Replies

If they offer Souter a fair price and he takes it, no problem, fan out and start proceedings on another justice or perhaps a Senator from Massachussetts. Repeat as necessary. It won't be long before you find someone who puts up a fight or changes the law.

My problem with your idea for an ammendment is that there already is one, and it wasn't followed. Plus, even if it would work, an ammendment would take a LONG time and a lot of damage will be done to the citizens in the meantime.

I don't have an issue with doing that as a parallel course of action, I just think we need to strike harder and faster.

There is no reason an amendment should take more than about a year. It could probably be done more quickly than that. They can act pretty darn fast if they want to.

I'm hoping we can avoid a fight, but what we cannot do is change the law. Decisions of the Supreme Court are treated as part of the Constitution, and no law can change the Constitution. It is true that some states have protections against abusive ED actions. It is also true that there is a bill in Congress to withhold federal funds from any project which employs the ED standards just ratified by the Court. But neither of those things does what really needs to be done, and that is, to make it clear that this kind of looting is not OK in America. It is not OK even if your state says it is OK. It is not OK even if you are not currently taking any federal money. It is just not OK, period.

No law can say that. Only an amendment can say that at this point. I know we already have one, and it seems clear enough on this point to me as well, but evidently it needs more clarification.