Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Jun 30, 2012.
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.
He abused his power by legislating from the bench.
Soooo do they impeach the other 4 justices too?
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.
SC justices are not supposed to write law, which Roberts did.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Complete nonsense and very dangerous.
so, greentripe, in your world voicing an opinion (even misguided) is un-American? great ,censorship of free speech.
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. . .