Tweet
Impeach John Roberts. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts promised to "call balls and strikes" from the bench, "not to pitch or bat." With the Citizens United case, the Roberts court changed the game from baseball to rollerball.
I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.
With the Supreme Court plucking this ruling out of thin air, John Roberts is revealed as having lied under oath to the Senate. Not only should he be impeached, but should be subject to criminal prosecution for lying to the Senate prior to his confirmation to the Supreme Court.
38 Comments
you can’t be serious.
love to see the outline of your case.
Don’t need a legal case for impeachment, just the numbers.
The debate would be a healthy one, perhaps more fruitful than any legislative efforts to cure Citizens United.
true to that. but you threw in the criminal prosecution, did you not?
Are you saying that lying under oath to deceive in order to receive a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is not contempt of Congress?
That kind of situational ethics is what is turning people off to politics, that you can and should do whatever it takes to move to the next steps and so long as you make the jump, you get away with it and are indemnified from consequences.
that’s not what I’m saying, but I’ll agree with that statement.
lying is insufficient.
In case you haven’t noticed, Congress doesn’t prosecute another elite.
The laws only apply to us. Our police state jailed a man this week for throwing a taco at the manager (they screwed up his order.) Twenty years ago, attempting to imprison someone for something so laughable was unthinkable. Or jailing a teen for wearing his pants too low, my personal favorite.
Fraud, embezzlement, torture, lying under oath, whatever they do is just fine. As long as you’re a member of that special club.
“A man is never more truthful than when he acknowledges himself a liar.” – Mark Twain
Roberts and Alito both are outright liars according to their congressional testimony.
When the Government and Corporations combine like it is Fascism.
This is the result of the Supreme Court coup of 2000, the treason that keeps on giving allowing these two LIARS to be nominated by bush the thief.
The Democrats that were in congress then sold out the country by not fighting the overthrow of our constitutional voting process by the supremes.
Note to the traitor Kennedy, who was in on the coup, after this welcoming of fascism by the court I have ZERO faith in our government to do anything accept more slaughter of innocents for PROFIT.
Good bye America.
After Bush v. Gore, the gloves are off, either you play that game or you get pummeled.
It’s not like Fascism, it IS Fascism.
Agree completely with you and have been stating as much over & over again on various blogs, either here at FDL or elsewhere.
I’m angry all over again at Al Gore – who paid him off????
Some commenters on blogs have told me to “calm down,” that this decision is “not so bad,” and “won’t change much.” I am peaceful in my responses back, as I don’t believe now is the time to make war amongst us peons… that just plays into our overlords’ designs.
However, I advise commenters, who think this is “no big deal,” to think a little longer about that, as well as to STAY AWAKE and be wary of what else is coming our way.
I would love to see Roberts impeached. I’m not sure if this is possible, but if there is any way to do it, I hope it can proceed. I see Roberts and the rest of the Gang of 5 as traitors, like Benedict Arnold (perhaps my comparison is inaccurate, and if so: apologies). The bloodless coup de etat of 2000 was bad enough, but this, this, this is just unspeakably bad.
Another ruling..OT..but important to all.
************
“Court Rules That Mass Surveillance of Americans is Immune From Judicial Review
“The alarming upshot of the court’s decision is that so long as the government spies on all Americans, the courts have no power to review or halt such mass surveillance even when it is flatly illegal and unconstitutional,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. “With new revelations of illegal spying being reported practically every other week — just this week, we learned that the FBI has been unlawfully obtaining Americans’ phone records using Post-It notes rather than proper legal process — the need for judicial oversight when it comes to government surveillance has never been clearer.” ”
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/21
nonsense. that’s bullwhip and hype.
go to emptywheel and you’ll know better in two minutes.
Don’t tell me where to go and I won’t tell you were to go.
perhaps you would better understand what I meant if you hadn’t read a conditional sentence as a command.
OK, show of hands, how many people here know what a conditional sentence is?
The sad thing is that in America there are probably more people who come to this site who can answer that and aren’t still in elementary school than among the general population.
Alan Grayson…
*********
“The Supreme Court stabbed Democracy this morning. I was there; I saw it happen. I brought our petition with me — your signatures — and presented them to the Court. Now it’s time to act.
We have filed six bills to reverse this assault, the “Save Our Democracy” platform. Sign this petition today, and show your support for saving our democracy. Together, we will move these bills forward and prevent the sale of our government to the highest bidder.”
http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4&tag=redirect
“Together, we will … prevent the sale of our government to the highest bidder.”
I’m pretty sure that’s already an accomplished fact.
No doubt, but he’s trying to get the ‘bill of sale’ the judges just passed declared null and void.
Jesus,
I wish everyone here was a lawyer classically trained in the late 1960s.
Mac,
I always enjoy your posts and mostly disagree with you.
But you are right on here.
I know you disagree. You’re way radical-left of where I can be.
It was fun watching you get denounced as some kind of reactionary authoritarian.
It was fun.
Impeach Roberts.
We don’t need no stinkin’ “cases”…All we need is a chant!
Anyone who thinks this is “no big deal” needs a 15 minute time out in the corner.
yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum
it’s a classic!
“John Roberts assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that judges must “be bound down by rules and precedents.” Invoking Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, he affirmed that “the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability,” and “integrity in the judicial process.” Although acknowledging that it is sometimes necessary for judges to reconsider precedents, he stressed that this should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, where a decision has proved clearly “unworkable” over time. But in general, “a sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.”
Who can impeach a US Supreme Court justice?
Seems to me that Roberts and Alito both violated legal ethical rules.
But I haven’t been to emptywheel yet. Just got back from emptywheel and don’t see where the issue of how or rationale for impeachment of a Supreme court justice is discussed at all.
Wonder why Grayson isn’t leading a call for impeachment?
Probably because he understands that a call for impeachment is pretty silly, ubet.
Whether you like the decision or hate the decision, it was wasn’t anything to impeach anybody over.
Mac, when or what is going to enrage you enough that you quit being ‘practical’?
Bush,Cheney et all lied and people -many- died.
Now we have Supreme Court justices lying in their confirmation hearings -which DOES constitute an ethical lapse per the ABA code of ethics and you still think no action is required or that taking such is silly.
Where does the ‘rule of law’ fall in your ethical scale?
ubet, those “lies” in the hearings are not high on my scale. the questions in the hearings are mostly preening bullshit and attempts to make judges declare political positions and vet them on that basis usually suck.
your citation re the code of conduct isn’t correct.
Rule of law is pretty big with me and I spent perhaps too much time studying about it.
More generally, I never have and certainly do not now suffer from a lack of rage.
The people have no say, and some of You still can’t get that fact through Your heads.
I rammed the point of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission home today to 50 uber-conservative undergraduates at the conservative, Catholic liberal arts college where I teach by simply citing the following:
In the 2008 Presidential race, total spending by the McCain and Obama campaigns came to around $1.1 billion. Exxon’s profits during 2008 were $45 billion.
To say they were “shocked and awed” would be an understatement. They “got the point” that conservative Republicans have just as much to worry about as liberal Democrats, because the latter can turn into corporate whores just as easily, if not more easily, than conservative Republicans. For the same reason that Nixon was able to open up relations with the PRC, whereas it would have been politically impossible for a Democrat to do so in the early 1970s. “Fear and Loathing” doesn’t begin to capture what the rational response should be to this obscene legal precedent.
“Jamin Raskin, professor of constitutional law and the First Amendment at American University, has spoken out powerfully on behalf of a new campaign at FreeSpeechForPeople.org that aims to undo the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to remove limitations on corporations’ election spending.
Here’s a short video made together with Congresswoman Donna Edwards.
Here’s Raskin on Democracy Now!
And here’s Raskin debating a corporatist chump on C-Span.”
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/49500
Certainly appeals to one’s sense of justice and might be feasible in a functioning democracy but our energies may be better used in other areas, ie how to organize in the vein of Gandhi, Derrick Jensen, Martin Luther, Malcolm etc. Hasta la victoria siempre
What happens when Hugo Chavez’s Citgo Oil Corporation decides to spend 10 million on an ad campaign four days before Mitch McConnell is supposed to be reelected saying he had an affair?
At this point in time I’d rather have Chavez running this country because he’d represent my interests a ehll of a lot more than the Democrats have.
Huh? Proof please.
SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.
SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.
SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.
SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.
Mr. Roberts may well have lied in his confirmation hearings, though I’m sure he tried mightily to skirt issues with pablum that went unchallenged. More importantly, as with Alito, to whom the same charges could be made, no one believed them except the citizenry.
Everyone who voted on his nomination knew the games [now DC Appellate Court Justice] Brett Kavanaugh and his WH sponsors played in order to persuade senators this was a conservative midling choice and that if they fought it, Bush would come up with someone who would make Roberts look like William O. Douglas.
And yes, Robers & Co., through out already tattered precedent in order to reach well beyond the scope of this case to create a broad, new, constitutionally grounded precedent that would be hard for Congress to undo via mere legislation.
Glenn Greenwald has very mixed feelings about this case. I think some of his arguments are circular, in that he says, in effect, if this speech is covered by the First Amendment, you can’t restrict it, which rather begs the question. As with yelling Fire! in a crowded theater when there isn’t even smoke, some speech can indeed by regulated. The question is what’s the governmental – ie, public – interest in doing so and is it worth restricting speech in order to promote that interest. I don’t think this Court came close to a correct judgment. They did come up with one that met their wildest political dreams.