Why we need to "occupy" the Supreme Court?

Because they are the only ones that can overturn their stupid and disastrous Citizens United decision. They should be forced to take another look at their decision because we have to get money out of politics if we are going to save this democracy. The Supreme Court was wrong. They have done great damage and they should be pressured continuously to overturn their decision. Once that is done, the occupation should move to the US Congress and force them to take money out of politics and to pass a campaign finance reform bill that puts it into law.

that gave corporations free reign to buy our elections with however much money they wish to contribute to do the job. People should focus on this Court like a laser. Power to the people, not the Supreme Court.

But paying attention to it doesn't "force" the Court to revisit it or change the decision.

The only way that will happen is if two things happen: there is a new majority on the court and there is a new case that provides the new majority the opportunity to ratchet back CU

rec.

exactly what they were installed to do. My fear is that if they re-visit Citizens United, they will do what they did the first time. That would be to go WAY beyond the parameters of the case that was before them, and go ahead and bastardize the political process to an even greater extent.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_US_Supreme_Court_decisions_be_overturned

Legitimate Methods

The US Supreme Court reverses a decision on an earlier case by making a contradictory decision on a current case.

Congress and the States can overturn a decision by amending the Constitution.

And the second won't happen unless there are new majorities in many state legislatures.

in my humble opinion.

Had they not appointed the idiot-in-chief... Fuckers. :grr::grr: Just look at what their actions caused!

Occupying the Supreme Court will not change the Citizen's United ruling.

The time to occupy the Supreme Court was at the Bush v Gore decision in 2000. The people needed to let the Court know, in no uncertain terms, how the decision was an affront to democratic process.

The court only ruled on Citizens recently (believe it was in the 2009=2010 term). The Supreme Court doesn't normally take up an issue they have recently decided based on stare decisis (that which is decided is decided). They would appear to be flip-floppers if they ruled on the issue one way in 2009 and another way in 2011. Typically it takes at least a decade before the court will reconsider an issue. In truth it allows the Court to assess the issue de novo (anew) given changes in society, technology, etc. That is what happened with Lawrence v Texas that declared sodomy laws unconstitutional. The court majority justified overturning precedent set in Bowers v Hardwick in part by acknowledging the fact that most states had eliminated or decriminalized private consensual homosexual conduct and that society had moved on noting the number of companies that provide partner benefits, etc.

So I don't see the Court taking this up for a long time and as long as there is a conservative majority on the Court where their political interests benefit by the ruling, they are even less likely to reconsider the case.

The only way to clean up politics in this country and it will be the mother of all battles is to take money out of politics. No constitutional amendment to that effect has a prayer's chance when the Republicans control any portion of government (House, Senate or White House). Further I'm not sure how many Democrats that also feed at the corporate trough will sign on to such an amendment.

So it has to start with the people at the local level by getting state legislatures to petition for an amendment or for a constitutional convention. Right now, however, too many state governments are in the hands of the monied GOP. Until that changes I don't see any prospect for changing the tide.

The only hope is to educate voters so they aren't swayed by the right-wing talking points, flyers, ads, etc.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.