Call for the Impeachment of Justice Antonin Scalia for violating the oath of the office.

[Katashi_itto]

Call for the Impeachment of Justice Antonin Scalia for violating the oath of the office.
Justice Scalia stated that the continuation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act represented the "perpetuation of racial entitlement," saying that lawmakers had only voted to renew the act in 2006 because there wasn't anything to be gained politically from voting against it. The oath of office requires that I he remain impartial and protect all persons rights equally under the law. His statement indicates he not only is not impartial, but also is trying to circumvent the constitution. The legislature put in place laws to protect right to vote for all Americans. His statements are political in nature and indicates that it is his duty to circumvent the actions of the two other branches of government.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/call-impeachment-justice-antonin-scalia-violating-oath-office/JG77rft2

[cali]

1. fucking ridiculous. Man, I hate stupid. And this is egregiously stupid

What idiot actually believes that the President or anyone else in the WH can impeach a sitting U.S. Justice of the Supreme Court?

Anyone? Anyone?

Furthermore, a petition to Congress would be *almost* as moronic.

And anyone who thinks that his horrible comment is grounds for impeachment is, well, profoundly stupid.

Did I mention I have stupid?

What a waste of time and energy.

[Richardo]

2. Samuel Chase

Samuel Chase (April 17, 1741 – June 19, 1811) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and earlier was a signatory to the United States Declaration of Independence as a representative of Maryland. Early in life, Chase was a "firebrand" states-righter and revolutionary.[2] His political views changed over his lifetime, and, in the last decades of his career, he became well known as a staunch Federalist and was impeached for allegedly letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions. Chase was acquitted by the Senate.

So: It can and has been done, and for the same reasons as this OP.

Whether it's politically possible is another question, and given the makeup of the House I'd give 7,000,000,000:1 odds.

[Katashi_itto]

4. I see, so even though it's not viable. Just sitting around not doing anything is better.

Also making sure to whine that it's stupid to boot too, even though a Justice has been impeached before; makes it's double plus good.

[cali]

9. whine? hardly. More like rant against stupidity.

One Justice in nearly 250 years. And he was acquitted. And that happened over 200 years ago. And yes, as YOU admit it's not viable. Do you know what not viable means?

It's a total waste of energy and time, and YOU and your co-signers are the one whine, whine whining away.

Not in any realm of reality is the REPUBLICAN HELD HOUSE going to initiate impeachment hearings.

[Katashi_itto]

12. Yes, I don't think it's likely. Again, so thats your rationale not to make our voices be heard?

If we are slowly going down, in the face of RW lunatics.

I would rather die on my feet facing my enemy, then kneeling like some whipped animal.

[cali]

13. No, it's not merely unlikely. It's pointless and ludicrous.

What part of REPUBLICAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES is so hard to understand. And if you think that signing some pointless petition is some act of courage akin to dying on your feet while bravely facing the enemy, your self aggrandizement is boundless.

What you are doing is just silly grandstanding that accomplishes shit.

[Katashi_itto]

16. I think your ongoing whining/rant speaks volumes about who is into

"self aggrandizement"

[Ineeda]

19. Waste of time?

So the entire fifteen seconds that it takes to sign this petition is a waste of time? You're saying that it's a futile effort. Basically, that NOTHING can be done about Scalia or any other member of SCOTUS? I believe you may be right, but that reality makes action of any kind psychologically more important, IMO. It's a Don Quixote thing, I guess. It makes me feel better, despite the probable futility. So please don't call me stupid and silly. And go on back to your much more important and serious efforts and I'll continue to 'waste my time' tilting at windmills to TRY to make things better. Pffft.

[cali]

30. Yes.

And no, there's nothing that can be done about Scalia at this point. Of course, it's futile. Utterly and completely. It's like insisting in the face of mountains of evidence that there is no such thing as climate change.

You want to tilt at windmills feel free, but that's all it is.

[Cosmocat]

8. I can tell you this

if one of the "liberal" justices acted like a completely moronic pig like Scalia and Thomas do, there is no doubt in my mind the republicans would have a VERY strong push to try to impeach on of them.

The shiite they do in terms of making the rounds in political circles like they do alone probably would be enough.

And, given the soft headedness of the Ds, some of them would sign on with it ...

[Gore1FL]

21. They would look foolish doing so, however.

Charging Windmills doesn't gain political points.

[fasttense]

15. 15 Federal judges have been impeached the last one was March 2010

Impeachment of Justices of the Supreme Court is in The US Constitution. So, our founding father expected that we would have to impeach a few of them.

I think Thomas's behavior calls for impeachment more than Scalia but Scalia is a close second. Thomas is clearly taking bribes through his wife's paycheck and he lied on his disclosure form about his wife's earnings. Scalia takes bribes through junkets, trips, and speaking engagements. I suspect most of the justices are taking bribes of some kind.

Yes, with our congress in the control of corporations and Wall Street bankers, the odds of actually impeaching a Dancing Supreme are very low. But talking about their crimes and misdemeanors is always good. It brings to light that we are not ruled by system of laws. It brings to light how disreputable most of the court is. It helps lift the blinders off.

[cali]

31. And exactly ONE Supreme Court Justice was impeached- over 200 years ago

And what YOU feel or I feel, has jack to do with it. It's a republican house and anyone who thinks there's a snowball's chance in the Mojave of impeaching him is suffering from delusion.

The odds of impeaching Scalia and/or Thomas with a wingnut House, aren't just low. They are virtually non-existent, barring dead girl/live boy evidence- and probably not even then.

[fasttense]

42. Using the same system that created these 9 judicial kings

will never work.

I agree, impeachment, the controls put into our democracy to prevent such kings, is not working.

But talking about it, laying out the systems corruption is a first step. You can't fix a problem if you don't know it exists. And many people in the US don't even know the democratic system has been replaced.

[Katashi_itto]

33. I completely agree. Thomas is lightyears more corrupt than Scalia. Hell, bringing anyone of them

down would be a great boon to the country.

[demwing]

17. before 2008, a black man had NEVER been elected POTUS

I have no expectations that a petition will do anything at all, but if we only tried things that had a record of political success, we never would have elected Obama. In fact, we wouldn't even deserve to call ourselves progressives.

[66 dmhlt]

18. Your ludicrous histrionics made me SIGN THE PETITION!

[Art_from_Ark]

28. +1

[cali]

32. bwahahahahaha. you certainly are easy, hon.

[demwing]

27. Someone's grumpy!

[99Forever]

35. Then don't fucking sign it.

That's your choice. That you CHOOSE to insult others that are TRYING to do something, even if it may be in vain, reveals something VERY telling about exactly sort of person you are.

[Aerows]

37. Was all that vitriol really necessary?

Wouldn't a simple "I don't think it has a chance of affecting anything" have worked just as well, and not been as hostile?

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Nice try, but DC protects itself.

When you're here, you're 'Family.'

[Katashi_itto]

6. So thats an excuse to do nothing?

[jberryhill]

10. False dichotomy

The feeling of having done "something" which is pointless and unproductive can indeed be of less utility than doing nothing.

Dumb Internet petitions relieve the participant of the responsibility of finding something productive to do.

For my part, I will sacrifice a dove to the voodoo spirits.

[Bohunk68]

44. I recall when in 1979 a couple hundred of

the GLBT community met in Houston, TX and planned the First GLBT March for Equality in Washington, DC. We were told then, that that was pointless and would lead nowhere. Hmmmmm, and now, we have Marriage Equality in 9 states plus DC and there are at least three more on the verge of it. What is that once again about being pointless?

[jberryhill]

45. That is a non-sequitur

Yes, mass demonstrations are one way to communicate popular desire to change laws.

Can you explain the connection between (a) submitting a petition to the president, and (b) having a Supreme Court justice impeached?

Or do you believe that presidents should be able to do that in the first place?

This is a request to the president to do something that is not even in the president's jurisdiction.

But you are saying that you want the president to be able to remove Supreme Court justices? Is that correct?

Because if it is your position that the President should be able to do such a thing, then I will change my reaction to confused to opposed.

The President SHOULD NOT have that power.

[cali]

11. Pointless idiotic bullshit is not doing something.

[Katashi_itto]

14. Whining about people making their views official is "Pointless idiotic bullshit"

[Gore1FL]

24. When their official views go nowhere.

The Executive branch does not have the power to impeach judges. What will a white house petition asking for this do other than make the signers look uneducated?

I'm happier avoiding the mistakes (aka "Pointless idiotic bullshit&quot the GOP has made over the last two decades. I don't want to emulate them. I want to beat them in elections.

[Katashi_itto]

5. Rachel Maddow

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017102306

[PADemD]

7. Signed

[Dryvinwhileblind]

20. While I'd love to see Scalia on a slow boat to China...

...his opinions are just that, protected by some antique piece of paper.
Trying to prove lack of impartiality?, not going to happen, unfortunately.
While We all agree conservatism is wrong, they have representation here, again, protected.
Are We so positive in our thinking/beliefs that We squelch dissent? It's what THEY do.
On balance, the name calling, the adjectives, the hyperbole against DU public opinion is WRONG.
Some may not agree on a petition/position, that's dissent, calling someone names is......repugnant. With Respect, The Limbaucile Hunter.

[John2]

22. I don't think

it is all pointless. At least your voice is heard. I don't think a Supreme Court Justice should have life tenure. They amended the Constitution limiting the President, I think they should do it for the Supreme Court. Thomas and Scalia do need to be removed. If we should ever have another Civil War, I'm pretty sure they would be removed then.

[PDittie]

23. My problem with the petition is

that it is poorly worded and has typos ("I he&quot .

The spirit of the petition is well taken, but then I have an issue with people who think they're powerful activsts in clicking an online petition. Time and effort would be much greater spent in registering Latinos in one's neighborhood precinct, for example.

Facebook memes, Tweeting "sign this petition", DU (and DK) posts, diaries and journals... all well and good if you get a buzz off of it, I suppose. But they remind me of those meetings at work where the bosses rant about a few things for an hour or two and accomplish essentially nothing save a little symbolism.

It's not doing nothing, but it's not a whole better than doing nothing.

[davidpdx]

25. I signed it despite the long odds of anything happening

I'd much rather have him die so he can take his place in hell with Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler, Slovan Milosevich, Mussolini, and all the other evil people (and to be joined by Bush and Cheney sometime in the near future).

I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again, the day that asshole dies I will be doing some serious grave dancing.

[bonniebgood]

26. And a Pope haven't quit in over 700 years. Who would have THUNK that? it dosen't stop

the crazy repukes to stop trying to abolish roe v wade. just saying. SIGNED IT

[DiverDave]

29. It's in the bag

only 99,669 left.
I dont think it will take a whole month to get them.

[Dustlawyer]

34. I think pressure should be put on the Supremes to "avoid the appearance of impropriety."

They do not have to follow the rules b/c there is not a higher court to make them, but this bullshit of speaking he and the idiot Thomas at Koch brother functions for cash. What about Thomas's wife's job with the Koch suckers raising money for Tea Party candidates. They pay her over 1/2 mil as a bribe! Give me a break.money well spent by greedy old men.

[ColesCountyDem]

36. I'm always leery of 'Impeach So-and-so because _______' petitions.

The reason I'm leery of this sort of thing is that the day will come when it's one of 'our' justices making a comment the GOP considers outrageous, or violativing of the oath of office....

[Puzzledtraveller]

38. I'll throw the first peach

[WinkyDink]

39. This is far from "pointless" if it draws media, and hence public, attention.

[Schema Thing]

40. shouldn't the call-to-action be written with proper grammar and syntax at least?

[PDittie]

41. +1

Probably also ought to get some vetting from a lawyer as to its contentions. IANAL.

[Katashi_itto]

43. Agree, wish it was written a bit better.

[Faux pas]

46. Since women 'won' the right to vote before

people of color did, when will they disenfranchise women?

To paraphrase a famous quote:

First they took the right to vote away from the blacks, and I did nothing.
Then they took away the right to vote from the disabled, and I did nothing.
Then they took away my right to vote.....

[onenote]

47. The petition isn't dumb because its pointless (which it is). Its dumb because its a bad idea

I despise Scalia. I wish he wasn't on the court. But impeaching him over his comments in the oral argument in the Voting Rights Act? Give me a break.

For those who may not ever attended or listened to a SCOTUS argument, Justices sometimes say provocative things. Justices quite often say things that clearly indicate what they think the correct outcome of the case before them should be. If the spectre of impeachment was held over the heads of Justices based on what they said in oral argument, they'd all turn into Justice Thomas and not say a word and the benefits of back and forth advocacy (between justices and lawyer and between the justices themselves) would be lost.

The failed attempt to remove Samuel Chase from the Court 30 years after the nation's founding is generally acknowledged by historians to represent a victory for judicial independence over a partisan attack on the court. There is a good reason that efforts to go after a Justice based on disagreements with his or her decisions, such as the failed "Impeach Earl Warren" movement, are derided as threatening to upset the separation of powers.

Consider that one of the grounds cited in the petition as justification for seeking Scalia's impeachment is that he is trying to circumvent the constitution by attacking the Voting Rights Act. Now, its widely expected that the final vote on the VRA will be 5-4, either to affirm the Act's constitutionality or to strike it down as unconstitutional. Let's assume that its found to be unconstitutional. Does that mean that not only Scalia but the other four Justices that reached the same conclusion are guilty of an impeachable offense? Should Congress get to overrule a majority decision regarding a law's constitutionality by proposing an amendment to the constituion, but simply by removing the justices that ruled in a way that is not supported by a majority in Congress? Or should the Justices that dissent from a majority decision finding an act of Congress to be unconstitutional be subject to impeachment for trying to "circumvent" the Constitution?

The proponents of these impeachment demands never seem to have thought through what they are proposing. Imagine a day in the future when a the court finds that laws banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Should the legislature be able to override that decision, or try to influence the decision, by holding out the threat of impeachment?

I don't care if people want to waste 15 seconds signing a petition that is pointless. But you'd be better off signing a petition demanding world peace. Its probably just as pointless as the Scalia impeachment petition, but at least if it succeeded, it wouldn't do more harm than good.

[Bake]

48. Not impeached. He's violated no law.

On the other hand, if he were to be so publicly ridiculed and shamed that he resigned in disgrace, never to be seen in public again, that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Bake