Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-ORE)...Raising prospect of impeaching SC Roberts

[monmouth]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/peter-defazio-...

With Democrats increasingly outraged over the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision that allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections -- a change conservatives have been more successful at taking advantage of -- a Democratic congressman is raising the prospect of impeaching the Supreme Court's chief justice over the issue.

"I mean, the Supreme Court has done a tremendous disservice to the United States of America," Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign. They've opened the floodgates, and personally, I'm investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts for perjuring during his Senate hearings, where he said he wouldn't be a judicial activist, and he wouldn't overturn precedents."

Link for complete article:

[Taverner]

1. YES!

[arthritisR_US]

2. +1! n/t

[NightWatcher]

3. and Big Tony and Clarence for their Koch ties???

[OutNow]

4. That's My Congressman

Good idea Pete.

[jannyk]

10. Mine too!

we're over in Florence - howdy neighbor.

[sabrina 1]

5. I love Fazio, he's another good progressive Dem.

[Gaedel]

6. Does Fazio have two-thirds of the Senate on his side? nt

[gratuitous]

7. Well, we could see what evidence an investigation develops

By that time, two-thirds of the Senate might be convinced that Mr. Roberts should be removed from the bench. The usual method is to present the evidence and then make a decision, but I know that isn't very popular nowadays with the American Idol-ization of serious matters. Roberts is very cute, and that's worth a lot of votes. Think of him as Justice Sanjaya.

[sabrina 1]

8. Everything has to start somewhere.

If the police were to decide that there is no point investigating a murder because no one saw it happen most murderers would never be found.

Impeachment is merely an investigation. If the evidence produced warrants a conviction, then we would see whether or not the Senate can set aside politics and focus on the rule of law. Not much point in having checks and balances if we never check anything, is there?

[Saboburns]

9. er, um. You can't impeach a judge cause you don't like a ruling they made.

Not that I have anything for Roberts, cause I can't stand the partisan hack.

But.

A politician who claims impeachment simply because they disagree with a ruling is bogus, and cheapens the process of impeachment.

Just my 2 cents.

[hootinholler]

11. There is a slim edge here that may be enough...

Roberts testified that he was not an activist judge and would respect "stare decisis" or precedent. The Citizens United case was sent back to the lawyers with instruction to present briefs on matters that were not included in the original filings. Roberts directed them to argue corporate money as speech. Impeachment would hinge on proof that he sought this expansion of the case in order to overturn long standing precedent.

-Hoot

[Gaedel]

12. Impeachable offense

An impeachable offense is anything a majority of the House thinks is impeachable (see Clinton).

If two-thirds of the Senate feels the same way, the guy is gone.

If you don't get two-thirds of the Senate, the guy gets to do a little "victory dance" and all his supporters get to yell "vindication"!

[BlueIris]

13. I love me some Peter DeFazio.

Impeach away, kind Sir.