Posted on 12/09/2017 6:40:02 AM PST by DIRTYSECRET
Roberts has forgotten more about kissing DC backsides than Comey ever knew. Rubber stamping Obamacare is his life insurance policy.
If you are implying Cruz, fuggetaboutit. I don't want someone who doesn't know what a Natural Born Citizen is anywhere near the Supreme Court ever, but especially with Kamala Harris on the verge of running.
Impeach Roberts on what grounds? Why not put the effort into impeaching Ruth Buzzy G, Kagan or the wise latina?
* First need evidence on Roberts about being blackmailed by Obama on ACA.
* Cruz is too “political” to be on that court. Would be good, but the mostly fake oppo research would go crazy.
2020 might be better. Election season. After Thomas and Kennedy retire and are successfully replaced. Then when Ginsberg croaks Trump can throw them(Rats) a bone(er). Nominate that Merrick fella Hussein was enamored with. Remember: DIVERSITY IS A STRENGTH.
Someone somewhere is suppressing the bimbo eruptions in Cruz’s life
Cant even imagine trading in one Justice blackmailed over adoption shenanigans for another who thought ( or thinks) he can get away with the same adulterous addictions as Clinton, LBJ and JFK
I was hoping when Gorsuch came to the bench that Trump would have made him chief justice, demoting Roberts.
Nothing wrong with Roberts...remember that he was 1 of 5 votes on Obamacare.....not a lone ranger.
I no longer have respect for Cruz since he jumped on the slop wagon of those condemning Roy Moore. Cruz charged, indicted, and sentenced Moore in the tainted court of public opinion (aka Court of Political Expediency). He is over and done with to me. He better be careful of skeletons in his closet. He who is without sin.....
What a stupid waste of space vanity.
My friends: Leave Kagen + the wise Latina alone. We get nothing out of suggesting that Roberts was one of the 5. Think of the Trump effect on Flake/Corker. No need to beat up on the left. As for Cruz he wins reelection in 2018 and if he bombs he stays in the Senate and torments the Turtle.
Roberts remains Chief Justice until he resigns or dies.
You understand it takes 67 votes in the US Senate to remove a judge?
How many and which Democrat Senators do you predict will be needed to remove Roberts?
Roberts is not going to be impeached, what is this silliness?
Impeached for what? He made a decision we don’t like?
You are right. Cruz slamming Moore is like Hatch working with the Swimmer all those years. Reagan should have kicked him upstairs to SCOTUS after the Bork sham. Would they have done the same with one of their own? We would have been spared 2+ decades of another ‘conservative’ RINO. Cruz may very well be going down that same road. Get reelected and then see what’s next. He could be a good majority leader/thorn. Publicly debate all 2020 Rat contenders one at a time on one issue each like he did with Bernie and those other 2. Pence would be the better choice as he has the time + he represents Trump. Trump will orchestrate everything to our approval. Trust me.
Space vanity? You hurt my feelings. 67 votes to impeach-which Democrats go along? I’m way ahead of you on that one. Kennedy/Thomas replaced. That’s 6-7 on our side. Next you get the Democrats to go along with this impeachment by having our dealmaker POTUS offer to replace him with Garland-no hard feelings. After that it’s Ruth Buzzi. Heh Heh.
Dang, before impeaching Roberts, impeach Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kennedy.
Roberts is bad but not as bad as these guys.
BTW, what’s the constitutional standard for impeaching a Justice? Given that a Supreme Court Justice is an Officer of the United States, the constitutional standard for removal is “Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (U.S. Const, art. II, sec. IV).
The Constitution defines treason as “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” (art. III, sec. 3).
The Justices also have the requirement of “good behavior” (art. III, sec. 1) which hasn’t been very well defined.
Not sure any of our SCOTUS Justices have levied war against the United States, or given their enemies aid and comfort, or committed bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. But I think we’re missing the big picture here.
The big picture is that SCOTUS, the judicial branch, has somehow unconstitutionally been given legislative powers to make national law. However, the Constitution LIMITS the power and scope of SCOTUS decisions to the parties of INDIVIDUAL cases and controversies (art. III, sec. 2) and any other cases with the same questions of law and fact.
What is really needed is to reject all attempts to expand any SCOTUS decision beyond the parties of the specific case involved.
SCOTUS is, thus, constitutionally limited by,
1) if the SCOTUS decision is NOT based on sound constitutional reasoning, the decision should be rejected and ignored, or
2) if the SCOTUS decision IS based on sound constitutional reasoning, the power and scope of the decision is limited to the parties of the individual case at hand and any other cases with the same questions of law and fact.
Doing this, among other things, greatly reduces the harmful affect of unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions. It also puts the burden of correcting flawed laws where it belongs, on Congress, the legislative branch. The Constitution NEVER intended for SCOTUS to have the sweeping powers it has been given almost from the start. Constitutionally limiting the power and effect of SCOTUS also greatly lessens the need for removal for which there is usually little constitutional support
Let’s get back on track to the constitutional separation of powers and the recovery of our Free Constitutional Republic.
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.