The Impeachment of Roberts & Alito

I know, I know, there will never be enough votes (67) to make it happen, but just think of the spectacle and the public awareness that it would bring.
The average voter has no idea what the Citizens United ruling did/is doing to our democracy. The msm certainly haven't gone out of their way to sound the clarion horn about this travesty. The American people are more than willing to believe that the Democrats lost the House because of Democratic policies...they haven't a clue that they were manipulated and lied to by the very entities that mean them ill.

I wonder is there a politician or a movement that's willing to provide a REAL teachable moment to the American people about the destruction of this Country and it's people.

Roberts and Alito blatantly lied during their conformation hearings. Somebody, somewhere has got to have the nerve and patriotism to step forward and help save what's left of this democracy.

Happy New Year !

Maybe a blip. A "nothing to see here, folks, keep moving" moment.

Of course they would have a field day demonizing the ones that bring it forth. For Sure !

Scalia should also be a part of your vision - he is the most anti-justice Justice who has ever sat on that bench.

And while I was dreaming I also hoped that he and Thomas may decide to resign before they're burned at the stake. :)

Having Scalia is like having William Bennet on the bench.

in 2000 and select g bush for president. A mandate for the SC is to set precedent...yet that act was one time only . In a real court of law that would be admissible evidence as to illegality.

The House votes on articles of impeachment and if there are enough votes for impeachment then the trial is in the Senate where the 67 votes for conviction are needed. Since Republicans control the House the whole idea goes nowhere from the get-go.

If you're going to fantasize about something that will never happen you may as well go much bigger than that.

and I also stated that it probably would not not be enough votes. The idea is to educate the American people.

Again, I only want to see that the American public is aware of what's happening to them and who is responsible.

If you cannot get articles of impeachment through the House, the Senate makes no difference.

I'm thinking like a Republican here...you know, "death panels" "activist judges" and such. You know how they do it.

Well, here's our big chance and it won't be lies or distortions. :shrug:

And we sure as hell don't need anyone wasting time on something just to create headlines for the fucking MSM.

than function, but the end results were a heighten awareness of an evil being committed. It worked out pretty good for my people....
I could name you numerous action that had to be taken that were pure "form." People power only comes w/ some sort of action that can't be factually challenged and harms us all. Depending on politicians to "do the right thing" is not a realistic option in todays crisis.

We need action on EVERY possible front. People are fond of using the slogan, "I want my Country back." Well, maybe the first step would be, not let it get taken in the first place.

The MSM is not a friend of the people these days. We have to make a statement to them as well, by putting forth issues that have to be explained, before they can be demonized, thus giving people a simple way to understand.

I think headlines about such topics is EXACTLY what we need.

One definition of conservatism is never attempting anything that hasn't been done before successfully.

next to their name so their braindead idiot followers could foam at the mouth more and think less.

and for the criminals who are less well known.

They weren't the only ones who gave us Citizens United.

for every $1 dollar the Dems got, the Repugs got $7 --

Maybe that will wake Dems up to get the "poo off their shoe?"

or will they continue to sell their souls for the corporate bucks?


:nuke:

be because the MSM would probably not report on it. CSpan would probably show some of it and Democracy Now! but that would be it.

we went down that road once before in 1998-99 before and it wasn't pretty.

I cannot endorse impeachment for mere disagreement with court decisions. That's what conservatives have wanted to do for years to so called activist liberal judges.

If Roberts and Alito are impeached, or even exposed to removal, why should right wingers not impeach or try to impeach federal judges that they hate? We must be careful when throwing the impeachment option around. If that option had a low trigger level, the federal judge in the south who was the most responsible for bringing out fair access to government and government protections for African Americans would have surely been impeached by southerners that were working to prevent those changes. Do we really want to lower the impeachment threshold? Some progressives will look at Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas and say "hell yes", pat themselves on the back if the four offending judges are removed, then spend the rest of their lives in slack jawed anguish as right wingers use the tool to attack every moderate and progressive federal judge in existence. Better to let nature take it's course, a couple of the conservative SC justices are not well physically and are not long to this earth. We may lose a liberal justice to age and nature, but by being and acting sane politically, we can replace that justice and replace departed conservative ones too.

This is no longer in doubt. They are corrupt, and don't belong on the court.

n/t

ther's no harm in trying something else.

Like prayer. And/or spellcasting, depending on one's inclination.

And it doesn't need to be focused upon them "not being long for this earth." All you have to do is hope fervently that they decide on a major change in their life. That they realize they'd be happier off the court, etc.

Heck, if they even knew several thousand people were fervently casting their intentions in this direction, it might spook one of them enough that he'd resign.

And the "serious" people wouldn't take the implications of a campaign like this seriously, so what's to lose?

Think about it.

I don't think there's any recourse but to at least attempt to stop whats ahead.

The House was lost and the Senate majority narrowed because of Citizens United. We are only a step away from complete corporate takeover of every aspect of our lives.

While I agree that honest people should not pull a stunt like the Republicans did w/ Bill Clinton, it's my personal belief that some sort of action is needed to save the Republic. We are at a very serious point in this country's history, and if we sit by silently, trying not to act like the others when they were dead wrong and everyone knew it, we have let them win yet again...to our detriment.

This is not a game, but a tactic. This country will not be saved by the wave of a wand, but by the same thoughtful and measured actions the created it in the first place.

The 67 votes are whether they are removed. The House impeaches.

In that case, a smart Justice who's facing actual charges will step down before impeachment can even come to a vote.

Normally, it would be silly to project such a possibility when 43 Democratic Senators are up for reelection in 2012 and 2014, against only 23 Republican seats.

But obviously with that in mind, President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate have already bagged the 2012 Republican Senators by making them filibuster a middle class tax cut, and then snookering them into voting on a tax extension that they can't change until after the next election. So they'll have to defend that filibuster for two long years.

They've also begun to set an agenda that works along 70-30 approval lines, meaning that everything the Repubs want to delay is something that pisses off 70% of the voters. That's going to increasingly marginalize the Republicans while also pushing Senate moderates (like the Maine Senators) more firmly into the Democratic camp.

So come 2015, if those conservative Justices really are dirty--for just about anything, regardless of statute of limitations, and 65 Democratic Senators and two Maine Republicans are waiting to step in, you might see the whole lot of them start to announce their retirements--at just the time when the President can pick their replacements without worrying about having the approval delayed.

on the job!

they will be promptly voted down by the Republican majority.


You may as well wish for world peace or a billion dollars tax free.

Get rid of all the wingers on the court.

She worked on the Bush transition team during Bush v. Gore deliberations.

Aside from the normal dodging that EVERY nominee does when they appear before the Senate?

Facts get in the way of things.

more here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Impeach-John-Roberts-for-L-by-Hugh-Conrad-100126-424.html

The Roberts quote deals with the PROCESS on which he will approach cases. The article cited looks at the RESULT and assumes the process wasn't followed. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't (probably wasn't) - but how can it be proven? The whole argument for Roberts lying is subjective. What does being "open-minded" even mean? What criteria is used (other than the outcome of a case)to show if one is "open-minded"? How is a "limited" role defined? At what point does a "limited" role turn to "aggressive" or "activist", other than the definition of a "activist judge" = a judge issuing opinions that I disagree with?

I can't recall anyone who didn't claim to be "open-minded" (and probably thought themselves to be) and I don't think I know anyone (including myself) who truly is.

and should have said so in the original post.

And, while I agree w/ you about the subjective nature of proving a lie-- and I think most would--but when you narrow the accusation directly to his adamant denial that he'd be open to upend precedent. Then look at the record...
There's a pattern and it goes against the grain of his testimony. I see it as, lying. To Congress.

As to the your correct assertion that the quoted article was an opinion piece, I just happen to be of the same opinion as the writer, and he articulates much better than I'm capable of. In case you didn't read the whole piece, the following is a better explanation of what I believe.



http://www.opednews.com/articles/Impeach-John-Roberts-for-L-by-Hugh-Conrad-100126-424.html

Let me clarify something. I'm too much of a cynic to be an idealist and too much of a idealist to be a cynic. The cynic in me says that confirmation hearings are a show trial. Senators have already determined their position and are - at best - hoping to trip up the nominee and have a "smoking gun" to justify their position. The nominee will either refuse to comment about cases or give vague non-answers. Respecting stare decisis is an example of a non-answer because it's a commitment to nothing.

I can't imagine any potential justice who won't a) claim to respect stare decisis and b) leave open the possibility of overturning precedents. There's always Brown v Board of Education to use as an example of overturning a bad precedent. Ultimately, the question: "Did Roberts ignore stare decisis and become an activist, or did he simply overturn a bad law?" is a subjective standard based on the philosophy of the person answering the question.

The idealist in me says that since the Court is a separate and equal branch of government, politics should be kept of it as much as possible (yeah right). By that I mean, politics will always be part of the nomination process - it's unavoidable. Once justices are confirmed, they need the freedom to issue opinions (unpopular or even bad decisions) without the threat of impeachment over philosophy. To me, impeaching Roberts for "lies" ultimately damages the Constitution more than any justice could ever do.

That is the basic argument behind impeachment if a justice does not strictly adhere to stare decisis. In fact, Sonia Sotomayor has already expressed her willingness to break from stare decisis:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/sotomayor_citizens_united.php

But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong -- and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.

Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with... a creature of state law with human characteristics."

The court should reconsider a ruling from the 19th century? That's over 150 years of stare decisis that she's looking to overturn. Should we impeach Sotomayor as well?

I'd like to see Citizens United revisited. SOON !

That would have to be done in the Republican House.

How about Kelo vs. New London?

Come on, both wings have had some pretty awful decisions here and there.

Bush v Gore, conspiracy to commit election fraud.


MDN

Johnny Bob Taliban and I-Lie-Too. What a lovely spectacle it would be!

These 2 old dudes walked across the US to bring attention to Citizens United....but they never brought up Impeachment. What a waste.

It's a good start...the Citizen's United decision is the best example of corporations buying elections. So, if corporations buying elections is the enemy, is impeaching the best strategy? I don't know, but i agree that the decision opened the floodgates. Ending corporate-bought elections is the goal, maybe by any and all methods is warranted. I know the goal, and I will support a valid method.

Sotomayor and Kagan. Besides if you say that those in Congress that havent lied throw the first stone, no one gets stoned.

She said she had respect for the Second Amendment, but ii reality is a gun-grabber who voted with the minority in McDonald vs. Chicago.

The House Judiciary Committee, the ones that would initiate impeachment proceedings is now run by the very people
who owe their majority status to the ruling of Roberts and Alito. Republicans do not impeach the hands that elected them.

of yammering about fraud in the voting process, let's first go after Roberts for his part in engineering Florida 2000. He was rewarded with his current position by the false president he helped to install. If we could remove him, then Alito (appointed by the same false president), Obama could replace them with legitimate justices and thereby shift the balance of the high court.



I know, can of worms yada yada. But an old lady can dream, yes?

-

judges on the Supreme Court but for the complicity of Democrats who knew exactly what they were supporting. Any movement to correct this situation fortunate enough to reach the Senate would be defused by all the Republicans and as many Democrats as were required to do so. Should the attempt be made anyway? Absolutely!

Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas all have painful simultaneous heart attacks while sleeping. Or fatal skiing accidents. Whatever works. While all four would be nice, just one will do the trick.

Many of the repukes talk of 'impeaching' Obama because they don't like some of the things their delusional minds think he has done. That is not the same as him having committed an 'impeachable' offense, like the war crimes and torture George Bush did.

Same with the Supremes, you, like me, may not like what they have done, but it is NOT an impeachable offense. Part of the problem in the country these days is a decline in law, logic and sense. We should not contribute to the decline by being part of it.

...let them (again) swear on the Bible that they told the truth.

We are no longer a country of laws when not even the Supreme Court Justice can be counted on to follow the law.

with Ann Coulter.

and removal from office of every Supreme Court justice who voted for a decision that was constitutional, but that some people felt had undesirable social consequences, you'd have to argue that every justice that voted for Brown, Mapp, Miranda, Gideon and untold others should also have been impeached. And if you're going to argue that any justice who said things that they didn't believe or knew weren't true at their confirmation hearings, or who didn't do everything they said they would at their hearing, you'd pretty much have to boot the whole sitting court.

Impeachment is out of the question for reasons stated by others here.
The fix has to come from the people, the citizens of this country.

The very first thing that must be done is to get rid of the corporation as persons fallacy.
The streets are quite conducive to large, noisy crowds... Assuming a day is picked that Survivor or Dance With the Stars or some similar is not on.

Then work the rest of the corruption problem from that end, till we have control of our government back. Put people in prison for their crimes of fraud, theft, misappropriation, bribery, blackmail, murder, war profiteering.

Reinstate the Glass–Steagall Act. Then be aggressive about its enforcement. Make believers of those that do not think they are doing anything wrong while they are robbing the rest of us blind and reducing the rest of us to destitute serfs.

in this article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/2010-person-of-the-year-t_b_802991.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=123110&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureMore&utm_term=Daily+Brief

Including the propagation of the myth that it had anything to do with corporate "personhood". The First Amendment right to free speech is nowhere and in no way limited to individuals. Neither is the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures or the right of freedom of contract. To argue that constitutional rights are by default limited to individuals is blatantly false, but for some reason, people who should know better continue to do so.

There are no serious grounds for it--none whatsoever.