Posted on 07/02/2012 7:40:05 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Simple enough question. We need to start using this option.
He clearly brought the country closer to tyranny, and that in my view is an impeachable offense. Outside of "my view", his job is to uphold the constitution.
He failed to do his job. He failed to protect the people. He failed to protect COTUS.
He should be fired.
With another who appoints activist Liberals waiting in the wings, it will likely only get worse.
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.
Don't forget to thank Ginsburg, Kagan et al. He could not have made this brilliant, patriotic move without their votes.
What's wrong with Thomas, Scalia, et al that they failed to see the genius of John Roberts?
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.
Geez I guess after days of depression about his ruling I have been trying to see another light to this rather than just except defeat and rage in anger.
I probably should have kept my hope to myself.... lol
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.
I think the case can be made for a lot of tar and featherings on the bench, but Roberts specifically went against the Constitution for political purposes, not strictly judging constitutionality. Yes I would support his impeachment.
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?
Mark Levin for the next Justice Seat!!!!!
Um, what about here?
Article II, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
US Constitution.
Any judge is a civil officer, so yes, I think its theoretically possible, however politically improbable.
It's worth taking a look at the bill ~ we have a few months when it is still legal (before it's repealed) so we might find out who is stealing what!
You just know it's going on with this crowd.
Ask Alcee Hastings.
“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?’
Right! I can't believe all these shallow thinking fools who think Roberts is playing some 6th dimensional Vulcan chess or helping to put the issue back to We the People.
Such people who believe that are not at all versed in the brutal nature of State Power.
I implore anyone who believes there is a "silver lining" or that Roberts will be vindicated to go back and listen to Mark Levin's last three shows. The audio downloads are free.
Mark makes it clear that Roberts has done irreparable harm to our Liberties.
Levin states that this ruling will not be overturned by Statue.
Levin explains how the Commerce Clause was not touched at all by this ruling.
On his show tonight, you could tell that Levin was filled with righteous anger when he stated that Roberts tried to get Kennedy to flip and make it a 6-3 decision to utterly crush the Constitution. the italics is almost a direct quote from his show (I did it from memory).
Roberts consciously and willingly made a very destructive decision. There is no silver lining. Levin stated that the precedent this ruling sets will take decades to reverse, all the while doing very great damage to our Republic.
Yes, if for no other reason than to send a message to other would-be betrayers.
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.