First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply What could a normal taxpayer do to get a SCOTUS member to get impeached for political corruption of copyright extension?
67347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Glendale, AZ
Offline
Posted 5/8/16
Large media corporations often pay for a Congress or SCOTUS member's political campaigns and get a copyright extension. What if anything could a normal taxpayer do to lobby for that SCOTUS member to get impeached for political corruption of copyright extension? Though SCOTUS has almost absolute immunity from being sued or impeached, political corruption in extending copyright and representing large corporations over public interest I think is where they lose that immunity.

When I posted this exact text on the legal site Avvo, a CA attorney named David Nathan Ballard said that "members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. None engage in a "political campaign" for the position and none hear a case if they have an ethical conflict due to a relationship with a party appearing before the Court. There is no political corruption at the Court. All cases are heard and decided on their merits..."
14787 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/16 , edited 5/8/16

kadmos1 wrote:
When I posted this exact text on the legal site Avvo, a CA attorney named David Nathan Ballard said that "members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. None engage in a "political campaign" for the position and none hear a case if they have an ethical conflict due to a relationship with a party appearing before the Court. There is no political corruption at the Court. All cases are heard and decided on their merits..."


So....I guess we were wrong, then?
Um, what's the question you want us to answer?
13151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 5/8/16 , edited 5/9/16
You got the opinion of someone who knew what they were talking about, didn't like it, so you decided to ask a bunch of randos on an anime forum.

I like the cut of your jib.
1359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Online
Posted 5/8/16
sundin13 got it right :/ You actually posted the answer to your own question, but decided to post it anyway to a bunch of people who watch anime and read manga.

That's like wondering where the bathroom is, asking the janitor, he gives you a straight answer, then you scream out a couple seconds later "WHERE IS THE GODDAMN BATHROOM IN HERE!"
67347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Glendale, AZ
Offline
Posted 5/8/16 , edited 5/8/16
The point for random people here is what if any could commoners like us do to lobby for a SCOTUS member to be impeached for such political corruption.

On Avvo, another attorney said that "there is absolutely no way to impeach a SCOTUS judge for political corruption as they have no .political campaigns.' Copyright extensions are determined by statute."

OK, it might not be a campaign but that sounds a lot like briber to me. One definition of bribery is the Wikipedia definition, which "is the act of giving money, goods or other forms of recompense to a recipient in exchange for an alteration of their behavior (to the benefit/interest of the giver) that the recipient would otherwise not alter."

In addition, the "Politics" section of its entry said that "politicians receive campaign contributions and other payoffs from powerful corporations, organizations or individuals in return for making choices in the interests of those parties, or in anticipation of favorable policy[citation needed]. This is not illegal in the United States and forms a major part of campaign finance, though it is sometimes referred to as the money loop[citation needed]. Convictions for this form of bribery are easier to obtain with hard evidence, that is a specific amount of money linked to a specific action by the bribed. Such evidence is frequently obtained using undercover agents, since evidence of a quid pro quo relation difficult to prove."

There are times when politicians are removed from office and arrested for doing the above. This should apply to all politicians, including SCOTUS. In case people are wondering how much of the corruption U.S. politics has had from Disney's political action committee, look at the Center for Responsive Politics. This sites says they are "the nation's premier website tracking the influence of money on U.S. politics, and how that money affects policy and citizens' lives."

So far, for federal candidates, media groups that for "TV/Movies/Music" category that have spent more than Disney, in order, are the following: National Assn of Broadcasters, Time Warner Cable, DIRECTV Group, Clear Channel Outdoor/iHeartMedia, Inc., Time Warner, Viacom International/National Amusements Inc, 21st Century Fox, Sony Pictures Entertainment/Sony Corp, and then the Walt Disney Co.

I am singling Disney because, unlike the other 5 major movie studios (Fox, Paramount, Universal, Sony, and the WB) and their subsidiaries or predecessors, they have almost no films that are public domain (this counts both copyright and trademarking the title).

Interesting movie facts: Universal and Paramount both started in 1912 while Disney and WB. both started in 1923 while while Sony's Columbia Pictures side started in 1924 and 20th Century Fox started in 1935. In Fox's case, it was a merger of Twentieth Century Pictures (1932-5) and the Fox Film Corporation (1915-35). Another thing is that these 5 non-Disney studios were founded/co-founded by men who were religiously/ethnically/culturally Jewish.







14787 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/16 , edited 5/8/16

kadmos1 wrote:

The point for random people here is what if any could commoners like us do to lobby for a SCOTUS member to be impeached for such political corruption.


1) They can't be impeached.
2) They don't have "campaigns".
3) They don't have lobbyists, and even if they did, they'd be forbidden from taking conflict-of-interest cases.
4) "Commoners" have no say in the process, which is pretty much their entire Constitutional separation-of-powers function in the first place.

The frustration you seem to be feeling is not that you have one or two things wrong in your basic premise...
It's that you don't even have one or two things RIGHT.

(Oh, and then we dropped the penny and piled "Disney is evil!" on top of it as the reason for the suspicions...It just gets more entertaining. )
13151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 5/8/16 , edited 5/8/16
Where is your evidence of bribery outside of normal lobbying?
67347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Glendale, AZ
Offline
Posted 5/8/16 , edited 5/8/16
sundin 13, look up the "Walt Disney Co" at the Center for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org). It has what Disney has spent from 1998-present on politics. Ejanss, Samuel Chase wast the only SCOTUS member ever impeached and it was over 210 years ago.

U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 4 says "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." High crimes and misdemeanors are, as Wikipedia puts it, "allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order."

Going with the fact that Chase was impeached, this seems to be where SCOTUS oversteps its legal bounds.

Also, look up the 2/23 Ars Techsnica article "Disney CEO asks employees to chip in to pay copyright lobbyists". Disney CEO Bob Iger said "Congress will continue to be very active on intellectual property issues... After three years of hearings and testimony from 100 witnesses, we now expect the House Judiciary Committee to turn to legislating. We expect significant attention on legislation to modernize the Copyright Office, a small agency that can have an enormous impact on our interests."

This is political corruption. Rather than serve the interests of the people, they are serving the interests of large corporations.

On us not us commoners not being able to get SCOTUS member impeached for such, I don't know how our First Amendment right to petition/lobby would do that.

13151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 5/8/16
You've done nothing to prove that the Supreme Court was involved in any of this and nothing to prove that any of these companies have done anything beyond lobbying.
67347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Glendale, AZ
Offline
Posted 5/8/16
Supreme Court approved the CTEA of '98 which Disney did a lot of lobbying and SCOTUS even has the power to restore foreign work copyrights here. That is, not complying with copyright formalities here put a foreign work in public domain here but was still copyrighted in the home country.

Look "Supreme Court Gets It Wrong in Golan v. Holder, Public Domain Mourns" at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Copyright restoration and foreign works: be careful" at Public Domain Sherpa, and "Supremes to decide if public domain works can be re-copyrighted" at Ars Technica. SCOTUS' decisions with this and constant extensions is outrageous.
18320 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Chicago
Offline
Posted 5/8/16
Unless you count their years of service to the courts as a campaign, the President chooses the candidate that closely aligns with their political party and has them confirmed/denied by the Senate. Also do note that once they're confirmed, they'll be there for life and as such, may have a viewpoint that doesn't fly today but back then it was the norm.

You also can't impeach a Justice. Unless you like your three branches locked in a duel for 4+ years.
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/8/16 , edited 5/8/16

kadmos1 wrote:
Supreme Court approved the CTEA of '98 which Disney did a lot of lobbying and SCOTUS even has the power to restore foreign work copyrights here. That is, not complying with copyright formalities here put a foreign work in public domain here but was still copyrighted in the home country.


The SC only ruled on the constitutionality of the CTEA. They did not "approve" it. As for Golan v Holder they ruled on precedent. The power to extend/restore copyright falls with congress.

So you're really barking up the wrong tree here. You should be barking at congress. They're the ones that campaign and are lodged in all the questionable lobbyist money. They're the ones that introduce this kind of legislation and then approve it. The SC only rules on the question put before them. They don't introduce legislation and they certainly don't campaign.



Posted 5/8/16

kadmos1 wrote:

Large media corporations often pay for a Congress or SCOTUS member's political campaigns and get a copyright extension. What if anything could a normal taxpayer do to lobby for that SCOTUS member to get impeached for political corruption of copyright extension? Though SCOTUS has almost absolute immunity from being sued or impeached, political corruption in extending copyright and representing large corporations over public interest I think is where they lose that immunity.

When I posted this exact text on the legal site Avvo, a CA attorney named David Nathan Ballard said that "members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. None engage in a "political campaign" for the position and none hear a case if they have an ethical conflict due to a relationship with a party appearing before the Court. There is no political corruption at the Court. All cases are heard and decided on their merits..."


Only the Senate can actually do anything, and then the president has to enforce it.
48603 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / AZ
Offline
Posted 5/9/16
You'll need a group of very expensive and knowledgeable lawyers to go against the Supreme Court.
11815 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 5/9/16

kadmos1 wrote:

Large media corporations often pay for a Congress or SCOTUS member's political campaigns and get a copyright extension.


Neither Congress nor the SCOTUS have the authority to extend copyright under Title 17 USC.

If you have proof - or even material evidence - that they have illegally extended someone's copyright, this is a felony. No member of Congress or Supreme Court Justice enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution, and if found guilty of a felony they would almost certainly be impeached and removed from office.

This proof or evidence should be submitted to the Attorney General's office. They may or may not elect to prosecute, at their sole discretion. There is no way to pressure or force them to prosecute.

Incidentally, these allegations are absurd, and the AG's office is going to ignore them. But knock yourself out, man.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.