Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-30-2012, 08:00   #1
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Blog chatter: Impeach John Roberts

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77947.html
Ruble Noon is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 08:18   #2
Jonesee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,242
That is total idiocy. Plain and simple.

He broke no law, he wasn't derelict in his duties.
What would the grounds for impeachment be? Disappointing conservatives?
There is no impeachable offense.

Absolute idiocy.

Last edited by Jonesee; 06-30-2012 at 08:20..
Jonesee is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 08:26   #3
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
He abused his power by legislating from the bench.
Ruble Noon is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 08:42   #4
Berto
woo woo
 
Berto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 30,727


Soooo do they impeach the other 4 justices too?
__________________
The West is the Best.
Berto is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 08:45   #5
Jonesee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
He abused his power by legislating from the bench.

That is not a crime or an impeachable offense.

He heard a case and became 1 of 5 votes that made a legal ruling. He and the other 8 Justices did exactly what they are supposed to do.

The Supreme Court Justices are given a lifetime appointment to protect from political pressure. This is a perfect example why.

Again, the idea is total idiocy.

Last edited by Jonesee; 06-30-2012 at 08:45..
Jonesee is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:01   #6
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesee View Post
That is not a crime or an impeachable offense.

He heard a case and became 1 of 5 votes that made a legal ruling. He and the other 8 Justices did exactly what they are supposed to do.

The Supreme Court Justices are given a lifetime appointment to protect from political pressure. This is a perfect example why.

Again, the idea is total idiocy.
SC justices are not supposed to write law, which Roberts did.
Ruble Noon is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:13   #7
QNman
resU deretsigeR
 
QNman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berto View Post
Soooo do they impeach the other 4 justices too?
Agreed.

It is pure foolishness to think about impeaching Roberts for his vote. He IS a conservative by nature, and is generally reliable as such. Why would any sane conservative-minded person want to impeach Roberts over, say, Kagan?

Kagan clearly violated ethical considerations when she failed to even consider recusing herself from a case related to a law she helped to usher into existence. She never even considered the thought.

What about Sotomayor? She lied to the American people, stating she thought the second amendment was "settled law" in Heller, immediately before voting the opposite in Chicago.

Personally, I think Roberts made a mistake. I think Krauthammer had it right, in that he was too concerned with the view that if struck down, Obamacare would represent to the left a biased SCOTUS. The left suffers from no such dilemma - we KNOW for CERTAIN which way each of the lefties will vote religiously, and they care not a whip about what conservatives think about it.

But to prattle on about impeaching the Chief Justice over this? Pure idiocy.

Let's instead focus our efforts on the TRUE enemies of liberty - those who un-apologetically thumb their noses at the COTUS at every turn. If we want to expend the political capital - not to mention time and resources - necessary to impeach someone, lets start with Kagan and work our way to the middle, rather than start with Roberts and work our way left.
__________________
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

TERM LIMITS NOW!!!
QNman is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:14   #8
Jonesee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,242
No he didn't. He ruled on the constitutionality of a law that was already written, passed, signed, in place and before him for appeal.


Ruble, when you didn't get you way as a child, did you stand in the middle of the room and throw a tantrum?
Jonesee is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:15   #9
QNman
resU deretsigeR
 
QNman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 10,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
SC justices are not supposed to write law, which Roberts did.
Kagan, Ginsberg, Sotomayer... did they not do the same? Do they not attempt the same with EVERY VOTE?

Let's focus on the true enemies. Once they are dealt with, we can focus together on who may need trimming.
__________________
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

TERM LIMITS NOW!!!
QNman is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:19   #10
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by QNman View Post
Agreed.

It is pure foolishness to think about impeaching Roberts for his vote. He IS a conservative by nature, and is generally reliable as such. Why would any sane conservative-minded person want to impeach Roberts over, say, Kagan?

Kagan clearly violated ethical considerations when she failed to even consider recusing herself from a case related to a law she helped to usher into existence. She never even considered the thought.

What about Sotomayor? She lied to the American people, stating she thought the second amendment was "settled law" in Heller, immediately before voting the opposite in Chicago.

Personally, I think Roberts made a mistake. I think Krauthammer had it right, in that he was too concerned with the view that if struck down, Obamacare would represent to the left a biased SCOTUS. The left suffers from no such dilemma - we KNOW for CERTAIN which way each of the lefties will vote religiously, and they care not a whip about what conservatives think about it.

But to prattle on about impeaching the Chief Justice over this? Pure idiocy.

Let's instead focus our efforts on the TRUE enemies of liberty - those who un-apologetically thumb their noses at the COTUS at every turn. If we want to expend the political capital - not to mention time and resources - necessary to impeach someone, lets start with Kagan and work our way to the middle, rather than start with Roberts and work our way left.
SC Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for letting his Federalist leanings affect his rulings.

I agree with you about Kagan as she had a definite conflict of interest and should have recused herself on this ruling.
Ruble Noon is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:21   #11
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesee View Post
No he didn't. He ruled on the constitutionality of a law that was already written, passed, signed, in place and before him for appeal.

No he did not. The government argued that this law was constitutional under the commerce clause and the fine was a penalty which Roberts deemed unconstitutional. Roberts rewrote it as a tax and allowable under the legislatures taxing ability.
Ruble Noon is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:25   #12
Jonesee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,242
OK, so you do throw tantrums when you don't get your way.

Good luck to you and your goal of impeaching Roberts. I'll keep up on your progress in the news.

Last edited by Jonesee; 06-30-2012 at 09:29..
Jonesee is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:26   #13
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
SC Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for letting his Federalist leanings affect his rulings.

And that itself was a political travesty. However romantic the vision of impeaching judges over rulings or of duels being fought over politics, I have no desire to return to the varied forms of idiocy the Founders engaged in.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:29   #14
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesee View Post
OK, so you do throw tantrums when you don't get your way.

Good luck to you and your goal of impeaching Roberts. I'll keep on your progress in the news.
Since you seem determined to go down this road, did your dear momma stick your head in a gas oven to lull you to sleep as a child? It would help to explain your posting history.
Ruble Noon is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:32   #15
marchboom
Senior Member
 
marchboom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
SC justices are not supposed to write law, which Roberts did.
100% agreement. Roberts was not put on the bench to trash the Constitution. Which he clearly did Thursday. Traitor is the only word that comes to mind.

Definitely shows that we cannot trust him to do the right thing in the future. Just as we can't trust democrats to do the right thing. Wonder what will happen when the next 2nd Amendment case comes before the court? If you don't have the guns and ammo you want, better get it now.
__________________
NRA Life Member
VHA
NHRA
The obama administration and the democrat party...the ultimate in domestic corruption and dedicated to the destruction of the United States.
marchboom is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:34   #16
greentriple
Senior Member
 
greentriple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 901
Those who wish to impeach a Justice or for that matter a President because he or she does not decide things the way that person wants is the most Un-American thing I've read today. But then it's only 8:30 am.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Last edited by greentriple; 06-30-2012 at 10:08..
greentriple is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 09:35   #17
nmk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
Complete nonsense and very dangerous.
nmk is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 10:11   #18
rgregoryb
Sapere aude
 
rgregoryb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Republic of Alabama
Posts: 12,972


Quote:
Originally Posted by greentriple View Post
Those who wish to impeach a Justice or for that matter a President because he or she does not decide things the way that person wants is the most Un-American thing I've read today. But then it's only 8:30 am.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
so, greentripe, in your world voicing an opinion (even misguided) is un-American? great ,censorship of free speech.
__________________
"I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."
Ludwig Wittgenstein

"demography is destiny"
rgregoryb is offline  
Old 06-30-2012, 10:20   #19
wjv
Senior Member
 
wjv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 13,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by QNman View Post
Personally, I think Roberts made a mistake. I think Krauthammer had it right, in that he was too concerned with the view that if struck down, Obamacare would represent to the left a biased SCOTUS. The left suffers from no such dilemma - we KNOW for CERTAIN which way each of the lefties will vote religiously, and they care not a whip about what conservatives think about it.

But to prattle on about impeaching the Chief Justice over this? Pure idiocy.
If he actually voted the way he did because he was concerned about the politics of how the court would look, opposed to voting based on his interpretation of the Constitution, then he deserves impeachment.

However. . . Unless he confesses to that, good luck proving it. And if he were to be impeached, guess who gets to appoint his replacement. . .
__________________
Bill
Pacific NW


The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
- H. L. Mencken -
wjv is online now  
Old 06-30-2012, 10:30   #20
JFrame
Senior Member
 
JFrame's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Mid-Atlantic, US of A
Posts: 33,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjv View Post
If he actually voted the way he did because he was concerned about the politics of how the court would look, opposed to voting based on his interpretation of the Constitution, then he deserves impeachment.

However. . . Unless he confesses to that, good luck proving it. And if he were to be impeached, guess who gets to appoint his replacement. . .

Good points...


.
__________________
"When newspapers are controlled, it's amazing how ignorant and immune from pressure the government can be." -- Amartya Sen

--
JFrame is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:44.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,112
322 Members
790 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31