It’s a silly academic question, since you know very well he will not be impeached over this or over anything else.
Of course he should be, but it will not happen. There have been worse than him on the bench. Think the idiots that found the way to make murder by abortion constitutional.
How do you impeach a judge?
That said: most people in DC loved this opinion - they’re not going to dump the guy who gave it to them.
No way. At least not until Barack Obama is out of office. Why give him (Obama) another chance to nominate yet another ultra-liberal SC justice?
Kagan, OTOH, was instrumental in putting the whole boondoggle together, and should have recused. No point, really, because who will appoint the replacement?
Please tell us the basis of an impeachment. That you don’t like his decision? That he didn’t fulfill his job description? Firing Justice Robert is truly a hair-brained idea. Especially when no one can name a justified reason for his impeachment. Now you all are beginning to sound like Democrats—the really stupid Democrats.
No.
However, a nice quart can full of tar and bag of chicken feathers in a pretty basket with a lovely red, white and blue bow could be seen as an appropriate Fu...er...thank you gift.
Yes
There are no grounds to impeach Chief Justice Roberts. He did great damage to his standing with this decision, and it will stay with him for the rest of his career. The extent of the damage to our country is to be determined. In a practical sense, he played King Solomon and crafted a decision with no true winner, but political advantage, GOP.
There is a reason that Justice Ginsburg and other leftist justices objected so strenuously to Roberts’ rejection of the Commerce Clause argument. The Left is notorious for their overreach. It has gotten them a long way in the last century, and Roberts made it hard for them to pave a path forward to totally choke States’ rights.
At minimum, Roberts’ decision assured retention of GOP control of the House and made it highly likely we will have more conservatives in the next session. The decision made it very likely the GOP will take the Senate, and will do so on a conservative agend. Based on what we have seen, the dynamics of this decision I think has improved Romney’s chance of victory from 40% to 50%. Romney really needs to come to the right and consolidate this base. The fundraising over the past few days shows this is a great opportunity.
All told, at minimum, Roberts will owe us big time going forward. If the politics works as it should, he will have a chance to redeem himself.
Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty: “ ‘[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’ ” . . . In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. ~ Justice Kennedy
And he's quite correct on every point. Research it yourself.
The Roberts' opinion is unprecedented in many ways:
Never before has the Court rewritten a law in order to rule its version Constitutional, while admitting that the version authored by Congress was not.
Never before has the Court ruled that an excise tax can be levied on events that don't occur (in contradiction to the definition of 'excise tax.')
And never before has the court permitted an excise tax to be imposed non-uniformly by exempting some persons whose transactions satisfy the rule that defines the event or item that is subject to the tax (or in this case, the absence of an event.)
As Justice Kennedy explains:
That §5000A imposes not a simple tax but a mandate to which a penalty is attached is demonstrated by the fact that some are exempt from the tax who are not exempt from the mandate—a distinction that would make no sense if the mandate were not a mandate. Section 5000A(d) exempts three classes of people from the definition of “applicable individual” subject to the minimum coverage requirement: Those with religious objections or who participate in a “health care sharing ministry,” §5000A(d)(2); those who are “not lawfully present” in the United States, §5000A(d)(3); and those who are incarcerated, §5000A(d)(4). Section 5000A(e) then creates a separate set of exemptions, excusing from liability for the penalty certain individuals who are subject to the minimum coverage requirement: Those who cannot afford coverage, §5000A(e)(1); who earn too little income to require filing a tax return, §5000A(e)(2); who are members of an Indian tribe, §5000A(e)(3); who experience only short gaps in coverage, §5000A(e)(4); and who, in the judgment of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, “have suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage,” §5000A(e)(5). If §5000A were a tax, these two classes of exemption would make no sense; there being no requirement, all the exemptions would attach to the penalty (renamed tax) alone.
The income tax on wages and salaries is an excise tax. Can Congress now exempt the wage and salary income of everyone legally residing in Washington D.C. from the requirement (mandate) to pay income tax? Since that is now no longer considered to violate the Constitutional requirement that all indirect taxes must be "uniform," which has until now meant that they must apply to everyone, if they apply to anyone?
Now you know why Justice Kennedy was visibly furious last Thursday as he head his opinion. You can see his anger even in the words of his opinion.
We all should be that angry. I know I am.
I don’t think it will ever happen. Not because it is not deserved, but simply because if they throw one of their own under the bus then they may be next. It is the same way with politicians.
A portrait is emerging that Roberts is weak ... easily duped into embarrassing himself with tortured, unconstitutional judicial rationalizations that are rooted in his desperate need for media approval.
I would truly love to see one or two judges impeached to get their attention, but we should take out one of the sleepers who snooze through cases. Also, what would it take to put a 20 or 25 year term limit on these Kings and Queens?
“He should be fired.”
Let me add my handle to the chorus of cyber voices who ask
‘Just who is it that gets to hire Roberts’ replacement?’
Yes, if for no other reason than to send a message to other would-be betrayers.
I've lost count of the idiots who have suggested as much since Thursday's ruling.
A majority decision you don't agree with does not constitute "bad behavior" under Article III of the Constitution. Further, where are you going to find the votes in the Senate? You need two-thirds. Do you want Obama to appoint his replacement? ARE YOU INSANE?
No, he should resign, which will take relentless shaming and ridicule. At minimum, he needs to be overruled in November. The dis-solution that must proceed a more perfect union to follow rests on his doorstep.
The Repubs should’ve INSISTED that Kagan recuse. They got cocky and thought they had a lock on the outcome. As Obama’s foot soldier, she worked the psy ops on Roberts and administered the Kool-Aid (or the manilla folder with “FBI: John Roberts” emblazoned on it).
impeach kagan for not recusing herself..
No, by ruling this as an additional tax, he has kept it alive. More importantly, this is thrown right back at the people (us) for electing Obie to power and the Dim Congress that was