Impeach the Supreme
by Joseph Nagarya
While I appreciate that finally millions are standing up against an
injustice -- in this instance theft of the election -- I can't ignore
that those now standing up are mostly doing so because the injustice affects
them directly. Traditionally, when it affected someone else, those now
standing up went about their lives. It wasn't "their" injustice. Even
after Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to
justice everywhere." Perhaps he was being tactful, as that can be said
more accurately: an injury to anyone anywhere is an injury to everyone
And the imprecisions of the legal facts proliferate and get perpetuated.
"Stolen democracy". A thief steals that which has value to the thief.
By contrast, and obviously, democracy has no value to Bush, et al. Recall
James Baker, III's demagogic denunciation of the FL Supreme Court when
it ordered votes be counted: "It's a sad day," he said, "for democracy."
In contrary reality, democracy is counting votes. Our democracy
was not "stolen." During arguments for Bush v. Gore, Scalia said
there is no right to vote for president. At Princeton the other day he
was more clear and comprehensive: "The Constitution protects against the
will of the people."
Bush, et al., Scalia -- these are not people who "steal" democracy.
In proper terms, they nullified democracy.
And then there's the proliferation of details, posted by one, borrowed
and expanded upon by another, about how the Bush v. Gore acted
unconstitutionally by stopping the counting of 60,000 votes -- stop. Has
no one read the Constitution? Or is that "boring" as compared with confused
"self-expression"? It isn't all that complicated; one needn't look beyond
the Constitution to find the Bush v. Gore majority impeachable
First, the Constitution gave the power and authority to resolve presidential
election disputes exclusively to Congress. Second, the Constitution
allows judicial officers, including US Supreme Court members, to serve
"during good behavior". Third, it requires those members to swear an oath
to "uphold the Constitution and laws".
Compare those facts with these: by staying the vote-counting, those
Court members who did so knowingly -- they are all lawyers -- usurped
powers and authorities given by the Constitution exclusively to Congress,
thus violated separation of powers, and violated their oath to uphold
Constitution and laws. Those are sufficient grounds to impeach and remove.
And there's so much playing into the hands of such as Scalia. He said,
again, "The constitution is to protect against the will of the people."
That view is from the 1700s; it precedes the Civil War and 13th, 14th,
and 15th Amendment, which Amendments considerably alter the "original
intent" he is asserting. And yet those who've read far too little (as
with the essay on this site which both misrepresents the Framers views
and is as incognizant of those Amendments as Scalia) write screeds which
agree with Scalia. And then those who also have read too little read it,
believe it, and thus conclude that Scalia is correct, and thus Bush
v. Gore is acceptable, when instead it is lawless.
Oh, yes: when the Supreme Court accepted Bush v. Gore for argument,
and again when it handed down that decision, it twice more usurped Congress'
exclusively powers and authorities, violated separation of powers, and
its oath to uphold Constitution and laws.
Doubtless this criticism will be rejected out of hand because it doesn't
entirely support the views already posted; and, because not
written by whomever runs the site. So be it. I know the election
was stolen, that the 5 Supreme Court members need be impeached
-- and that fact is more easily grasped by those not having
legal education if one sticks with the principle "KISS" --
and removed. And that the Bush gang needs to be removed from
the now-not-so-White House (legal "technicality": can one
impeach a "president" who did not win the election? or must
one use a different process? Does one first have to prove
the election was stolen -- that being a felony, a "high crime"?).
I also know that matters are made more complicated than necessary
by getting lost amid the trees/details instead of actually
reading the Constitution; then the details of the decision
become nearly irrelevant as to content.