Rep. Peter DeFazio Investigating Impeachment For Chief Justice John Roberts

[Tx4obama]

Source: Huffington Post

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."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/peter-defazio-impeachment-chief-justice-john-roberts_n_771431.html

---

The 'other' headline link on the HuffPo front page reads:
Congressman Investigating Chief Justice John Roberts For IMPEACHMENT

p.s. Their 'caps' not mine ;)

[Poll_Blind]

1. I cannot express how much I've loved having DeFazio as my representative.

Really. I wish all Dems everywhere could have a rep. like him.

He is spectacular!

PB

[ejpoeta]

5. but he's EVIL!! that's what those awful tv ads keep saying. trying to scare me.

i don't believe them obviously, but i can see why they do that.... he is trying to stop them.

[Poll_Blind]

8. LOL, that asshat will NOT win. I'd like to think the people in our district are smarter than that.

True, we're high a lot of the time, but it doesn't mean we're stupid!

:)

PB

[Spike89]

51. Pete rocks!

He's answered my e-mails with personalized messages every time I've contacted him, when I've sent kudos (about 90%) and questions/concerns. He is getting pummelled by negative ads by a well-financed wingnut, but he'll win. Already mailed our ballots.

[Ticonderoga]

68. Asshat? DeFazio?? Really???

[glitch]

70. read it again

and don't be silly.

[Ferret Annica]

99. He is a representative in the tradition of Wayne Lyman Morse

Peter with his wife and two dogs

He drives a well kept old car, flies tourist when he travels back and forth from Washington, D.C. and turns down Congressional pay raises.

He is a class act. We are lucky to have this human treasure in the Oregon 4th.

[DiverDave]

105. Not many remember Wayne Morse

I do, I remember my uncles and grandpa talking about his
vote against the Vietnam war.
That was courageous what he did, and he is on the "best of" list, IMO

He was a great man, and there sure aren't many like him.
Pete DeFazio is a man like him.

Wayne Morse, haven't heard or thought of him in years.

[Poll_Blind]

106. From a speech by Gov. Kulongoski on the dedication of the Wayne Morse Free Speech Plaza:

I'm still learning about the man but this excerpt says so much:

I’d like to read you something President Kennedy wrote in his book Profiles in Courage: “The Republican Party when I entered Congress was big enough to hold both Robert Taft and Wayne Morse. And the Democratic side of the Senate, in which I now serve, can happily embrace both Harry Byrd and . . .Wayne Morse.”

In those two short sentences, we understand why we are dedicating this free speech plaza to Wayne Morse. Party mattered to Wayne Morse. But principle mattered much more. As a Republican, Senator Morse broke with the nominee of his party in the middle of the 1952 presidential election. And 12 years later, as a Democrat, he broke with the President Johnson – casting one of only two votes against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.

I have to go back and read the dedication plaque in the plaza next time I'm in that part of town.

PB

[Ferret Annica]

178. He has a statue at the Lane County Court House

I vector to it if passing on foot or bicycle to say hello. I met him at Ruth Carson's house when I was new in Oregon and trying to find a ride with her son Clark to go see George McGovern when he spoke at the Pioneer Courthouse on October 13, 1972.

I was waiting for Clark and started talking to this older man sitting and waiting for Ruth and Dorthy Leper, both of whom were high on the Lane County Democratic Party organizational tree.

I had no ides who I was talking to until I was done and Clark explained that to me. But I really liked him from the first.

He wasn't condescending, was truly curious about what I had to say at age 18, and he obviously had a powerful intellect and fiery presence when he was talking about what he loved.

I miss him, and we called him, 'The Senator.' He was the Tiger of the Senate, and he taught me a lot about political courage and why we must always take a principle stand, and never waiver from it.

[classof56]

75. How lucky are you! And how I wish I could vote for Peter.

Please, please let him be successful in this impeachment attempt. And please, please, please let him retain his seat in Congress. God, what a loss to Oregon should Robinson win. Not to mention the entire nation.

What awful, crazy times these are. I've been cringing and crying a lot lately.

Let us keep the faith!

[Poll_Blind]

103. He should be a senator. He's just damned good. n/t

PB

[Ferret Annica]

97. I am proud too.

We meet on Lincoln Street across from the Eugene Weekly which at 1251 Lincoln at the campaign headquarters ten o'clock in the morning on Saturday and one PM on Sunday to canvass for Pete. If you live here in the Eugene, Springfield area, come on down.

Let's increase Peter DeFazio's victory margin.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Wow!

Cujones the size of watermelons.....I assume.

[tclambert]

128. That would make riding a bicycle extraordinarily painful.

And he'd have to walk really bow-legged.

[Oceansaway]

3. wooooohoooooo !!...nt

[Tx4obama]

4. How awesome it would be if .......................

if Roberts were impeached and thrown off the court, if Thomas were to resign due to some unknown upcoming scandal (or also impeached for lying under oath about his apparent pornographic obsession & sexual harassment of women and/or his ties with the Koch brothers), and if another justice were to retire due to age. That would be THREE more seats Obama could fill giving Obama a total of FIVE.
I know ... I'm dreaming ... but what a wonderful dream it is ;)

[Tx4obama]

14. Thomas....

Lillian McEwen, Clarence Thomas' Ex-Girlfriend, Talks About His Porn, Breast Preferences, Hill Controversy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/lillian-mcewen-clarence-thomas-ex-girlfriend_n_772302.html

[countrydad58]

40. Yeah along with Fat Tony too!

[Pab Sungenis]

80. So?

He'll appoint three more Elena Kagans and we'll be right where we left off.

[Tx4obama]

83. I'd trade 3 republican justices for 3 more Sotomayors any day of the week. n/t

[tavalon]

122. Actually, I don't think so

Of course, the makeup of Congress the new year may influence who he can get confirmed.

[leftcoastie]

85. from your fingers...

to the creators ears... or ahem, eyes.

[Lugnut]

100. Oh, how I wish!

I like your dream. :)

[activa8tr]

130. I love your dreams! I would be happy for just ONE more resignation! n/t

[HillbillyBob]

137. Oh it would be a good thing to see them go, but could

Pres O get any noms even to a hearing since the fatbastards of the riech block every thing all around.

[racaulk]

6. Hell YES!!!

Go get 'em, DeFazio! :hi:

K&R

[fasttense]

136. I do believe if a real journalist would investigate Robert's financial

dealings they would find some bribery. Wasn't it Roberts who was complaining about NOT getting paid enough? Then he stopped complaining suddenly. I wonder why? Did he find someone to build up his bank account in exchange for the Citizen United ruling?

It just seems strange that he complained about not making enough money then fell silent about it.

[xchrom]

7. Oh Hell yes. Nt

[pgodbold]

9. Hell YES!!!

[laconicsax]

10. w00t

[Cass]

11. Now that's what I call breaking news!!

Wow!!

[Bluenorthwest]

12. I love my Congressman!

I agree that Roberts perjured his way to the bench.

[skepticscott]

13. Nice idea, but you could probably

do the same thing with every Supreme Court nominee for quite a while back. Robert Bork was the last one to be even remotely frank (though not totally honest) in answering the questions put to him, and everyone saw what that got him. Now every nominee (Democratic or Republican) does the same dance of evasion and prevarication, and Congress goes shamefully along with it. If you went back through the hearing transcripts of every nominee for the last 30 years, you could probably find things they said that were untrue, or things that they promised to do that they didn't. The playbook for SC nominees now is to say anything and promise anything that their interrogators want to hear, and then do whatever the fuck they want after they're confirmed.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

15. and Clarence TOO

Since the revelation that Mrs. Justice Thomas wants an apology from Anita Hill, another reputable woman has stepped forward to confirm that Clarence LIED in his confirmation hearing. My first thought upon reading that was its time to impeach Justice Thomas.

Two-for-one impeachment would be a delight to watch.

[Samantha]

29. That was exactly my first thought

Thomas should be impeached.

Roberts, however, I would say impeachment is too good for him. Perhaps impeachment plus revoking his law license and denying him a Government pension.

It is a little discussed fact, but Roberts, a so-called Constitutional expert went to Florida to advise Jeb (and George) Bush* (on a pro bono basis) on the 2000 election debacle. If you think back to some of the issues which arose during that time, for instance, the Florida Republican legislature saying regardless who won the recount, they would send a Republican slate to the Electoral College, have been demonstrated to be Constitutionally impossible to do. Yet no one at the time refuted its authority to do this. Roberts had to have known better. He looks so angel-faced and seems so much like a straight arrow, not only did he misrepresent himself during his hearings for the Supreme Court, prior to his appointment as Chief Justice, he was instrumental in helping to usurp the Office of the Presidency of the United States for George W. Bush*. Talk about political rewards, he reaped the best he could hope
for ... a lifetime appointment with more of the same type rewards channeled to the party that put him there.

[FirstTimeVoterAt37]

16. The flood of attack ad money into Oregon is going to be legendary

Brace yourself, Oregon. It's coming.

[stevedeshazer]

25. It's already here

Seriously.

[stubtoe]

33. No Kidding!

[Overseas]

17. Yes Please !! //nt

[onehandle]

18. Sorry, the orange man will have none of this.

Democrats will be silenced for two years.

[cstanleytech]

19. As much as I would love Roberts to be removed

I think this is a complete waste of time and resources which could better be used elsewhere because imo atleast getting Roberts impeached for that testimony is remote.

[SocialistLez]

38. I hate that I have to agree with you

It is a waste of time and resources

[Plucketeer]

45. Why are we stewing about all this then?

If we're just gonna give up, we'll be in perfect lockstep with the reps that NEVER force the elephants to break out the cots and telephone books. :grr:

[countrydad58]

42. This is the same defeatist attitude we heard from take it off the table Nancy!

I bet you dime to donuts, if the reich take over congress, the subpoenas will be flying for impeachment of Obama!

[totodeinhere]

71. OK fine. How do we get 2/3 of the Senate with the GOP holding 41 votes now

and perhaps more in the next session of Congress? It's not defeatist, it's realistic.

[countrydad58]

Who cares

Smear their dirty laundry, for all the people to see, & be prosecuted by court of public opinion! If crimes,or impeachable offenses were committed. Its Congress Constitutional duty to do so. Removal or not!

[MinM]

186. Exactly. Expose these Judicial Activists/Political Apparatchiks...

for what they are. If impeachment is the end result -- all the better.

IMPEACH: Scalia and Thomas attended Koch Bros' secret strategy meetings. Call Senate and House!!!!

A Citizens United Conspiracy – Were Supreme Court Justices Involved?

[cstanleytech]

115. No its not defeatist but rather its being

realistic, you can waste your time of course trying to impeach him if you want or you can focus on whats really important which is this election and the next one because if the GOP regain control of the whitehouse in 2012 they will more than likely stack the court even further to the extreme right.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. I think I have to regretfully agree

Much as I would be delighted if he were removed.

I'm not sure how strong a case he could make on the perjury charge - how do you define "judicial activist"? And the backlash - the precedent - would be nasty. Very, very nasty.

[RufusTFirefly]

58. Sadly, I agree.

Sometimes, a weak attack is worse than no attack in that it stirs up the defenders more effectively than it activates that attackers.

I think the chances of nailing Roberts for perjury are slim to none. A better bet would've been to go after Thomas for testifying that he never discussed Roe v. Wade even though he was in law school at the time the decision was handed down.

Now that seems like perjury to me.

The questions that Roberts answered involved his judicial philosophy. I believe he was lying his ass off, but the fact is that judicial philosophies can change over time. Witness the "liberal" judges that were appointed by Republican presidents.

[NewJeffCT]

134. They're already planning to impeach Obama

over supposedly promising Sestak a non-paying job in exchange for not running against Arlen Specter.

[quakerboy]

169. Where would you prefer those resources and time go?

I agree with you that the chances of a successful impeachment are remote.

However, especially with our current impasse in the senate, and the likelihood that we will lose seats in both house and senate, and the extremely low chances that the republicans will take increased power as a sign that they ought to start to compromise and work with us, what else is going to get done?

Our best bet is to go on the attack, push hard to show what we stand for and what we want for this country, and who, Exactly, is standing in the way. Compromising and working hard have gotten us nowhere in 2 years. Its time to try something new.
Edited for spelling

[cstanleytech]

187. Well winning this election and especially

winning the 2012 one because if the GOP wins the 2012 one it would give them a chance to stack the court even further to the far right.
The other place we should focus on is legislation in place that would curtail corporations swaying (bribing) politicians as well as getting us out of the two wars the GOP got us bogged down in and then after that cutting military spending to a more reasonable area, after all it just doesnt make sense to me for us to be spending 800+ billion compared to the roughly 150 billion that china and russia combined are currently spending.

[quakerboy]

188. And what will help us win this election

and 2012?

How do you plan to get legislation on these issues past the senate? It is stuck for the same reason impeaching a SC justice is stuck. Our democratic representation do not have the votes in the system or the spine to change the system in order to get anything done. And the republicans will not cooperate on anything meaningful unless we force them.Cooperation and compromise have not gotten them on board. The only alternative left is to Hammer them from every angle.

We can spend the next 2 years quietly abiding while they hammer on Obama with every bit of rage and each new conspiracy theory, with billions in corporate money to back it up and bring it right into every voters home, and then hope that earnest well meaning speeches and appearances in October 2012 will bring voters back home to Obama. Or we can at least try to shift the conversation. Perhaps to, say, a supreme justice who dun lied and don't deserve to be on the court. And the money and powers behind him. and the connections with each and every dank little corner of the republican establishment.

We can do our damnedest to make "why are the republicans blocking all progress" the topic on the voters mind. Or we can let it be "why haven't the democrats done anything to help me". I know which I would opt for.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

20. Alito is the one who should be impeached

THAT guy is dangerous.

[harun]

90. What I was thinking. WAY more dangerous.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

119. Oh, you mean

Sammy "The Fish" Alito?

There's another one with a cuckoo wife - remember all her tears at his confirmation hearing? Lord God, almighty, what is it with these Republican women? They're not wives - they're mothers!

[bongbong]

21. My SCOTUS anecdote

For the benefit of DUers who never saw my post about my SCOTUS experiences, I'll repeat it here.

I got to see SCOTUS oral arguments one morning in 2008. These are two of the highlights:

1) seeing Uncle Clarence sleeping. And I mean SLEEPING. He covered his eyes with his arm, and he was in a semi-comatose state (no motion whatsoever), leaned back so far I thought the chair would topple over. Too much time spent surfing the Intertubes for pron must leave him pretty tired most days.
2) watching Alito restate the words, and MAKE AN ARGUMENT, for a corporate lawyer (JPM Chase) who was having trouble making sense.

[Hawkeye-X]

22. Roberts, Scalio, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy needs to be axed

For their involvement on Citizens United as well as the treason of all treasons - Bush v Gore.

[pattmarty]

57. Roberts wasn't on the court then. W appointed him. Who's "Scalio"?........

..........If you mean Alito, he wasn't on the court then either.

[rhett o rick]

72. Some Democrats supported the nomination of Roberts. How do we fight that? nm

[Jackpine Radical]

157. I don't see the problem there.

Presumably they voted for him because they were deceived by his lies. That's the point of a perjury prosecution here.

Nevertheless, this won't go anywhere unless they can dig up more on him than that.

And the problem of trying things before "the court of public opinion" is that all the"lawyers," so to speak--i.e. the talking heads who present the case to the public--are owned by the corporate media.

[rhett o rick]

183. It would have been much easier to keep him out than try to get him out. I dont for a minute believe

Democrats were fooled by Roberts any more than they were fooled by Bush.

This is apt to blow back in our face. And I put the impeachment behind prosecution of the war criminals.

[Permanut]

23. Dang, we got some good reps in Oregon...

Go Peter!

[cynatnite]

24. I think he'd have a better chance at getting the court to reverse itself....

I'd love Roberts to get booted off, but in all honesty I don't believe it'll happen.

[lobodons]

26. It would be nice to see Obama choose Chief Justice

As his 3rd pick!!!

[marmar]

27. It's the only way to restore a semblance of democracy.....

I find Roberts to be far more insidious than Alito, Scalia or Thomas.

[jotsy]

28. I love being an Oregon resident for a reason.

Don't stop there!

Anyone else who was on the bench for both Citizen's United and December 2000 need to go as well.

Edited to announce proudly that I rec'd this.

[Ferret Annica]

102. I remember how radiantly joyous Pete DeFazio was the day Obama was elected

He often talks about the mean spiritedness of the Republicans he had had to deal with and the thought of a new political reality was very obvious in him that day.

I sat next to him once flying home on leave from Ft. Bragg, N.C. on an Atlanta to Eugene flight. I swapped seats to sit next to him.

I love my Congressman. We are very lucky to have him here.

[No Elephants]

139. Breyer and Ginsburg were on the bench for both, but dissented in Bush v. Gore (with Souter and .

Stevens, now sadly both retired).

In Citizens, they, Sotomayor and Stevens concurred in part and dissented in part.

(God, I miss Stevens and Souter, the last Republican nominees with both a brain and a conscience!)

[jotsy]

147. Apologies for the lack of clarity.

I was referring to judges who ruled in support of both decisions.

[rocktivity]

30. Yum!

And while he's at it, he should also look into Justices Thomas and Scalia attending those Koch brothers strategy meetings, too.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[MrMickeysMom]

108. Big nod to that, rock...

The implications of those two being involved places them out of a judging on anything that deals with the abuse of hiding all the money being used.

Uncle Clarence and Fat Tony are an embarrassment and personhood of corporations is an abomination to democracy.

[LostInAnomie]

31. I like the sentiment, but that's about the flimsiest reasoning I've seen in a long time.

The "judicial activist" charge is subjective, and there's no way you could hold any justice to not overturning precedents.

While his heart might be in the right place, this is pure showmanship.

[Jim Sagle]

32. Bull fucking shit.

[LostInAnomie]

36. Really? How exactly would you go about proving in court someone is a judicial activist?

Especially, when it's that person's job to determine what is and is not constitutional. The holding someone to not overturning precedent is ridiculous too. A judge has no way of knowing what kind of case is going to come in front of him, or the legal arguments that will come with it.

I wouldn't want a liberal judge to be held to those standards.

[Jim Sagle]

66. Impeachment doesn't occur in a court. And the extreme precision that characterizes court procedings

does NOT apply.

[LostInAnomie]

78. The standard for impeaching a SC Justice has always been...

... high crimes and misdemeanors as defined in Article 3. Without a criminal conviction the Congressman essentially has nothing.

Hell, he'd have an easier time proving "judicial activism" in a court than getting the majority of the legislature to agree with him.

[Pab Sungenis]

82. Perjury.

That's your high crime.

[LostInAnomie]

86. Perjury for what?

Saying he wasn't a judicial activist? Good luck proving that. One man's judicial activism is another man's dutifully interpreting the Constitution.

Saying he would follow precedent? Good luck. A Supreme Court Justice couldn't do his/her job if they were dogmatically forced to follow judicial precedents.

The congressman's sentiment is well meaning, but it is nothing more than grandstanding.

[Jim Sagle]

89. This was gone over AD INFINITUM during Clinton's bullshit impeachment hearing.

Congress can impeach over overdue library books if they want to. You're flat out lying, and you're defeatism trolling to boot.

[LostInAnomie]

95. Haha... so facts are now "defeatism trolling" around here.

Sorry you don't like to hear it, but that doesn't make it any less true. The high crimes and misdemeanors standard has been around since the beginning. And, so far, no sitting federal judge has been removed from the bench for anything short of actual high crimes and misdemeanors (except for two cases of being drunk on the bench). Since appointments are lifetime, it would be pointless to impeach without conviction and removal.

Feel free to believe that you'll be able to remove a sitting justice for lying about being a judicial activist though. I'm sure it's comforting.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tavalon]

126. Yep, Clinton was impeached for perjury

The subtext was that he lied about sex!!!! Sound like anyone on the court? No, not Roberts, Thomas.

It seems we have precedent. As much as I would like to defend Thomas over his perjury (not), it was about sex!!!! What will we tell the children?!?:evilgrin:

Roberts is an evil, awful excuse for a human being but I am willing to be pragmatic here. Goose, Gander, let's go after Clarence (Long Dong Silver) Thomas.

Rule of law! Rule of law! Rule of law! Repeat ad infinitum, just like those stupid ass Rethugs during the impeachment of Clinton.

BTW, I'm using your post as a jumping off point. I'm not disagreeing with you.

[provis99]

172. except Clinton didn't even commit perjury.

You can impeach anybody for anything, apparently, according to the Republicans.

[Scruffy1]

116. Jerry Ford had the answer

"The only honest definition of high crimes and misdemeanors is what congress says it is." Besides his real perjury was claiming he was not involved in right wing think tanks, like the federalist society when he was actually a leader.

[tavalon]

124. We have precedent for impeaching Thomas

And wouldn't that be a sweet irony. Talk about the Clinton impeachment coming back to bite them in the ass!

As much as I want Roberts gone, this isn't anywhere near as likely as getting rid of Thomas. But kudos to this fine congressman. Sure, he's tilting at windmills but damn, it's nice to see a Democrat being strong and ethical.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. And when Roberts points out that decision applied to Unions as well as Corporations?

What then?

Yes, corporate pockets are deeper. So what. You're going to get a show trial in Congress with no outcome, maximum. If the senate even agrees to try him.

[Jim Sagle]

112. A damn good show trial it would be, too. A show of spine from a party mostly thought

not to have one.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. That's about 1000% more reasonable.

I'd like to see us go to the mat over something too, but to be honest, I'd rather have seen it on Single Payer or something..

Who knows, it might pan out, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Jim Sagle]

117. A stand on anything liberal, progressive, or even related to good government would be a

change of pace.

[Occulus]

132. Roberts knows damn good and well that his party is in the process of

crushing American unions, so his pointing that out is deeply disingenuous at best. Twenty-five years ago Citizens United might have mattered to unions; today, not so much, and he knows that very well, thank you.

I would rather impeach all of them for their failure to clarify the legal doctrine "established" by Santa Clara Cty. v Southern Pacific Railroad Co. All roads lead back to that decision and the horrible practice put in place by the headnotes in that case.

[JerseygirlCT]

54. Yeah. Unfortunately. nt

[hughee99]

109. I agree, while they can bring him up on any charges they want

You'll see national single payer health care in the US before you get 67 Senators to remove him from office for this.

[tavalon]

123. Showmanship is part of politics

I'm not saying it will work. I think we've got a shot at getting rid of Thomas because he lied about sex and we all know how that goes.

[NewJeffCT]

135. Agreed it is flimsy - however, Clarence Thomas perjuring himself

is another story now that more corroborating witnesses have come forward.

[cindyperry2009]

34. That would be great

but how hard would it be to do. What's involved in all that?

[Bitwit1234]

35. Maybe God is trying to make amends for letting Bush get appointed

I sure hope so. Thomas and Scalia should also have to go for their attending the republican meeting where they were helping republicans set the agenda for the November elections. It is about time we started fighting back. Go DeFazio glad you got a steel spine.

[SocialistLez]

37. I just hope he's successful

I think it's a little late in the game to try this, considering how many seats Republicans are poised to gain.

[hay rick]

39. K&R

[deacon]

41. Activist judge? Radical judge. K + R

[TwentyFive]

43. A Dream Come True!! Impeach...then burn his maggot infested robe out in the public square.

This man is the biggest traitor this country has ever seen. Try and convict him for treason. If the Rosenbergs were executed for treason...Robert's punishment should be whatever the maximum the Congress can think up.

But in this corporate dominated environment...it would be historic to just bring Impeachment proceedings on this scum.

[krabigirl]

44. Wonderful!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

47. Save Our Democracy!

[LiberalFighter]

48. Another way to make Fat Tony, Thomas, Alito and Roberts tootheless

is for Obama to appoint at least 3 more to the court during his 2 terms. With any luck Fat Tony will die of a heart attack as a result of fear. Thomas resigns because his buddy Fat Tony is gone. And then the Obama appointees revolt against Roberts and tell him to fuck off.

[ClassWarrior]

49. Send money to DeFazio. His nutjob opponent is flush with money from a...

...rich Wall Street nutjob.

NGU.

[Metta]

50. It's been past time to do this to this lying traitor and to Alito, too.

Props to Rep. DeFazio.

[Petrus Romanus]

52. Pure grandstanding.

"Judicial activism" is a political term, not a legal one. And you cannot seriously suggest that a Supreme Court justice ought be impeached for overturning a precedent; I don't think you can find a single justice in the history of the Court who has never disagreed with a precedent.

[pattmarty]

53. You know how far this will get.

[Desertrose]

55. DO IT!!!

What's it take already?

[Historic NY]

56. they claim an independent judiciary but they attend political party strategy events...

they are bias as the day is long. How can they make an unbiased decision?????

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

59. I hope he goes for a 2-fer

In light of Lillian McEwen's comments this week, sounds like Thomas has even more 'splainin' to do than Roberts.

[USA_1]

60. Dems Won't Impeach Anyone

... too gutless to do it.

[McCamy Taylor]

61. Wow. Congress just noticed.

[ProSense]

62. Why not start with these two:

What Role Have Scalia And Thomas Played In The Koch Money Machine?


Still, Alito and Roberts are suspect.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

63. do it DO IT DOOOOO IT!!!!!!!

Oh please please PLEASE DO IT!!!!!!!!

[JNelson6563]

64. Something all DUers can agree on!

Right?

K&R!

[Ter]

92. Show me 67 votes in the Senate before I get too excited

And even with that, can you guarantee his replacement won't be an anti-2nd Amendment gun-grabber?

[Tx4obama]

107. ANYONE Obama would appoint would be better than Roberts who was appointed by Bush. n/t

[Ter]

189. On 90% of issues, sure

But we would have lost McDonald vs. Chicago and the other one (vs. DC) before that. That would have been bad. Very bad.

[hughee99]

110. If the Senate had 100 Democrats

I'll bet they still couldn't get 67 votes on THIS charge.

[Occulus]

129. Actually, the absence of Ignored on this thread tells me no.

This is not an action all DUers can agree on.

I put the worst of the blind supporters, those enamored of Obama's character at all costs (as opposed to his policy decisions) on ignore some time ago. I'm sure you recognize the type- the ones who cannot allow the least littlest criticisms of Obama's bad decisions (and he has made some whoppers over the past two years) to stand, the ones who shout "pony" and "poutrage" and "President Palin", and so on.

This number amounts to over fifty on my ignore list and include all the Usual Suspects (and no, I won't name them). If you see a thread with a "tree" of replies that get angrier and angrier and goalposts that seem to have grown feet, well, they're probably on my ignore list.

They are almost all completely absent from this thread, and it's been up for a while now. They aren't approving of this possibility in equal number to the ones who chime in to disapprove (and start flame fests) whenever one of Obama's policy decisions or positions receives some criticism, no matter how legitimate.

I don't think DU is divided at all, however. I believe we have been overrun with trolls- certain, specific people- who are here to praise Obama no matter what, "pile on" if he receives any amount of even legitimate criticism, and in general make this forum unusable and unreadable. Their absence from this thread kind of proves that.

If they were legitimate Democrats, legitimate supporters of Democratic ideals, or legitimate supporters of this Democratic President, they would be here to approve of this SCOTUS impeachment possibility, and I would be seeing one hell of a lot more "Ignored"s than I am. That is not the case and I simply have no choice to conclude that these individuals are not posting here in good faith.

[California Griz]

65. Total waste of time and

I would love to sit and watch every wasted second. Does Peter DeFazio have an online donation site.

[unkachuck]

67. Go DeFazio Go....

....who says a few right-wing fascist supreme court justices can't fuck-up a nation?....and who gives the supreme court the sole discretion as to what the Constitution says?

[Divine Discontent]

69. Roberts - Judicial Activist on behalf of the World's Corporations

[totodeinhere]

73. They wouldn't even consider impeaching shrub, and now you think they might impeach Roberts?

Dream on.

[INdemo]

74. And while they are at it impeach Thomas, and Scalia

[defendandprotect]

76. Roberts ran the GOP-sponsored fascist rally to stop the vote count in Miami-Dade

County in 2000 --

This was his reward --

and our punishment!!

USA4SALE -- all of it!!

[The Wizard]

77. jail (NT)

:kick: :kick: :kick: :dem:

[laughingliberal]

79. K & R nt

[AlbertCat]

81. YES!!!!!!!!!!

I've been saying this ever since the ruling.

[RedCloud]

84. Finally placing the blame where it should be

[grahamhgreen]

87. Fantastic! NT

[Catamount]

88. If Only this would happen...! k&r n/t

:kick:

[harun]

91. It won't happen but I sure as hell would give them a lot of credit for trying!

[Poll_Blind]

104. One thing DeFazio _WILL_ do, I guarantee you, is TRY.

Whenever I have become disillusioned with politics he is one of the ones I look to and think "No, there definitely are a few good ones left. And DeFazio's one of 'em."

PB

[earcandle]

93. He can Get OUT!

Get Out

We don't need all of these criminals taking over the treasure.
rewriting our laws and regulations in diluted forms and call it progress.

phshaaaawwwlll... we won't have it!

[mckara]

94. I Hope Alito and Scalia are Next!!!!

[blue sky at night]

98. this whole piece of shit idea of the pukes to fund this cycle....

is going to blow up on them, they are going to be the hindenbergh x1000 when this is all said and done.

republican gas filled bag explodes...oh the humanity!


]

[pscot]

101. Kicked

and recommended with all my heart.

[aquart]

113. I would like to see Roberts in jail for perjury.

[Enthusiast]

118. Justice Roberts is a filthy Republican.

Never have I seen such horrible behavior. Apparently there are no good Republicans.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

120. Peter DeFazio should not be a representative or senator

He should sit on the Supreme Court.

[indimuse]

121. KNR X 1000!!

;)

[dmosh42]

125. With our totally corrupt gov't, forget about this! n/t

[LawnKorn]

127. K&R

[rasputin1952]

131. I don't habe a problem w/impeachmnt of Roberts...

Scalia or Thomas; but impeachment is a process that takes time and a LOT of effort. It was designed to make sure that Gov't wouldn't turn over because a few were out of sorts.

On a personal note, I think Thomas is a far easier target, especially since the Hill/and new book/issues by one of his co-workers came out. He lied under oath to Congress to get the job, that is a a Federal Offense, and there is no Statute o Limitations. The bastard should be sent to Guam w/Steele...:evilgrin:

[No Elephants]

133. Not going to happen and De Fazio probably knows that better than we do.

Putting it out there at election time may not be a bad idea, though.

My reservation: If nothing happens to Roberts--and nothing will--low info folks may assume Roberts did nothing wrong.

I think calling on him to resign as soon as he broke his word would have been better.

At this point, I might call on everyone who joined in the majority opinion in Citizens to resign. If people have no respect for SCOTUS decisions, though, we screwn. Then again we're screwn if foreigners can all but control our elections.

[wordpix]

154. at least he's STANDING for something positive, instead of running for cover like

so many Dems in Congress do

[Jawja]

138. The Democrats in Congress

should have stood firm and refused to allow a Supreme Court appointed President, George W. Bush, to appoint ANY Justices to the court.

After SCOTUS unConstitutionally intervened in the Florida recount on behalf of Bush, the Democrats could have answered by not allowing a Justice to be seated by Bush. This is where the Coup in America happened; election was stolen in Florida, GOP court intervened and seated Bush, then Bush stacked the court with more treasonous bastards.

Democrats could have prevented this, but didn't.

[spicegal]

140. While I would love to be rid of Roberts, impeachment will

never happen. That's a lost cause.

[still_one]

141. You are correct. This is all just hype, nothing will happen. /nt

[KansDem]

142. At least investigate what Scalia and Thomas were doing meeting secretly with the Koch Bros.

I want to know if a "tit-for-tat" was arranged...:grr:

[glinda]

149. That is perhaps the only leverage.

[wordpix]

153. +1 I want to know, too, but no investigation will happen if more R's are elected

[rhett o rick]

143. What a tease. The Dems wont even try war criminals living in luxury among us. nm

[jxnmsdemguy65]

144. This is truly awesome news... geaux Peter!

[Ozymanithrax]

145. 66 votes in the Senate are required to remove a person from office.

The math is not there.

John Roberts isn't going anywhere. And, really, I don't think he will find a simple majority in the Hosue to do this. If the House did not ivestigate Bush and Cheney when there was evidence in the public knowledge that they lied in their pursuit of the gulf war on their requiest for the authorization to use force, they are not going to impeach John Roberts because he is an idiot, or even for lying to the Senate.

Unless John Roberts is eating babies for breakfast, it will never get to the floor. He will have to get real proof that Roberts and the conservative members of the court acted illegally, not just out of their own judicial philosopy. A flawed jucidial philosophy isn't against the law.

[MilesColtrane]

160. I'll go you one further.

DeFazio will not introduce articles of impeachment against Roberts.

He is up for reelection next month and he's been on the receiving end of 300K worth of attack ads funded by a concrete company in Maryland. (legal now because of the Citizens United ruling)

Rep. DeFazio is appealing to his base and perhaps trying to make the corporation that is attacking him back off by intimating that he will take down Roberts.

[Ozymanithrax]

174. IN 2005, several prominent Democrats talked about impeachment...

Nothing come of it.

I'm tired of being teased.

[MilesColtrane]

175. "Nothing come of it."

Well, I'm sure they got some donations from their fired up supporters, but I know what you mean.

[Ozymanithrax]

177. If they want my money, ask me. I'll give if it's in my interst and I trust them.

If they say they will impeach or investigagte to get my money and do nothing, they have lost my trust and my money.

I don't donate to the Democratic party for that rason. I donate to individuals that deserve my trust and my money and my time.

If DeFazio actually tries to investigate after the election, I will consider him trustworthy. If not. He isn't.

[lonestarnot]

146. good.

[wordpix]

148. HOORAY! One Dem rep who's standing up----where are the rest?

[onenote]

168. the rest are still residing in the land of reality

not fantasy world

[Codeine]

150. Ain't gonna happen.

The shit people get excited over. :eyes:

[hulka38]

151. There's no way this is going to happen.

What's wrong with everybody?

[wordpix]

152. I have a dream

[hulka38]

155. Snap out of it.

To answer my own question, I think a lot Dems are still desperately holding onto the hope that the Democratic Party is tough and will allow themselves to believe in this fantasy.

[hulka38]

156. On the other hand if this is a stunt to draw attention to Roberts' malfeasance

then I'm all for it. But nobody besides the wonks will pay any attn to it and even the wonks will dismiss it as a useless gesture. So again this has to get back to the psych ploy that "we Dems are tough" to rally the base at election time.

[ibegurpard]

164. so what?

[hulka38]

185. So, if you believe this is something other than a

vote mobilizer you're a sap.

[w4rma]

158. Extremely good. I'm sick of these lawbreakers going unpunished. (nt)

[niceypoo]

159. Alito's wife just has to start crying...

...and any impeachment/investigation goes away..

[1American]

161. unlimited unexposed corporate contributions

What kind of numbnut jokers are you who think it's okay for corporations to pour millions into campaigns and not say who they are or what country they are in. ARE YOU TOTALLY STUPID???

DO YOU THINK THAT SAUDI ARABIA, CHINA, INDIA, AND INDONESIA DON'T EXPECT BANG FOR THEIR BUCK???????

FACT: BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ARE BEING BOUGHT WHOLESALE BY BIG MONEY, INDIVIDUAL BILLIONAIRES AND CROOKED BANKS AND UNIONS.

WISE UP!

[pjt7]

163. Any heat on Justice Roberts is welcomed

Wouldn't it be great if he was booted.

[Odin2005]

162. WOW!!! Go, Congressman, Go!

:woohoo:

[Initech]

165. Why just stop at Roberts? Why not include Alito in the mix?

[Time for change]

166. This is great

But there needs to be more. Scalia needs to be impeached for leading the stealing of a presidential election. And those who participated in that with him also should be impeached (Thomas and Kennedy, and Rhenquest and O'Connor retrospectively).

[golfguru]

167. Justice Roberts is the main reason dems could lose House

this year. Without all that undetected corporate cash pummeling
democrats, 2010 would have been just another average mid-term election
instead of a potential tsunami.

[Tx4obama]

170. Crooks and Liars dot com has put up an article on Roberts/DeFazio - link below

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/rep-pete-defazio-looking-impeaching-c

[Ferret Annica]

171. I just showed how well this story is doing on DU to Peter DeFazio and he said to say, "THANK YOU"

He said this is striking a nerve with many people, and he is touched by the focus DU had put on this.

I am at Allann Brothers Coffee on 5th Street in Eugene, Oregon. He comes in here regularly and of course like everyone else I usually give him his private space. But I wanted him to see this, and I can tell this made his and his wife's morning.

[Tx4obama]

176. Check your DU inbox :) n/t

[Tx4obama]

179. Dear Pete, You're welcome. Keep up the good work. n/t

[samsingh]

173. john roberts has hurt America with that decision

he should be impeached.

[mvd]

182. Yes, he's using his position for political gain

In fact, everyone who sided against Gore in Bush v Gore should have been impeached. The decision to allow unlimited corporate spending was also political. Roberts did not do his job, which is to be an impartial judge of the constitution.

[bobburgster]

180. Glad to hear that from.....

Rep. Peter DeFazio. Though my pessimism bubbles over....it'll be a cold day in hell before that happens./

K&R

[bc3000]

181. Meh, I don't see how clearly partisan nonsense charges help.

What does this supposedly achieve?

[truedelphi]

184. The "D" after DeFazio's name stands for Democracy as well as

The Democratic Party.

Wish there were 500 more like him in Congress.