close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Blog chatter: Impeach John Roberts

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Jun 30, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jonesee

    Jonesee

    2,326
    50
    Apr 16, 2009
    That is total idiocy. Plain and simple.

    He broke no law, he wasn't derelict in his duties.
    What would the grounds for impeachment be? Disappointing conservatives?
    There is no impeachable offense.

    Absolute idiocy.
     

    Last edited: Jun 30, 2012

  2. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    2
    Feb 18, 2009
    He abused his power by legislating from the bench.
     
  3. Berto

    Berto woo woo

    24,178
    2,129
    Sep 15, 2003
    WA
    Soooo do they impeach the other 4 justices too?
     
  4. Jonesee

    Jonesee

    2,326
    50
    Apr 16, 2009

    That is not a crime or an impeachable offense.

    He heard a case and became 1 of 5 votes that made a legal ruling. He and the other 8 Justices did exactly what they are supposed to do.

    The Supreme Court Justices are given a lifetime appointment to protect from political pressure. This is a perfect example why.

    Again, the idea is total idiocy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2012
  5. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    2
    Feb 18, 2009
    SC justices are not supposed to write law, which Roberts did.
     
  6. QNman

    QNman resU deretsigeR Silver Member

    9,964
    418
    Oct 5, 2005
    St. Louis, MO
    Agreed.

    It is pure foolishness to think about impeaching Roberts for his vote. He IS a conservative by nature, and is generally reliable as such. Why would any sane conservative-minded person want to impeach Roberts over, say, Kagan?

    Kagan clearly violated ethical considerations when she failed to even consider recusing herself from a case related to a law she helped to usher into existence. She never even considered the thought.

    What about Sotomayor? She lied to the American people, stating she thought the second amendment was "settled law" in Heller, immediately before voting the opposite in Chicago.

    Personally, I think Roberts made a mistake. I think Krauthammer had it right, in that he was too concerned with the view that if struck down, Obamacare would represent to the left a biased SCOTUS. The left suffers from no such dilemma - we KNOW for CERTAIN which way each of the lefties will vote religiously, and they care not a whip about what conservatives think about it.

    But to prattle on about impeaching the Chief Justice over this? Pure idiocy.

    Let's instead focus our efforts on the TRUE enemies of liberty - those who un-apologetically thumb their noses at the COTUS at every turn. If we want to expend the political capital - not to mention time and resources - necessary to impeach someone, lets start with Kagan and work our way to the middle, rather than start with Roberts and work our way left.
     
  7. Jonesee

    Jonesee

    2,326
    50
    Apr 16, 2009
    No he didn't. He ruled on the constitutionality of a law that was already written, passed, signed, in place and before him for appeal.


    Ruble, when you didn't get you way as a child, did you stand in the middle of the room and throw a tantrum?
     
  8. QNman

    QNman resU deretsigeR Silver Member

    9,964
    418
    Oct 5, 2005
    St. Louis, MO
    Kagan, Ginsberg, Sotomayer... did they not do the same? Do they not attempt the same with EVERY VOTE?

    Let's focus on the true enemies. Once they are dealt with, we can focus together on who may need trimming.
     
  9. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    2
    Feb 18, 2009
    SC Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for letting his Federalist leanings affect his rulings.

    I agree with you about Kagan as she had a definite conflict of interest and should have recused herself on this ruling.
     
  10. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    2
    Feb 18, 2009
    No he did not. The government argued that this law was constitutional under the commerce clause and the fine was a penalty which Roberts deemed unconstitutional. Roberts rewrote it as a tax and allowable under the legislatures taxing ability.
     
  11. Jonesee

    Jonesee

    2,326
    50
    Apr 16, 2009
    OK, so you do throw tantrums when you don't get your way.

    Good luck to you and your goal of impeaching Roberts. I'll keep up on your progress in the news.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2012
  12. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Lifetime Member

    14,814
    2,140
    May 4, 2003

    And that itself was a political travesty. However romantic the vision of impeaching judges over rulings or of duels being fought over politics, I have no desire to return to the varied forms of idiocy the Founders engaged in.
     
  13. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    2
    Feb 18, 2009
    Since you seem determined to go down this road, did your dear momma stick your head in a gas oven to lull you to sleep as a child? It would help to explain your posting history.
     
  14. marchboom

    marchboom

    2,713
    59
    Aug 18, 2006
    Idaho
    100% agreement. Roberts was not put on the bench to trash the Constitution. Which he clearly did Thursday. Traitor is the only word that comes to mind.

    Definitely shows that we cannot trust him to do the right thing in the future. Just as we can't trust democrats to do the right thing. Wonder what will happen when the next 2nd Amendment case comes before the court? If you don't have the guns and ammo you want, better get it now.
     
  15. greentriple

    greentriple

    923
    0
    Mar 11, 2010
    Those who wish to impeach a Justice or for that matter a President because he or she does not decide things the way that person wants is the most Un-American thing I've read today. But then it's only 8:30 am.


    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2012
  16. nmk

    nmk

    6,682
    309
    Apr 25, 2007
  17. rgregoryb

    rgregoryb Sapere aude

    8,279
    1,203
    Oct 20, 2004
    Republic of Alabama
    so, greentripe, in your world voicing an opinion (even misguided) is un-American? great ,censorship of free speech.
     
  18. wjv

    wjv

    13,797
    1,218
    Jan 17, 2002
    Pacific NW
    If he actually voted the way he did because he was concerned about the politics of how the court would look, opposed to voting based on his interpretation of the Constitution, then he deserves impeachment.

    However. . . Unless he confesses to that, good luck proving it. And if he were to be impeached, guess who gets to appoint his replacement. . .
     
  19. JFrame

    JFrame

    37,908
    5,238
    May 29, 2001
    Mid-Atlantic, US of A

    Good points...


    .
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.