So why can't Roberts be impeached

[notadmblnd]

it's clear he lied in his confirmation and his blatant going against 100 years of established law, with no precedent what so ever-

Isn't legislating from the bench an impeachable offense?

[FBaggins]

1. Three answers

So why can't Roberts be impeached

He can be. But you need to have the votes (and the votes to convict) and be willing to pay any consequences.

it's clear he lied in his confirmation

Not in any way that could possibly be criminal.

Isn't legislating from the bench an impeachable offense?

To republicans it should be. In reality? No.

[Dr.Phool]

15. He was under oath during the confirmation hearings.

That's perjury-a felony.

[Cronus Protagonist]

26. Correct

He committed a felony to get into the court, which already committed a felony in the 2000 election, so he was just joining a band of traitors anyway.

[crazylikafox]

30. Isn't lying under oath the excuse the Pubs used for impeaching Clinton?

Heaven forbid it was because he got a blow job. :sarcasm:

[Bitwit1234]

34. You expect this SENATE to even try to impeach Roberts ho ho

they won't even write or pass a bill with out republican permission. How could they impeach a judge.

[harkadog]

37. What were his exact words that constitute a felony?

Not what you think they were, what they actually were.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

39. He was asked for an opinion...

Ask any judge how he would rule and he'll tell you that it would depend on all the merits of the particular case. Roberts can simply claim that the attorneys for the plaintiff made a compelling case and that his ruling in Citizen's United represented his opinion based on the merits. A judge has every right (even an obligation) to change his thinking if presented with a compelling argument. That's not perjury.

[FBaggins]

41. So? It's only a perjury if he lied

You haven't demonstrated that he lied.

What's the false statement?

[Bitwit1234]

33. But you are forgetting....Kennedy wrote the opinion SO

Roberts can not be called for the opinion...

[brentspeak]

2. Some Democrats should at least make the attempt, even if it doomed to fail

Roberts and his fascist co-conspirators need to be exposed to the American people for what they are.

[cali]

4. try it and the the American people are much more likely to rise up in defense

of Roberts.

[cali]

3. because the Congress won't impeach him

and because "it's clear he lied in his confirmation" isn't grounds for impeachment.

this is just silly, silly stuff.

[notadmblnd]

6. then what would he have to do in order to be impeached?

[cali]

10. something like be payed off by a corporation

with the evidence on film and recorded. No SC justice has ever been impeached.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. What about Samuel Chase?

From Wikipedia:

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

[cali]

22. you're right. I should have said convicted.

[sarge43]

17. For the record. Associate Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in1804

for alleged partisan political decisions. It was overturned by the Senate in 1805. That's the only case.

[MilesColtrane]

23. delete

[MilesColtrane]

13. Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

Treason is defined as, levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

[struggle4progress]

29. Wrong branch: that's the standard for the Executive. The standard for the Judiciary

is "good behavior"

[PATRICK]

20. I think Scalia

has more than hinted, as have one or two others, to indulging in kinky sex unbecoming the moral standards of the office and propriety. Then there are money connections. Unfortunately, the least of the standards are in defense of the nation and its people in their rights and Constitution. The GOP pulled the trigger with Southern Dixiecrat help to call for impeaching Eisenhower's CJ Earl Warren over desegregation. A lot of huff and bluff to obscure the fallout. They easily wanted to intimidate if not impeach Florida's Supreme Court for not disenfranchising the vote and anointing Junior.

The power of the Nine against the unruly numbers of legislators was challenged maybe about once by stacking by FDR(knocked down by "outraged" legislator's) and by Bush's simpler stiffing of the entire institution the same as with anyone else in the irksome remnants of checks and balances. usually they couldn't be corporate enough to enable him and got no more rowdy than Blue Dog Dems over torture and legal abuses of detainees.

Untouchables, goofy, shameless, damaged goods, wrong decisions. I think we should go back to stacking the court until it and the legislature and the president start doing the job. Stack it and I assure you there will become a precedent for impeachment with the ultimate answer of electing the right Reps still the main issue.

[Gabi Hayes]

8. so lying under oath isn't grounds for impeachment?

tell it to Bill Clinton

you're right, of course, about him not going to be impeached, but not having the votes certainly didn't stop the pugs; his impeachment was the impetus for them, (along with the media) to slander Gore enough to allow Bush to steal the election ten years ago

[cali]

11. What were the lies? specifically?

that he said he'd be an fair umpire? that's just a vague statement of intent. it's not a lie about something he did or didn't do.

[Dr.Phool]

16. He claimed to have never heard of the Federalist Society.

When he was asked about his ties to it.

Before his confirmation, it was revealed that he had a leadership role in it.

[cali]

21. yep. that's a lie, but it would be rather difficult to

impeach him for that when they confirmed him knowing about it. And I don't know that you'll find too many lawyers who will say that that rises to an impeachable offense.

[harkadog]

38. Your memory is faulty.

He did not say he "never heard of the Federalist Society". He said he didn't remember being a member. Records showed that he had been listed as a member at some point but nothing to do with leadership. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201.html

[Joanne98]

5. Because the Democrats don't have any balls.

[Catshrink]

9. +1

[Canuckistanian]

7. There's the little matter of Congress

The House can introduce Impeachment proceedings, but only the Senate can prosecute.

And with only 59 members, the Senate is in no position to finish the job.

[blm]

12. I agree and made a similar post about investigating Roberts and his motives here, especially since

he specifically stated under oath that he would NOT act as he clearly did here.

Why shouldn't he be questioned and investigated on this?

[skepticscott]

18. Perjury has to be

an intentionally false statement about a material fact while under oath. Proving perjury regarding someone's statements about what they'd do in the future would be pretty much impossible, since you can't even show that Roberts knew for certain that he would have to decide such a case. It's a non-starter.

[cali]

24. +1. I love logic.

[notadmblnd]

27. Shumer wants hearings, it's not exactly impeachment, but it's a start

Schumer calls for hearings on SCOTUS decision
By Tony Romm and Michael O'Brien - 01/21/10 12:34 PM ET

The Supreme Court's ruling striking down limits on corporate and union spending in elections is "un-American," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Thursday.

Additionally, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a top Senate Democrat who formerly ran their campaign committee, said he would hold hearings on the decision in the coming weeks.

"I think it's an un-American decision," Van Hollen said at a press conference along side Schumer on Thursday. "I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today."

<snip>

The law, until this ruling, had subject corporations to special spending limits and disclosure rules that did not apply to individuals.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the sponsor of that 2002 law, has called for new legislation to address the court's ruling. Schumer said Thursday he'd hold hearings as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee.

"As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over these issues, I'm announcing that we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision within the next of couple of weeks," Schumer said.


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77293-...

[cali]

28. hearings are a great idea.

[blm]

43. that's all we're saying....where it leads...we'll see. But serious questions MUST be asked.

BTW....Clinton's pardon of Rich generated hearings, yet he had the ABSOLUTE power to do it. ABSOLUTE power doesn't mean anything anymore to Republicans, does it?

If there was ever a time for Democrats to stand against an 'absolute power' like a court ruling, this is the time.

[Marr]

35. Hilarious.

He can do his little hearing and mug for the camera. The time to do something was when these corporate lackey's were being nominated. Schumer was more interested in 'keeping his powder dry' back then.

[blm]

42. Shouldn't stop the questioning. Clinton's lie wasn't material to the case, but, GOP moved forward

anyway.

Roberts lie IS material to his actions in this case and at the very least should be questioned.

[skepticscott]

45. The fact remains

that in order to prove perjury, you must show that the person knew that what they were saying was untrue, and that would be pretty much impossible in this case (as opposed to Clinton's, where it was a slam dunk). Not that I think that Roberts was being scrupulously honest in his confirmation hearing, but that still falls short of perjury. Despite the oath, "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" is not the legal standard. This kind of inquiry would ultimately go nowhere, and expend political capital that the Dems really don't have to spare right now, over an issue that the public doesn't care about.

And in any case, would you really want to open that can of worms? Would you like to see Congressional Republicans calling for the questioning or impeachment of any justice nominated by a Democrat who ever decided a case in a way not perfectly consistent with their confirmation testimony?

[blm]

47. The public doesn't CARE about? That's your standard? Clinton's lie wasn't material to the case

at hand, yet the GOP ran with it knowing they could use it for years on end to control the debate on other issues. And they did.

Roberts said emphatically that he would not do what he did, and did so in a DELIBERATE and RUSHED way.

[skepticscott]

51. No, the public doesn't care

about what a Supreme Court Justice said during his confirmation hearings or whether it conforms to a vote he just made on a case that most of them won't even have paid attention to. The percentage of the public that even knows who John Roberts IS won't even get above single digits. Call it bad luck, but the Clinton case involved someone far better known and hinged on something sordid and sleazy that the public just ate up.

If Roberts had actually committed perjury, then no, it wouldn't matter if the public cared, but it's highly questionable whether he did, and even more questionable whether a case could be proved. Lacking the possibility of impeachment, the only other reason to pursue this would be to make the Democrats look tough and gain some political capital, and that's not going to happen either. Even if Congress didn't have far more important things to worry about, this would be seen as nothing more than political grandstanding.

[defendandprotect]

19. Good question . . . since corporatism is widely understood as FASCISM . . !!!

[hack89]

25. How did he lie? What specifically did he promise? nt

[Gregorian]

31. After having a long discussion with an older more patient person today

I have realized that Roberts is with us, and all we can really expect is to have Obama appoint another justice to the court. Roberts is just one little man, and when we have more votes, he won't even count.

I guess that's the reality of the situation. Because anything more dramatic isn't going to be happening.

[struggle4progress]

32. The real issue is the independence of the Court. For the Court to have any value

in our system of government, it must be insulated somewhat from political forces. If ever a Justice be impeached on account of a ruling, the Court will always after be captive to the political whims of Congress

This decision, like Bush v Gore before it, calls into disrepute the objectivity and impartiality of the Justices, which I consider in breech of their constitutional duty to "good behavior" -- but we have less dangerous remedies available than impeachment, which must be tried first

[inna]

36. links/pointers, anyone?? i missed this enire thing completely.

[timeforpeace]

40. Really? Haiti, Brown, HCR death, AGW, and Afghanistan are all non-issues now. Weird.

[iceman66]

44. There isn't the political will to do it.

Bastard should have been fillibustered in the first place, just like they did with Bork in the '80's.

It was obvious to anyone that gave a damn that he was lying in the confirmation hearings.

[anonymous171]

46. Regardless of the veracity of those accusations, he should still be impeached.

We need to bring the SC down a notch. I don't care how we do it.

[City Lights]

48. Can't or won't? nt

[WinkyDink]

49. Because there aren't enough vertebrates in Congress? Just a guess.

[fascisthunter]

50. Roberts is a Perfect Example of Why Fanatics

should never work in government. It's no mystery as to why this findi nutbag is a fascist. Both are extremes that are adverse to any democracy. They don't believe in equality, tolerance or freedom.

[valerief]

52. Roberts isn't a fanatic. He's an errand boy for big money like the other 4 justices who

voted against Americans.

He just plays a fanatic on teevee.