Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Craig Crawford: Impeach John Roberts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:22 AM
Original message
Craig Crawford: Impeach John Roberts
Craig Crawford: Impeach John Roberts

There is simply no excuse for United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts bungling the presidential oath of office to such an extent that Barack Obama might need to do it again, at least in private, to ensure the legality of his inauguration.

Roberts should be impeached and removed from office for this unforgivable error. The Constitution requires certain language for a presidential oath of office. Roberts blew it. And if he doesn't understand such things he should be fired for misfeasance of the first order...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/impeach-jo...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. first recommendation here
i don't know if you could impeach him for that--but hey--i'm all for it! he should, at the very least, resign. what a dickhead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Some people don't 'get' CC.
You have to just let it wash over you, not think too hard, then revisit it in a few minutes, then it's pretty funny.

Know what I mean?

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. of course i know what you mean. and i think scalia should resign for
wearing that weird hat.

it's a new era, and the least they can do (oh, and take alito down with them!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
42. My sources tell me
that he wants to. He would really like to get off the court. He has a serious fascist agenda and he's feeling that he can't do as much damage as he'd like to sitting on the court. He feels he could be more effective writing and teaching, neither of which he can do as a justice. We shall see.

(Yes, I have sources.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #42
108. Scalia SHOULD be impeached.
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 05:58 PM by Usrename
He had an overnighter with the defendant in a case and he still refused to recuse himself.

He needs to be impeached because it's good politics. Let him try and publicly defend himself.

A sleepover with the DEFENDANT. During the trial. He refused to recuse himself.

He should be forced to resign over it. It's hideous behavior for ANY judge. He thinks it's the same as going to a state function.

The guy needs to go. And it's good politics. Let the shrieking heads explode for a while trying to come up with a good story justify a sleepover with the defendant in a case. I'd love to see them squirm.

Win or lose, it can only be good theater for our side.

Impeach Scalia now.


(P.S. Here are some articles that explain what I'm ranting about.)

SCALIA'S EXPLANATION FOR RECUSAL REFUSAL IS UNCONVINCING
Professor William G. Ross
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/ross1.php

A Closer Look At The Case From Which Justice Scalia Has Refused To Recuse Himself:
The Momentous Stakes, and the Larger Political Context
By JOHN W. DEAN
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040326.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Riverman Donating Member (759 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #108
127. Any Pretext to Get this Corporate Puppet off
the Supreme Court will be good for the country! Facism is when Corporations and Government collude - conspire to enforce their greed and misery on the citizenry! He must go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #127
133. I'm telling you, this is a fight worth fighting.
It would be politically correct.

I would just love to hear Rush and Hannity fumble around trying to come up with a justification for a judge to spend the night with the defendant in a case he is hearing.

Let the shrieking begin. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HowHasItComeToThis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #11
168. IT WAS NOT A MISTAKE, IT WAS INTENDED TO CAUSE AN INTENTIONAL ERROR
SO SOME SLIMEY REPUB LAWYERS COULD DENY OBAMA THE OFFICE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatchWhatISay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
172. And don't forget Thomas
With the three of them gone, he wouldn't even know what to do or think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sohndrsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #6
164. Actually, yes. : ) Very well said. Thanks for the laugh.... : ) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:26 AM
Response to Original message
2. Seriously 35 words, and the dimwit can't memorize it?
That was appalling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. how about a cheat sheet
did he rehearse at all? i'm not willing to make it a national issue but it was pretty wack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Suji to Seoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
18. He's too busy getting his orders from Rove to bother with book learning
And we're stuck with him and the Fish for at least 25 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asksam Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
61. Not once we get 2/3 of the Senate
Then we can get him out... along with Thomas, Scalia and Alito.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam kane Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #61
155. Now there's what I like to hear. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. thank god
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 04:45 AM by SpartanDem
our President isn't such a self righteous asshole. It's an honest mistake if the "offened" party could take it stride so should he. There are plenty of legititmate reasons to hate Roberts, this isn't one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. sure it is. hey, scotus? he should be impeached when he jay walks! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
25. Not the point
We're talking about a man who decides the law of the land. A LIFETIME appointment. He had one simple job - 35 words - and he screwed it up. I don't think impeachment is the answer but the Obama's and everyone who waiting so long for yesterday deserve a very public apology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
verges Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #25
48. Simple?
Believe it or not, speaking prepared lines in front of a live audience of 2 million; and a televised audience of billions, is not so simple. Trained actor's drop or muff lines all the time. It goes with the job. Pressure makes it worse. And I'm willing to bet that he felt a wee bit of pressure yesterday morning. Cut him some slack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #48
92. How long has he been Chief?
A couple of years at least. He knew there was an election coming and a man that bright should have just practiced. He also could have written it down. I know it's a small, picyune thing but it was a distraction that was not necessary or needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #92
169. My theory: He practiced the words, but did not practice pausing
for Obama to speak. He had all the words memorized but did not have the pauses memorized. It's as if a pianist trying to memorize a sonata practiced all the notes but left out all the rests. It would be difficult for the pianist to remember what was next if he suddenly had to start inserting the rests. He could probably do it if he had the notes in front of him, but only if he had the notes in front of him. Even then it would be difficult.

I think this, because Roberts was starting to run the whole thing together. He said, "I, Barack Obama do solemnly swear" and finally took a breath to let Obama speak. Obama started to repeat the words "I, Barack Obama." Obama was parsing the sentence in the normal rhythm that is used in repeating the oath.

Roberts tripped up because he sort of lost the rhythm of the language of the oath.

Roberts lost the beat, so to speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #169
174. Great way of putting it (lost the beat)
I can't help the nagging feeling that if mccain had been up there, this wouldn't have happened. I think roberts couldn't let it go that President Obama did not vote to confirm him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stlsaxman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #48
131. He should have had the oath on paper in his hands- this is unforgivable.
Roberts wanted to be a hot shit and he blew it.

No slack. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #48
145. speaking prepared lines in front of a live audience of 2 million;
Uh....he's not Joe the Plumber, y'know. He is a judge, after all. He should have no problem reading something familiar in public.

But let it go. Obama became president at noon on Tues. oath or no oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:34 AM
Response to Original message
4. Obama does not need to take the Oath again, Craig should try reading the Constitution before
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 04:34 AM by MiltonF
he has another dumbass attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
19. Ding ding
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 06:49 AM by malaise
Perhaps he just wanted to find a way to spread the official 'right wing' talking point re the legality of the inauguration.

I found it hilarious that President Obama paused and made the Chief Justice correct himself. The CJ simply exposed himself as one more Bush incompetent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. And the nice little smile on the president's face as he waited nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dothemath Donating Member (221 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #27
126. smiles all around ..........
Pardon my language, but that is known as a 'bitch slap'.
And Roberts smiled back. Everything is copacetic.

My work is done here. Time to move on, people - right after
Scalia is impeached and jailed, along with Hannity and Rush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madamesilverspurs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #19
45. Roberts was choking
on the reality that all the hard work he had done engineering the Florida 2000 debacle, work for which he was handsomely recompensed, might come around to bite him in the ass. Had it not been for John Roberts and his minions, we wouldn't have had W. Some of us would simply love to see him busted for election fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INDIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #45
75. Roberts wasn't on the SC until 2005. But I'm sure you knew that.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madamesilverspurs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. I didn't imply otherwise.
Roberts 'drove the train,' so to speak, behind all the media drama associated with events in Florida in 2000. Among other things, he assembled the so-called 'outraged Florida voters' who famously screamed and hollered and pounded on doors objecting to the ballot recount. When the position of Chief Justice became available upon Rhenquist's death, THEN Roberts was rewarded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #77
88. I don't remember Roberts doing anything in 2000 wasn't he in private practice? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unapatriciated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #88
125. he might be referring to this..
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21florida.ht...
Nominee Gave Quiet Advice on Recount
By ABBY GOODNOUGH
Published: July 21, 2005
MIAMI, July 20 - John G. Roberts advised Gov. Jeb Bush during Florida's presidential recount in 2000, even traveling to Tallahassee from Washington to help him navigate those frenzied 36 days.
But neither Governor Bush nor other Republicans involved in the recount would say on Wednesday just what advice Judge Roberts, then a lawyer at Hogan & Hartson in Washington, shared.
Governor Bush at first kept a low profile in Florida's election dispute, recusing himself from the board responsible for certifying the vote. But he later emerged as a significant player, announcing that he would support special legislation intended to award Florida's electoral votes to his brother George W. Bush.

or this...
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/21/nation/na-recou...
Confirmation Path May Run Through Florida
By Peter Wallsten
July 21, 2005 in print edition A-22
As the 2000 presidential recount battle raged in Florida, a Washington lawyer named John G. Roberts Jr. traveled to Tallahassee, the state capital, to dispense legal advice.

He operated in the shadows at least some of those 37 days, never signing a legal brief and rarely making an appearance at the makeshift headquarters for George W. Bushs legal team.

But now Roberts has been selected for the very Supreme Court that put Bush into office by settling the recount, chosen by the president to replace the swing vote in that 5-4 decision. And his work in Florida during that time is coming into focus, giving critics some ammunition to paint a respected jurist with an apparently unblemished legal career as an ideological partisan.

Republican lawyers who worked on the recount said Wednesday that Roberts advised Gov. Jeb Bush on the role that the governor and the Florida Legislature might play in the recount battle. At the time, when GOP officials feared that Democrat Al Gore might win a recount battle in court, Republican state lawmakers were devising a plan to use their constitutional power to assign the states electoral votes to George W. Bush a proposal criticized by Democrats.

Responding to questions Wednesday about Roberts role in Florida, a spokesman for Gov. Bushs office said that Roberts had been recommended to the governor, although the spokesman gave no further specifics, and that the two had not known each other until the recount. Miami trial lawyer Dean Colson, who met Roberts when both were law clerks for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and who was best man at Roberts wedding, is also close personally with Gov. Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INDIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #77
115. He was managing partner at a major law firm.
How did he "drive the train"? As far as I know, he had nothing to do with the 2000 election.

LINK????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #115
120. You asked for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
INDIA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #120
151. Damn. I apologize for my snark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clear Blue Sky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #45
129. Roberts worked for some law firm in 2000. Don't think he had much to do with the recount.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
20. +1
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
28. You might want to read it yourself. The office transmits at noon. But before Obama can do anything.
He must take the oath. The office of President is separate from the person that occupies it. Many news agencies were erroneously reporting that Obama was President at noon even though he had not been sworn it yet. That is plain wrong. At noon the office of President passed from Bush to Obama. Obamas' term had begun. But he's not officially President until he takes the oath. At noon Obama had the office of President with a four year lease on it. But he can't do a damned thing with that office until he swears the oath to officially become President. I'm sorry but the Oath of the President is not a ceremonial standard line of bull shit that doesn't really mean anything and can be surreptitiously dispensed with. The 20th Amendment gives Obama the office and the term at noon. But it's Article II section 1 that gives Obama the Presidency with the swearing of the oath. On January 20th at noon after swearing the oath we have a President occupying the Office of President for four years. If Obama had taken the oath at 8:00 am. We would have a President awaiting his office and term that would transmit at noon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. To think Roberts went through his confirmation hearing without using any notes.
Maybe the oath isn't enough information for his expansive memory to retain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #28
54. Article II Section 1 of the Constitution states only the President has to say the Oath.
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 12:20 PM by MiltonF
Roberts could have said anything he wanted, he could have recited his ABC's would not have changed anything as long as Obama said the Oath correctly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #54
81. Yes but the interpretation of the 20th infers the oath is somewhat optional.
That it's January 20th at noon that makes you the President. Not swearing the oath. That's simply untrue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #81
89. The oath is required but it is only required to be said by the President. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #89
118. I agree with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uberllama42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #89
132. Nina Totenberg of NPR says that several presidents
have not said the oath but merely had it read to them and said "I do."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99...

I think all reasonable people can agree that the exact wording is not important as long as a good faith effort has been made to obey the Constitution. I really don't think the ghost of George Washington is going to come down and smite us all for a trifling error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #28
170. The actual language of Article I, Section 1[8] is
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation . . . ."

The Twentieth Amendment, Section 1 states
"The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, . . . .

Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment states in relevant part
"If the President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a president shall have qualified; an the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, . . . . until a president or Vice president shall have qualified."

The qualifications for the president are, according to Article I, Section 1 <5>
"No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President, neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment states
"No person shall . . . hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Sounds to me like, provided the the president-elect is qualified (and Obama is), he becomes the president at noon on January 20th, but that he is supposed to wait to begin working until he has taken the oath of office.

Strangely enough, it appears that, whether he or she has taken the oath or not, the vice president-elect begins his official duties, including acting as president when necessary, at noon on January 20th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
86. +1. The stupidity is staggering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
104. Obama took the oath in front of 2 million onsite witnesses - that's good enough for me- I was there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
147. Article II Section 1
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.ar...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. You are correct and from Article II Section 1 only Obama needs to say that not Roberts. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sohndrsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #149
165. And Obama didn't say it verbatim, apparently, which is the reason for the re-do.
I don't get the whole attack on Roberts, personally, even if I don't like his political ideology or views.

I don't know where in the Constitution it says that the oath has to be said without any gaffes, as long as it is said, with the appropriate words and the relevant, legal formality. Obama misplaced one word, as far as I can tell... and the Constitution does say that he did become president at noon on January 20, but has to take the oath as well. It doesn't state that when that happens or how - does it? I didn't see a reference to all these specifics, but that doesn't mean they're not there. If they aren't there, then they aren't Constitutionally required in a specific way unless it specifically says so...

This is so strange.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:40 AM
Response to Original message
5. oh jeesus lighten up.
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 04:41 AM by Radical Activist
maybe we can impeach the next one for having bad table manners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. I admire your handle. But I was wondering...
what makes you radical?

I've noted some of your posts. They seem pretty 'vanilla' to me. Is it 'irony'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:59 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Do you think that because
I support Obama and don't repeat the standard lines about how the two parties are the same etc?

I consider myself a radical in the labor, community organizing, Alinksy, Chavez, Gandhi, Thomas Paine tradition. I'm very liberal from an issue standpoint. I don't think being radical or progressive means one has to lie, exaggerate and be full of shit when attacking Obama like a number of people on DU seem to believe (and no I'm not directing that comment at you).

I think cynicism and negativity are destructive cancers on the progressive movement and because of that you're not the first person to suggest I'm not radical. I simply take a different approach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. "...standard lines"... "lie, exaggerate and (be) full of shit when attacking Obama..."
Strange.

You seem to be what people mean when they talk of 'fans'.

Ever read any of the writings of Che Guevara, your avatar?

He talked about the 'new man', the 'socialist man'. About 180 degrees away from Obama & his 'fans' as far as I can tell.

Serious politics. Not endorsements from shopping fetishists like Oprah.

But, it's a good day, the future awaits, let's go. Everyday's historic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. He got his avatar at "hot topic". nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
60. read my response below.
Of course Obama will never push for a socialist revolution like Che did. But it's striking how much they speak about the same principles/values, but with differing views of how fully those goals can be accomplished within the American system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #60
84. ""I believe in the Free Market. I believe in Capitalism. I believe in Free Trade." - B. Obama
Some socialist. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. Pretty lame response.
Yeah, Obama isn't a socialist. That doesn't refute anything I wrote in post 58.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Che and Obama are very similar (if you ignore the fact that their views are diametrically opposed)
And *I* am the one who's lame? :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #14
40. "Everyday's historic"
How profound.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
58. Yeah, cause Che never encouraged people to serve others,
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 12:44 PM by Radical Activist
be involved in the community, promote education, sacrifice, or take collective action for the advancement of society like Obama does. :eyes:
Have you even heard any of Obama's speeches?

I know Che would take time out from his duties of government to do manual labor and serve others directly as an example of the new socialist man. Did you notice Obama do the same on Monday? Have you noticed that community service is a major theme of his campaign? It was part of his standard stump speech.

Didn't you hear Obama criticize Bush's call to go shopping after 9/11 and say that what America needs is a call to service and sacrifice? Given that, your line about Oprah is ironic. I suspect Obama agrees with you.

Che wrote that the new socialist man must constantly strive to educate himself and said society must become one big school.

Obama speaks about education frequently, and more than past Presidents, he speaks about continuing adult education programs and lifelong learning. Obama said: "When Im president, Ill set a different national mood on education by using the bully pulpit of the presidency to push Americans of all ages to pursue not just basic education, but educational excellence. We need a country that doesnt stigmatize education; we need a country that encourages it whether were black or brown, native or foreign born, child or adult."
http://www.litpresident.org/barackobama.html

Che wrote:
"People in our country know that the glorious period in which they happen to live is one of sacrifice; they are familiar with sacrifice. The first ones came to know it in the Sierra Maestra and wherever they fought; later, everyone in Cuba came to know it. Cuba is the vanguard of America and must make sacrifices because it occupies the post of advance guard, because it shows the masses of Latin America the road to full freedom."

Obama made those exact points about America in his inaugural speech. He said this will be a challenging time of sacrifice and that the U.S. needs to be an example and advocate for freedom around the world.

So the question is whether you've never read what Che wrote about the new man or if you've never actually listened to Obama?

Oddly enough, when I wrote about Obama's neighborhood change meetings recently and why I think they're significant, someone else compared them to the town meetings and local councils in Cuba. I guess that wasn't you. Obama is the first President, at least in modern history, to keep his campaign organization running and use it to mobilize individuals for community action, to develop policy direction and advance the goals of his platform.

I could go on with other strikingly similar examples. But you'll probably laugh it off anyway. No Democratic President can be an agent for dramatic change, right? That's what most Greens, Marxists and the radical left have been saying over and over again for decades so it MUST be true.
No reason to do a fresh evaluation of Obama when we can just keep operating based on old assumptions. Is that your view?

Obama ran a campaign based on community organizing principles and used community organizing themes throughout. He's doing what many on the left have said should be done to build the movement but too many are blinded by their cynicism to see what's happening. Obama doesn't jump up and down to scream at you about how liberal he is like Nader and Kucinich do. You have to look beyond speeches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
64. Here's the exchange I wrote about
that partly explains why I think a push for radical change will be aided by Obama's election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

If Obama does nothing but create an environment where people's movements are encouraged to grow then this country will change dramatically in the next 4-8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #64
123. question
Are you saying that a Democratic party administration, and this one in particular, will create a favorable environment for organizing Labor and the political Left?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #123
137. Absolutely.
He supports the Employee Free Choice Act. He constantly talks about change coming from the people, from the bottom up, aka mass people's movements.
Creating that environment for labor and the left will probably be the most important thing Obama does.

You do know that Obama once worked for a left-wing group that was covertly monitored by the Mayor of Chicago at one time, don't you? I suspect that will influence his attitude about doing the same to other groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #137
138. thanks
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 08:29 PM by Two Americas
I think you could be right. If all Obama ever did were that and increase participation and interest in politics, those would make his administration a success.

Do you see this as the most important thing about the new administration? Do you think people are discounting this? Do you think some of the dissidents are somehow working against this? Trying to understand your contrariness around here, not argue with you. (We can do that later lol.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #138
177. It could be
Edited on Thu Jan-22-09 03:37 PM by Radical Activist
the most important thing in much the same way that the CIO organizing drive probably had more lasting significance than any of FDR's New Deal programs. And of course many of the 50's civil rights movement leaders participated in the 30's/40's labor movement or were trained by those labor organizers, and many civil rights leaders helped organize the 60's/70's peace movement and so on.

My pet peeve lately, that you probably see me being contrary about, is my view that negative cynicism is the antidote to hope and is one of the biggest barriers to creating a mass popular movement. I understand that people often have good intentions when making negative or cynical statements about the possibility for change with Obama and Democrats generally, but more often than not the practical effect of those cynical arguments is people giving up hope and doing nothing. Cynicism and hopelessness is a central reason why at least 40% of the public still doesn't vote. Instead of motivating people to take additional action outside of the Democratic Party, which is often the intent, it leads to people doing nothing at all.

There's a reason right wing talk radio hosts constantly push cynical attitudes about politics and point out that "both parties do it" whenever there's a scandal. They know that people who are cynical about the political process become disengaged. I understand why conservatives want an immobile public but it doesn't make sense for the left.

There's a fine line between healthy skepticism and unhealthy cynicism. I'd rather see a skeptical yet constructive essay about how we can prevent a repeat of Bill Clinton's move the the right instead of a fatalistic prediction that it's sure to happen again under Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
7. Roberts is a buffoon
and I don't know if he is so inept or just afraid or maliciously sabotaging an otherwise perfect event...regardless, Obama knew the words even if Roberts didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Apparently he tried to do it from memory and screwed it up.
Typically Republican. He brought it on himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. I think standing in front of millions of people scared the shit out of him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. As I recall, Obama voted against his appointment to the SCOTUS
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 07:57 AM by whathehell
..so swearing him in as President might have really bit his ass!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #15
44. With his bald spot recorded for all of history....
....you KNOW how Republican vanity is, right? :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #44
70. I DID notice that! :D
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 02:01 PM by BrklynLiberal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
59. Well, there's that. /nt
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
47. so, i wasn't the only one who thought it might have been on purpose.
i also thought cheney's bad back was a ruse not to stand for the ceremony. nobody's back is that bad (nobody who doesn't have to be in bed) that they can't stand briefly, at least (i'll bet he was standing up to pee, right?). anyone who respected the import of the ceremony would have stood no matter what.

another thing. i noticed biden's oath specified defending the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic but obama's didn't. anyone know what's up with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oak2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #47
51. I beg to differ on that
while I sit in my wheelchair, having just finished swallowing the morphine I've taken every day for nearly a decade for a severe back problem (granted a fairly exotic one) which allows me to stand for time periods measured in seconds, not minutes.

That said, I don't like having to "share" my "status" with Cheney, even briefly. When they announced that Cheney would be using a chair as a consequence of a back injury, I wanted to perform an exorcism on the world's wheelchairs, to protect such liberating devices from Cheney's corrupting influence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #51
176. i didn't mean to offend, but i think it is safe to say....
...cheney's back problem was not "exotic". it would be interesting to see how quickly he is up and around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:52 AM
Response to Original message
9. In the spirit of reconciliation, I think we should just offer to send the five SCOTUS conservatives
on a two or three week hunting vacation with Cheney
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. How About 2 or 3 Years?
The less they're in D.C., the less damage they can do.
GAC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
22. "Unforgivable error"?
Getting some words out of order at a ceremonial gathering? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
23. It was a huge event and he flubbed up, but I don't think it's that big of a deal
I think of it like when people screw up their vows when getting married. It was a huge event for him to be a part of. I don't think it was on purpose and I don't think it affects his abilities or is indicative of his abilities on the SCOTUS. Not a big deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
26. Roberts is a good judge. He was an ideological choice, to be sure, but who wouldn't have been?
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 08:12 AM by Romulox
Certainly he is the most intelligent conservative on the bench, and by no means as odious as Scalia.

That said, I profoundly disagree with on many issues. Bush was going to select a conservative one way or the other, so at least its not another Thomas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #26
36. You really think Roberts is a good judge?
Really? Really really?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #36
83. Yes I do. A Supreme Court Justices' job is to argue for his own ideological position.
That's what they all do, and Roberts is good at it. He's no second-rate intellect like Thomas or Kennedy, that's for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bette Noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #83
122. The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution
to define the law of the land. I don't recall hearing anything about "ideological position."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #122
179. If you don't think that SCOTUS Justices decide cases based on ideology...
I have a book on "textualism" signed by Anton Scalia I'd like send to you. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Saboburns Donating Member (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
29. Am I missing a sarcasm tag??
Are there really some people who think that the Chief Justice of the US supreme Court should be impeached because of a minor flub in giving the POTUS his oath of office??

Because if so, then these people are part of the problem.

The height of partisanship foolishness.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
31. Teh stupid is still burning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iwillnevergiveup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
32. It was reported later on MSNBC
that Roberts did apologize to Barack. That's good enough for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rvablue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #32
66. I was watching the video of the luncheon on C-SPAN last night
and when Obama came in and shook Roberts hand I could have sworn that Roberts said, "Sorry about that" and Obama responded, "Don't worry about it." and patted him on the arm.

Could have been power of suggestion but this is what it looked like to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
33. Heckuva Job Johnny...
We might need to start drug testing those fuckers in Washington who have a job that other people's lives depend upon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newtothegame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
34. Wow
A dwindling economy, GBLT's losing their rights as humans and an unnecessary war, and our resources will go to...impeacing an official for bumbling a speech? Wow, change has come...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olegramps Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
35. I am totally opposed to Supreme Court Justices being appointed for life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nye Bevan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
37. My wife flubbed a line of our marriage vows at the altar.
Should I get a divorce?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. Of course not. You were never married in the first place, according to these geniuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #37
57. I would consult Freud
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
38. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
41. This is the kind of crap I hope Obama can put an end to
I can't believe I, who is not a fan of Roberts, feel like I have to defend him. He was obviously nervous and made a HUMAN mistake. Obama didn't seem pissed at him and actually seemed to sympathize. I would hope people start following Obama's example and quit making up shit where it doesn't exist.

Impeached? Yep, he should be impeached right along with Thomas and Scalia - but not because he messed up the oath.

Let's move on - there are far more pressing issues to concentrate on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
43. I am absolutely certain
That Chief Justice Hillary Clinton will not do that in 2013.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
46. and yet he has no problem with Bush...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
49. Train is leaving the station
Get your ass on board and lets get rid of Roberts!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
50. Drama queen much?
OMGzzz, a few words were mangled, its the end of the world!!1!

he shouldn't just be impeached, he should be waterboarded and then tarred and feathered!!!1!1!1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. Heh
Well, if you ever found yourself in front of the jerk on some likely trumped up charge, you'd damn sure want him to follow the letter of the law, wouldn't you?

Or would you be all drama queen like?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stumblnrose Donating Member (405 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #53
163. Hey I thought Roberts was the drama queen
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nytemare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #50
150. Now, I do think Bush should have been impeached for not saying "nuclear" correctly.
He had a childish determination not to pronounce the word right. Given that the nuclear football followed him around, it showed a contempt toward his power and responsibility not even to attempt to pronounce it right. It really isn't that hard. New. Clear. Newclear. Newclear. Nuclear.

It got to where I heard it mispronounced for so long, when it was pronounced correctly it sounded weird.

That being said, Roberts fucked up the oath, he apologized. Time to move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
52. This pretty much sums it up


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
55. He should be fired anyway becuase Bush was not our legally elcted pres when he appointed
Roberts, therefore Roberts should be replaced....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
56. One Of The Most Stupid Things I've Ever Seen In All The YEars Of DU.
Calling for impeachment over such a ridiculous thing shows an absolute cause of concern over the sanity of the person making the call.

Some people are just out of their damn minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asksam Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. I dont think he should be impeached because he screwed up the oath.
I think he should be impeached because he's a Rethug corporate tool who wouldn't know what Justice is if it bit him on the behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laststeamtrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #56
67. That tears it. I believe you know stupid when you see it. Avoid mirrors. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Why, You Standin Behind Me?
But yes, I know stupid when I see it. All intellectuals do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #68
90. So, you agree
Roberts is stupid, right?

And you like stupid as the CJ of the SCOTUS? That makes you all warm and fuzzy?
No, of course not.

So what is stupid, right here and now, is for you to object to anyone who wants him impeached.

Really, how far up their butts can one be before their mind has to have an operation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. Calling For Impeachment Due To The Innocent Stumbing Of Yesterday Is One Of The Damn Dumbest Things
I've ever seen called for on here; and that says quite a lot. It's embarrassing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. Actually you are wrong
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 05:11 PM by BeFree
One: you don't know it was innocent. It may have been planned to make Obama look bad.

And two: it looks like you like Roberts where he is.
Of course, you don't, you'd like to see him gone, like any sane person does.
But it looks like you like him by foaming at the mouth like you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #96
101. Actually, No Part Of What I Said Was Wrong. You Look Really Silly.
And yes, I do know it was innocent. To think otherwise would show one to be mentally unstable and irrational, to be honest. Furthermore, to say it looks like I like him merely for stating the obvious that calling for his impeachment over yesterday is beyond insane and irrational, is quite asinine.

Sometimes common sense and logic is more than enough to draw accurate conclusions. Get a grip. For real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #101
103. You do?
You KNOW it was innocent?

Gawd, I'd hate that you were ever to sit on a jury... because with a mind like yours, there'd be little chance for justice.

To imagine that Roberts would try to trip up Obama is not in any way a sign of mental problems.
But to say you know he wouldn't ever do such a thing IS a sign of mental problems.

MIND CRIME fits you well. Please, don't change your mane. It is perfect for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #103
106. Guarantee You:
If such a ridiculous case ever came before a court, a jury for a trial wouldn't even be a factor, since the insane accusation would be laughed out of court by either a prosecutor, judge or grand jury tasked with an indictment long before a trial ever occurred.

Yes, it was innocent. Yes, to think otherwise is a sign of some mental issues of knee jerking and irrationality. Yes, you look quite silly with your steadfastness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #106
109. Heh
It may not have been innocent. It may have been planned. They do that kind of stuff, remember?

To recap: You look like you want Roberts to stay. And you haven't disclaimed that possibility, not at all. You continue to claim that anyone suspecting Roberts would do what he did intentionally is mentally impaired. And YOU foamed at the mouth. You lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #109
116. ROFLMAO!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You are too damn funny!

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. Thanks for keeping this kicked
People need to get the idea in their heads that it is possible to get rid of Roberts.
And when they see your arguments, they'll be even more convinced.

Been ok discussing this with you, but really, you look awful.
Shame that you ruin your good name this way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #117
119. ...
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #109
161. Are you seriously suggesting that because he doesn't
believe Roberts should be tarred and feathered and horsewhipped and run out of town and impeached for what was more likely to have been arrogant overconfidence and underpreparation than a deliberate occurrence that that therefore means he likes and agrees with Roberts? Seriously? So anyone who doesn't totally agree with you 100 percent is some kind of fascist enabler or some such complete and utter bullshit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grace0418 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #103
167. Even if it wasn't innocent, it doesn't warrant impeachment. I'd like to see the guy
gone as much as any progressive does. But I'd like to see him gone for reasonable cause, not for messing up a ceremony, even purposefully (which I don't think it was).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #96
111. Even if it was intentional...it does NOT matter...
Obama was president at noon whether he took the oath or not. He could have flipped Roberts the bird rather than hold his hand up and give an oath. He still would have been the president.

This is really idiotic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
63. I wish that Roberts would be removed from office, but Obama is the legal president
and doesn't need to have the oath done again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
65. Justice Roberts has had at least 2 'seizures'
That, in my mind is more important than bungling the words... although many have 'micro seizures', perhaps he had one at that moment?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-07-31-Roberts_...

<snip> Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday morning walked out of a Maine hospital, where he stayed overnight after suffering a seizure while on vacation.


Roberts' seizure history was no secret to Congress or the White House. Snow said that when Roberts was being considered for the Supreme Court leadership post, he was very open about an unexplained seizure he'd had in 1993.

Most physicians would elect to put someone with Roberts' medical history on medication. But the long interval between his seizures could be used to make a case against taking drugs, said Paul Garcia, an expert on seizures and epilepsy at the University of California, San Francisco. <snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toymachines Donating Member (782 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
69. He's a dumbass
Let us rejoice that another like him will not be put on our Supreme Court. Unfortunately we have this doofus as the chief justice...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
71. I like Craig Crawford. I always enjoy him on Countdown...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dukkha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
72. If we can impeach for Grammar, * would have been gone in 2001
I guess now he is gone some are desperately looking for someone else to impeach. Just need to alter their stacks of protest signs.

what a waste of poutrage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuckinthebush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
73. What the...?
That's just a big old bucket of dumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
74. There might be reasons to impeach John Roberts, but this isn't one of them...

This is just a slip up and likely and honest mistake, and even if it wasn't, it wasn't something we could prove, and the consequences shouldn't be that great.

I for one don't want to see the bar for impeachment to be set too low for something like this, as it will cheapen the process and give fuel to those who resist wanting to impeach this past president fearing it would be a "political stunt". Impeaching John Roberts for this WOULD BE a political stunt, and is something we should all resist, so that we can keep alive the processes of accountability that SHOULD protect us from despotism!

Now if there were questions on for example why Sibel Edmonds wasn't being heard in her appeal because there was an effort that can be proven that showed certain justices wanted to facilitate a coverup by the administration, THAT would be impeachable in my book for members of the SCOTUS. Those sorts of investigations should be happening soon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
76. he should be impeached for helping Shrub steal Florida
why a guy with THAT conflict of interest got in is--well, I guess it's pretty obvious when you think about it. But evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
78. ensure legality? He was President yesterday noon Eastern time regardless of whether he'd taken the
oath or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
79. Of all the ignorant, silly, ludicrous and jackass junior highish shit to show up, this is tops.
Seriously.

For fuck's sake, man, let it go. You look like an idiot supporting idiocy like this.

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #79
91. Well
You look like an idiot supporting the top judge of the US who can't even read and remember the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. And I'm sure that never, in the entirety of your lifetime, have you made a mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. One
I'm not the chief judge of the SCOTUS

And two: when I did, I made amends, and paid the price.

But you have a point, Roberts should not be impeached, he should resign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. Ah, then, no wonder you can position yourself on such a fucking assholish high horse
if you've only made one mistake in your life.

I hate to break the news to you, spanky, but the rest of humanity is far more fallible than you are, and so we need a little bit more mercy than being asked to resign for simply messing up a couple words.

Maybe in your world, in which everyone is so goddamned close to perfection, someone fucking up a couple words is such a heinous breach of that perfection that it makes sense to ask them to resign.

In the real world - the world in which the rest of us awful, imperfect, annoying pissants live, your suggestion is ludicrously immature, childish, and assholish.

Seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. Easy sport
Now you are foaming at the mouth. And it really makes you look bad.

What is your problem? You don't want him out of office, just say so. No use foaming, sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. I'd love to see him gone. But not for some ludicrously childish reason of fucking up a few words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. Well
That's how politics and justice sometimes works. They make a stupid mistake and it becomes the lever which topples them.

If you really want him gone, get on the correct side of the lever. Really, I can't believe I have to tell you that. At least you quit foaming, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. If you think impeaching someone for a simple mistake that we all make, you're the foamer.
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 05:56 PM by Rabrrrrrr
Seriously.

But then, I'm not surprised that someone who feels the need to use the word "foamer" constantly because he apparently thinks it's a rhetorical nuclear bomb granting an automatic "WIN!!!" would also want to fire someone for fucking up a couple words.

Do you have any other ludicrous ideas to share? Send Cheney to the Hague because he forgot a collar stay in his shirt? Have Rev. Lowery executed because he didn't stand up straight for the Benediction? Perhaps we could firebomb Philadelphia for failing to fill a pothole? Maybe we can establish a whole new BeFree Homeland Oratory Police(tm) who go to sound stages in Hollywood and blow the brains out of any actor that flubs a line? That would be fucking hilarious!!

:eyes:

Jesus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #107
112. Back to the foam, eh? Crazy.
Al Capone was convicted of a simple crime, remember?
And how many crooks went down when caught for a traffic violation?

Clinton was impeached for a blow job.
Need I go on?

The guy's job is to know the constitution inside and out, up and down.
And he's an asshole.

You are right on one point: he should not be impeached.

He should resign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #112
114. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #112
140. The charge against Clinton was perjury
which is a felony. He was not impeached for having had oral sex. He was impeached because he lied about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fireweed247 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
80. As I recall he has no qualifications for the position
besides being young enough to push the Bush agenda for many years to come.

When we send Bush to the Hague, we get to take back all of his appointments right?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiranon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. He was highly qualified just did not care for his political views and lack of compassion
for those who are not of the privileged classes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
99. What Roberts did shows partisan attitude, which has no place on the Supreme Court
much less, as Chief Supreme Court Justice.

I think Roberts knew what he was doing & did it spitefully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
110. By those standards, no one should hold office when they bungle lines...
This is completely idiotic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sfam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
113. Agreed. We should fire anyone that EVER appears nervous. Off with his Head!!!
Gimme a break. Craig has gone off the deep end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blaze Diem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
121. Rec #56
dumb ass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
childslibrarian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
124. If he's like me in front of an adult crowd...
He froze. Give it a break. If they are not under 11, I flub it up. I am human. So is he.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AthiestLeader Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
128. It gave right talk shows something to talk about...
But little else
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
130. Troll extraordinaire? Yeah, that's the focus we want!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
134. I SO second this! He should be ashamed of himself!!! There is NO excuse.
If he's Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and he can't even get the Presidential Oath of Office straight? In PUBLIC? SURELY he had some time to review the oath or take it with him on a cheat-sheet to make sure he didn't blow the line. He ruined the soundbite - they had to edit out the middle of it. There's the historical record that is now screwed - big gouge taken out of it. RIDICULOUS!!! SHAMEFUL!!!!! He should RESIGN. And go hang his head in shame. Idiot fucker! No excuse. Lazy slacker. Couldn't brush up on it just for a minute while you're in the bathroom getting ready - even just that same morning? I would think he'd been practicing in front of the mirror 100 times a morning in between every pass of the toothbrush. For the Love of God. If roberts can't even get this assignment straight (and HOW MANY words? 34? 35?), I shudder to think how he leads the bench.

At this writing, I've just heard on TV that they did a second oath-taking just to make sure it was done impeccably correctly. Shit. Wha an embarrassment. Just ANOTHER nice little dividend from eight years of george fucking idiot bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
135. what a fucking joke
nothing like bullshit to distract people from actually having something important to spend their time on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NAO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
136. Activist Judge on Supreme Court Re-Writes Constitution (Roberts)
Well, this proves that Obama knows the Constitution better than Justice Roberts. WHen he saw Roberts trying to re-write it (as if it were some sort of "living document") he paused so Roberts could correct himself.

Then, Obama went on to say the oath in the activized/changed language of Roberts, as if to show his deference to the Supreme Court and the Rule of Law!

Justice Scalia must have had a fit of apoplexy - those words of Roberts were NOT the EXACT words the Founding Fathers used!!!!!

Overall, you could say it was a bad day for the "Strict Constructionists".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piewhacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
139. First Impeach Scalia. Then Thomas. Then Roberts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rep the dems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
141. Mark me down as 1 person to NOT recommend this thread.
Seriously guys, why would you want to waste time with this petty crap? Yes, Roberts screwed up, it was embarrassing, I would expect better from a Chief Justice but let's not lose our heads here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DallasNE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
142. That's Too Extreme
However it does point to Chief Justice John Roberts being a light-weight on the court. Somebody picked to be a political rubber stamp rather than an independent jurist loyal to the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
143. Roberts readministered oath a while ago at the White House in front of reporters.
Press release said it was done again "in an abundance of caution".
END
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
144. Whether Roberts re-administered the oath or not he blew it when it counted
Does he realize the gravity of the historic moment he ruined? What an idiot. He shouldn't be traffic court judge no less Chief Justice.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
146. Obama had to retake the oath of office due to this mashing by Roberts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fortyfeetunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
148. Not enough a big fish to fry, pardon the pun
If I read the news, correctly, Obama and CE Roberts repeated the oath today. It appears Obama was not the first President to repeat the oath, so I don't think this is an issue worth impeaching Roberts for. Let's wait for a REAL issue....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
152. First order of business.
Day One.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
153. Roberts is an asshat, but it's not an impeachable offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam kane Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
154. Tired of pretending this is "incompetence"
They have really worn out the old "they are just incompetent" excuse, from here on out I am giving all neocons full credit for their actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
156. What? Did he get a blow job? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeedleCast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
157. Beyond Stupid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
158. This is my 2 cents when it comes to Chief Justices of the Supreme Court
Whether we like it or not we're stuck with Roberts running the ship for the next 40+ years - he could feasibly be there that long. It's no suprise that Bush picked someone as young as Roberts instead of selecting an older Scalia or Thomas. Roberts is Bush's gift for the generations and will probably be running the Supreme Court long after Obama is out of office after serving his two terms.

I understand that Supreme Court is a lifetime position and I'm not looking to change that. But I think an incoming president should have some say in who he or she would want as the chief justice with the condition that the choice comes from one of the nine currently serving. No one would lose their job over this change simply the current president, regardless of choice, having some say in the matter of who should be running the Supreme Court.

Roberts was never a good choice for the Supreme Court let alone chief justice. His only qualifications was that he was young and therefore capable of holding on to that position for 30-40 years promoting the agenda of the worst person ever to be (s)elected as pResident.

This is simply unacceptable and a constitutional change should be considered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harry Monroe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #158
160. Actually, I don't think ANY President should have any say as to who the Chief Justice will be
And should not be able to nominate a judge for that position. I believe the Chief Justice should be chosen by the Justices themselves; a leader amongst themselves like the Pope in the College of Cardinals. And I think they should be required to do this every 4 years following the Inauguration of a President. It would depoliticize the whole process by keeping the President out of it, and thus strengthening the concept of "Checks and Balances" that is supposed to exist between the three branches of government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
159. Too bad the POTUS can't appoint another Associate as the CJ..
this says a lot about the competence of Roberts to presiding over the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
162. John Roberts, while I disagree with him most of the time, is an honest and brilliant justice.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
166. could we please prioritize?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BanTheGOP Donating Member (596 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:47 AM
Response to Original message
171. Have No Fear, People...
...In 2010, we will most likely pick up 9 or 10 new senators, which will take us up to at LEAST 68-69 democrats and independents who caucus democrat. That gives us a 2/3 majority to vote to impeach Robers, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito out of their position, giving Obama 4 positions to put in, as well as assign a NEW Chief Justice! That will ensure that WE control the judiciary for decades. If President Obama takes in my recommendation to fast track the nomination, with ensuing confirmation by the senate, we can put in 40 progressive judges at the federal appelate level, ensuring an orderly progressive transformation of the entire court system that will allow us to safe upgrade the constitution to meet modern day, non-theological tenets, and further insure that we integrate with the rest of the world in a more systematic, socialistic manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconicgnom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
173. How did this BS get on the front page?
How stupid must stupid be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
175. This is silly.
The guy screwed up. It's really not that big a deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
178. I think you're missing the point of it all...
Everyone should be laughing at this joke of a Chief Justice. And, what a good recovery BHO did, eh? And, hey, then we have a "re-do" of the oath of office making the next news cycle. All of this is good, and the SCOTUS could use some bleach in their gene pool.

I think everyone should see John Roberts for what he is.... less than up to the task. What a carrot stroker! The best I can say about JR is that he's not very impressive, and this is but one example. In time, this and other moments will speak volumes for the extreme right wing portion of checks and balances.

Now, take a breath and get on to the other tasks to fix this place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-22-09 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
180. That's just ridiculous. It's like the word "impeach" now sets off a Pavlovian "K&R" reaction here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC