was this quote from Scalia:

"Give me a break. . . . If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, [Guantanamo] is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield, and they were shooting at my son, and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean, it's crazy."

Considering the fuss the Right made about whether Sotomayor might be influenced by her life experiences (which is a given for anyone, IMO), Scalia's brazen statement justifying a legal opinion on the basis of his son's status is amazing.

[Anonymous]

I agree, PP. But once a Justice is appointed, they can pretty much do/say as they please. The only checks and balances at this point are impeachment and removal by Congress. And in all the years of the Supreme Court, impeachment has happened once, but never a removal. There certainly should be some kind of oversight and accountability for positions that have the power to decide elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree, PP. But once a Justice is appointed, they can pretty much do/say as they please. The only checks and balances at this point are impeachment and removal by Congress. And in all the years of the Supreme Court, impeachment has happened once, but never a removal. There certainly should be some kind of oversight and accountability for positions that have the power to decide elections.

You're right. It's best that he be honest about how his mind really works rather than that Originalism hooey. The real hypocrisy is the Right's claim that there is some legal purity in their dedication to the Constitution remade in their own image and the fiction that it's the liberals who are activists.

[Anonymous]

I agree wholeheartedly, PP. And the hypocricy is what bothers me most about politics these days, like people who claim they want small government, but are the first to complain when the library closes on Sundays or the roads are full of potholes. I respect those I disagree with so much more as long as they are consistent in the application of their purported beliefs.