Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts Should Be Impeached and Removed From the Court (Vanity)
vanity | 6/29/2012 | R. Page

Posted on 06/29/2012 4:01:22 PM PDT by rpage3

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: Salvation

“The person to be romoved is Chicago-style threatener — Obama.”

But a nice buck-and-a-wing and allamand right to strawman Obama.


61 posted on 06/29/2012 7:46:52 PM PDT by tumblindice (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: rpage3
Roberts Should Be Impeached and Removed From the Court

Amen and so should the other four of the majority in the Obamacare case!

There is no grant of authority to be found in the constitution which would allow them do what the did (re-write the law under review) in the Obamacare case. In fact there is no authority for ANY court to re-write anything other than their own opinions!

62 posted on 06/29/2012 7:52:23 PM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dewawi

Then Roberts was too clever by half. This was no time to try to be a “thinking man’s” chief justice. Indeed this was a time for him to do his job and he failed miserably.

There is no doubt(in my mind at least) the lib criticisms of his potential ACA reversal and President Obama’s tirade at him during the SOU after the Citizens United decision must have had a lot of effect on Roberts. This indictments to me and many others he is a coward. The fact that Kennedy wanted to get rid of the ACA altogether only only reinforces this view.


63 posted on 06/29/2012 8:30:24 PM PDT by princeofdarkness (The Obama Administration is circling the wagons. But the Truth Indians are using flaming arrows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: princeofdarkness

Sorry, I meant “indicates”.


64 posted on 06/29/2012 8:32:36 PM PDT by princeofdarkness (The Obama Administration is circling the wagons. But the Truth Indians are using flaming arrows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: rpage3

“In an otherwise sane world...”

Unfortunately, you’ve touched the nub of the issue right there. Clearly, it’s NOT a sane world.


65 posted on 06/29/2012 8:49:16 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
What do the smart people say about whether Roberts comments on the Commerce Clause are unbinding dicta?

Is there any basis for regarding any part of a court decision as being "binding" on anyone but the actual parties to the case before it? To be sure, if the Supreme Court implies that it will overturn at first opportunity any future lower-court decisions which violate certain principles, then it's in most cases reasonable for lower-court judges to avoid issuing such decisions; the Court thus has some implicit authority to instruct lower courts what rules to follow, but only to the extent they are willing to follow it.

66 posted on 06/29/2012 9:59:40 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: dewawi

Your post is worth reading and I hope it all comes to pass.


67 posted on 06/29/2012 10:17:20 PM PDT by factmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: righttackle44
Impeach him for what? Expressing his opinion?

No, for altering legislation. That is considering "penalties" which are not-a-tax to be, indeed, a tax.
As a member of the judiciary it is not his place to alter law, that is a function of the legislature.

68 posted on 06/29/2012 10:28:48 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rpage3

I think the question to ask every Republican Congressional or Senate candidate is: “Will you vote for Robert’s impeachment?”


69 posted on 06/30/2012 2:25:52 AM PDT by Dajjal (Justice Robert Jackson was wrong -- the Constitution IS a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dewawi

Some would say he handed the Republicans control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for a generation.


Very possibly. I don’t know. I would think that polling (I know, I know) numbers would reflect a tidal shift to the GOP that the Dhimmi pollsters would be unable to cover for.


70 posted on 06/30/2012 3:35:05 AM PDT by 98ZJ USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: supercat
SCOTUS precedent is cited all the time. However, as I understand it, the opinion of a single justice expressed in a decision that is not part of the majority decision is not binding. Mark Levin addressed this and says nothing changes with regard to Commerce or Necessary and Proper.

So all we got was expanded taxing power. And precedent.

71 posted on 06/30/2012 8:37:28 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: dewawi
That's ridiculous.

Just a few things off the top of my head that I see Roberts the marxist did to America:

1. Destroyed our individual liberty , destroyed freedom in America.

2. Turned over a huge part of the economy ( the only one growing) over to the government.

3. Gave the liberals a way to control everything we do. Now they know if they just tax behavior then they can make us do anything and control everything we do.

4. He rewrote the bill. He can't do that as it is unconstitutional . It wasn't written as a tax.

5. kennedy said the whole thing was unconstitutional. Any one who can't see this 3000 page monstrosity is not wholly unconstitutional is a marxist activist as this POS Roberts is.

6. We are slaves of the federal government now and of the democrats/marxists. I would rather die fighting the democrats than be their slave.

72 posted on 06/30/2012 8:47:04 AM PDT by rurgan (Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dewawi
That's ridiculous.

Just a few things off the top of my head that I see Roberts the marxist did to America:

1. Destroyed our individual liberty , destroyed freedom in America.

2. Turned over a huge part of the economy ( the only one growing) over to the government. the U.S. is now mostly a socialist country. They will be able to control us just with this law.

3. Gave the liberals a way to control everything we do. Now they know if they just tax behavior then they can make us do anything and control everything we do.

4. He rewrote the bill. He can't do that as it is unconstitutional . It wasn't written as a tax.

5. kennedy said the whole thing was unconstitutional. Any one who can't see this 3000 page monstrosity is not wholly unconstitutional is a marxist activist as this POS Roberts is.

6. We are slaves of the federal government now and of the democrats/marxists. I would rather die fighting the democrats than be their slave.

73 posted on 06/30/2012 8:48:27 AM PDT by rurgan (Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

newbie ? probably a democrat.


74 posted on 06/30/2012 8:49:28 AM PDT by rurgan (Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
I honestly think he was either bribed or blackmailed.

I agree. It was the second time in a week he sided with the leftists. He appears to be compromised.

75 posted on 06/30/2012 8:49:54 AM PDT by riri (Plannedopolis-look it up. It's how the elites plan for US to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

newbie ? that’s probably a democrat.


76 posted on 06/30/2012 8:51:04 AM PDT by rurgan (Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rpage3

John Roberts is right.

It is we the people who must correct this insult to our traditions, liberty, hard work, and our pocketbooks.

Obamacare is the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Time to repeal it, get rid of millions of unelected bureaucrats (and toss their regulations out the window), prune departmental purview, etc. in ALL parts of federal, state & local government.

Time for audits and prosecutions for cronyism all over the place.

/rant


77 posted on 06/30/2012 8:54:09 AM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
SCOTUS precedent is cited all the time.

It certainly is, but nothing in the Supremacy Clause nor anywhere else in the Constitution gives the Supreme Court any authority over anyone other than the actual parties to the cases before it. I will readily grant that Supreme Court rulings are often treated as though they significant authority over other cases, but there's no real legitimate basis for that. If the Supreme Court issues a ruling which agrees with the Constitution and laws, citing such ruling may be a good way to avoid having to re-make the arguments cited therein. On the other hand, if the Court issues a ruling based upon arguments which cannot be reasonably applied to some other case at hand (perhaps because the facts of the extant case don't fit those in the case decided by the SCOTUS, though possibly because the argument was faulty), it would be entirely proper for someone arguing a different case to argue that the Supreme Court precedent does not apply; anyone wishing to claim the precedent as authority should then have to explain why the arguments made thereby are legitimate, and would legitimately apply to the case at hand.

While citing precedent may provide a convenient shorthand for making arguments that were previously made, there should be no "need" to cite precedent except in cases where either the outcome would be genuinely ambiguous without it (meaning either of two contradictory outcomes would both be fully justifiable under the law), or where the effects of an earlier decision may be relevant to a case.

For example, if the court issues a ruling forbidding the enforcement of a particular statute, and someone who is aware of the ruling performs an action which that ruling would seem to declare "legal", the person could legitimately cite the Supreme Court ruling in his defense, without having to defend the legitimacy thereof. Even if the prosecutor could demonstrate that the Court's logic was either faulty or inapplicable to the case at hand, that wouldn't matter if the defendant could show that his conduct was in line with what the Court had said was permissible. I suppose in the latter types of situations, there might be some distinctions between 'enforceable' and 'unenforceable' parts of a ruling, but I would suggest that the main question would be one of what the defendant reasonably believed the Court had said and meant.

78 posted on 06/30/2012 11:01:16 AM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ThermoNuclearWarrior

I am in total agreement. I’m tired of these nail-biting decisions that should be grand-slam victories for the Constitution.


79 posted on 06/30/2012 11:08:04 AM PDT by stevio (God, guns, guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: supercat
I see your point.

Still SCOTUS cases are treated as settled law, even when they are mis-cited (as US v Miller often has been). The few SCOTUS cases that have been over turned have taken years to do so.

This ruling leaves plenty of room for mischief.

80 posted on 06/30/2012 12:39:04 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson