Impeach John Roberts

Spencer Collins · #1 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 01:05 PM

Quote:

The Chief Justice lied

t is time for an enterprising and courageous member of the US House of Representatives to file articles of impeachment against the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts. The charge: lying under oath.

More than four years ago, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee prior to the full Senate vote that approved his appointment, Roberts said: "Like most people, I resist labels. I have told people, when pressed, that I prefer to be known as a modest judge. And, to me, that means . . . an appreciation that the role of the judge is limited; the judge is to decide cases before them; they're not to legislate; they're not to execute the law."

In plain English, Roberts under oath declared himself to be a judicial minimalist, a proponent of judicial restraint, someone who holds that legislators — not judges — make the law. He all but said, "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a judicial activist."

And yet there was nothing modest or minimalist or restrained about Roberts's role in the recent Supreme Court ruling that held that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to buy as much political advertising as they want in any political election they choose.

In deciding that case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Roberts joined his three right-wing brethren, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, and sometimes-moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the opinion), to overturn two federal precedents and strike down scores of national and related state laws, nuking 103 years of campaign-finance reform in the process.

This gang of five — all, not surprisingly, Republican appointees — has finally made the nation safe for a government of corporations, by corporations, for corporations.

The perversity of it all is that Roberts and his henchmen wrapped themselves in the mantle of free speech in delivering their ruling, which could well prove to be the final nail in the coffin of our diseased democracy.

Building on muddle-headed Supreme Court decisions going back to the early 19th century that declare corporations have many of the same rights as people, Roberts and his co-conspirators found that it would be gosh-darn unfair to deny corporations the same right to electioneer as is enjoyed by Jane and Joe Doe.

Never mind that corporations are not required to sit on juries. Overlook that they cannot vote. Forget that they cannot be called upon to shed blood in military service. Disregard that there is no corporate death tax, because corporations — unlike actual people — can live forever.

The Roberts court affirmed that corporations — even if controlled by foreign shareholders — have the same free-speech rights as American citizens. They just happen to have big bank accounts. Big deal.

Well, it is a big deal. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens warned of the possible corrosive effect of unregulated corporate spending. President Barack Obama was blunter. The decision, he said, was "devastating," striking "at the heart of our democracy."

Corporations are only pools of money dedicated to making more money. They are owned by shareholders. If they are "people," then corporations are by that same line of reasoning slaves. Perhaps someone should remind the Roberts majority that the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery. Does that make the very existence of corporations — never once mentioned in the constitution — unconstitutional?

This last line of reasoning may be absurd, but if it is, it is no more bizarre than the reasoning of the Supremes.

Almost as mind-bending is the great procedural and intellectual trouble the Roberts majority went to in order to make its sweeping and destructive decision.

Although Citizens United was a hot-button case, it posed a relatively narrow question: should a privately funded attack video aimed at torpedoing then–senator Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations be allowed to be distributed by its nonprofit corporate sponsor via on-demand cable?

In the course of the proceedings, some compelling arguments were made that distribution of the film should have been allowed. But that was not enough for the Roberts cabal.

Rather than issuing a narrowly based decision, the Republican majority twisted itself in knots to declare a vast body of settled law unconstitutional. That is the very sort of judicial conduct Roberts pledged before the Senate committee to eschew.

Roberts lied. He swore to be a strict constructionist and instead ruled as a radical activist. This is more than bitter irony. It is a political crime, a high crime, the very essence of an impeachable offense.

Impeach John Roberts - The Editorial Page - Providence Phoenix

While I along with many Americans take issue and concern with this decision it is hardly an impeachable offense. I see the argument made as to the charge that he "lied under oath" but it's a horse that wont run and I don't agree with the premise. Did Roberts know that this case would be granted cert when he made his commentary? I doubt it and if this wasn't such a sad decision.. the opinion by the author would be funny!

There are other ways to deal with this decision,it's not popular with the people,passing statutes or even by way of amendment is a much more effective plan!

Just in case you disagree with me and you believe Roberts should be impeached,I've conveniently added the link below!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/imp...ustice-roberts

-0-

Michael1 · #2 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 02:42 PM

Wow it's getting silly on the looney left!

If a law is 5-4 questionably unconstitutional then Congress need only write better laws.

Like it or not the SCOTUS remains as close to 'bi-partisan' of an entity as we have in this country.

I'm actually tired of people bashing them. Even the ones with whom I would tend to not agree earn my respect through how well reasoned their opinions read.

Angry unreasonable extremists calling for impeachments are simply, prounounced like he did in The Hangover, re-tards!

cnredd · #3 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

...if this wasn't such a sad decision.. the opinion by the author would be funny!

Well I don't find the decision sad...and the opinion by the author is downright hysterical!!!!...

You can almost see the bits of froth on the monitor that spewed from his mouth when he was typing this...

Gordon Shumway · #4 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 04:35 PM

Wow! The writer is reaching.

Quote:

Never mind that corporations are not required to sit on juries. Overlook that they cannot vote. Forget that they cannot be called upon to shed blood in military service. Disregard that there is no corporate death tax, because corporations — unlike actual people — can live forever.

The same could be said for unions, pacs, etc...
However, they are made up of people who have exercised their right to assemble.
Saying they can only have an individual voice & not a collective one is absurd.

off the porch · #5 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Impeach John Roberts

While I along with many Americans take issue and concern with this decision it is hardly an impeachable offense. I see the argument made as to the charge that he "lied under oath" but it's a horse that wont run and I don't agree with the premise. Did Roberts know that this case would be granted cert when he made his commentary? I doubt it and if this wasn't such a sad decision.. the opinion by the author would be funny!

There are other ways to deal with this decision,it's not popular with the people,passing statutes or even by way of amendment is a much more effective plan!

Just in case you disagree with me and you believe Roberts should be impeached,I've conveniently added the link below!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/imp...ustice-roberts

-0-

There are quite a few here on Wrinkles that actually like the fact that more big money can buy votes and candidates. I'm scratching my head over that one since I swear I've seen posts by these same people expressing despair or disgust that a candidate or rep has been bought off or is just trying to do a favor for someone that gave big money to the campaign. One wanting more big money in our political system just doesn't make sense if one has been complaining about congresspeople being influenced by $$.

Impeachment is impractical and almost impossible. I don't like that we now have activist judges, but...there it is. That is what the people of the US wanted when they voted for Bush, I guess.

saltwn · #6 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 06:59 PM

If Clinton could be impeached for the misuse of a cigar

then these bums can be gotten rid of and should PDQ.
Wondering if any on the right have read the constitution or are they just parroting the talk show propagandists.
Now is not the time to be squeamish about setting precedent or mumbling up some body's wet dreams.
Now is the time to act if you are a liberty loving citizen.

DownSouth · #7 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

Impeach John Roberts

While I along with many Americans take issue and concern with this decision it is hardly an impeachable offense. I see the argument made as to the charge that he "lied under oath" but it's a horse that wont run and I don't agree with the premise. Did Roberts know that this case would be granted cert when he made his commentary? I doubt it and if this wasn't such a sad decision.. the opinion by the author would be funny!

There are other ways to deal with this decision,it's not popular with the people,passing statutes or even by way of amendment is a much more effective plan!

I'm not familiar with this writer, but I sense he proposed the extreme of impeachment in the article just to to underscore his outrage and frame his objections.

I agree with you that pretending to be a "modest jurist" and, then later demonstrating you're not, is not an impeachable offense and there are ways to deal with this particular decision in Congress. I think the author of the editorial knows that - he's just trying to make his point by proposing a radical response. Some of that old "literary license", if you would... That's just my read on it.

Rush L · #8 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 09:57 PM

First off, Billy boy was brought up on impeachment not because of his cigar or the dress. Bill was a serial poonhound, and as an excutive private or public you have to keep it in your pants for a couple of years. Furthermore, the offense that sealed the deal was lieing to a grand jury. I believe you now that so please don't keep the bs rolling.

Corporations, PACs, Unions and any and all other collections of people have the right to express themselves, period. Please point to the ammendment or artical that says differently. The first ammendment provides for free expression specifically in reguards to political and religious matters.

It is funny to see the lefties writhe when it comes to corporations. It makes no sense. How is a corporation different than any other special interest? Who do you think has more money, any given corporate interest or the AFLCIO? When I was a union carpenter, our president said often that they had enough money in our pension fund to buy the US defict. Are you guys fearfull of GE and their green push?

cnredd · #9 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rush L

It is funny to see the lefties writhe when it comes to corporations. It makes no sense. How is a corporation different than any other special interest? Who do you think has more money, any given corporate interest or the AFLCIO? When I was a union carpenter, our president said often that they had enough money in our pension fund to buy the US defict. Are you guys fearfull of GE and their green push?

I got a BETTER one...

If the left is SOOOO pissed about corporations spending money to influence public elections, then why haven't we heard a peep out of them when corporations...like say...The New York Times Company or the Chicago Tribune Company...spent millions of dollars in PAID EDITORIAL BOARDS?

Of course, the answer is "because that part of the 1st ammendment is OK with them."

Selective constitutional interpretation...

saltwn · #10 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 11:22 PM

As I stated earlier and elsewhere "Don't come crying to me when your kids/grands have to start pledging allegiance to the United Corporation of WalMart"
Silly, do you guys ever read the constitution just to make sure what your puppet masters are telling you is the truth?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Spencer Collins For This Useful Post:
DownSouth, off the porch, pjohns, saltwn

The Following User Says Thank You to Michael1 For This Useful Post:
mlurp

The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
mlurp

The Following User Says Thank You to Gordon Shumway For This Useful Post:
jabbo

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to off the porch For This Useful Post:
DownSouth, saltwn, Spencer Collins

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
off the porch, Spencer Collins

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DownSouth For This Useful Post:
off the porch, saltwn, Spencer Collins

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
DownSouth, foundit66, Spencer Collins