Another lovely house and lying

In throwing out a century's worth of legal precedent attempting to limit the impact of $$ on American elections yesterday, the majority on the Supreme Court showed how radical and reactionary they really are. So much for respecting past rulings or stare decisis (allowing Supreme Court decisions to stand). By their vote Roberts and Alito totally give lie to their nomination testimony.

Here's Bush nominee Roberts on stare decisis:

I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough -- and the court has emphasized this on several occasions -- it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided.

Here is Bush appointee Alito on same: “If ‘settled’ means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis . . . then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis.”

Here's Roberts on activist judges (judges who impose their own personal opinions in their rulings): Judges need to appreciate that the legitimacy of their action is confined to interpreting the law and not making it. And if they exceed that function and start making the law, I do think that raises legitimate concerns about legitimacy of their authority to do that.

Here's Alito on same: Well, I don't know exactly what Justice Souter was referring to when he said that. But just speaking for myself, I think that it is our job to interpret and to enforce the statutes that Congress passes and not to add to those statutes and not to take away from those statutes.

Who's activist now? Can we impeach Supreme Court justices who, in light of subsequent actions, prove they lied while under oath? Off to acupuncture and an attempt to calm down.