Despite yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Court which states

“…this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption, or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence and access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”

(Citizens United V FEC, Syllabus, P5 Para 2)

I would posit that such loss of faith has already occurred and is irreparable absent a Constitutional Amendment overturning this ruling.

In the revisionist historical view of the five affirming justices the robber barons of the late 19th Century were actually misunderstood Robin Hoods, the unregulated stock and banking system of the 1920's had no causal relation whatsoever to the Great Depression.

And Teapot Dome, William Marcy “Boss” Tweed, James Michael Curly, Mayor Richard Daly, Huey Long, Rod “This seat for sale” Blagojovich, Budd Dwyer ($300,000 in quid pro quo bribes from a computer company for a $4M state contract – committed suicide by .357 at a televised press conference), Edwin Edwards ($400,000 in bribes to allow casinos in Louisiana), Spiro Agnew (took the final $17,500 in bribes while a sitting VP), James “I've got a marmoset on my head” Traficant (just released from federal prison and vowing to run for Congress again!), Randy “Duke” Cunningham (current Congressional record holder for biggest 'take' at $2.4M in bribes – with which he bought a Rolls Royce and a nice yacht), Ted “What hot tub?” Stevens, William “They'll never look in the freezer.” Jefferson – all of these examples of corporate influence over the years – why they just didn't happen.  

Otherwise, their entire fallacious argument falls apart.

Rather, the electorate should believe in the fanciful mythology of the benevolent, paternal, caring business man, watching out for everyone's interests like some sort of Frank Capra creation.  The title of the movie is “Mr. Walton goes to Washington” and in this version he works to protect his 750,000 employees making minimum wage from inheritance taxes. It is a heartwarming story of selflessness and caring for the “little guy”.

That the opinion actually discusses whether the electorate might “lose faith” in our entire form of government because of this decision should, on its face, have been enough to stop this ruling in its tracks.

That they considered that result, rejected it, and went forward anyway is quite simply Judicial Malpractice.

There is one precedent for the impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice in our history.

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

There can be no doubt that Chief Justice John Roberts is guilty of letting his political leanings affect his rulings.

But in this case they also drove this man to expand the relatively narrow case before the court (Citizens United) to include all federal election finance law for the last 100 years.

Lets examine what charges could be brought against Roberts…