SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts Should Be Impeached (politician, rating, elect)

[Icy Tea]

The guy is compromised and he's being blackmailed and controlled to swing votes. Which is why Trump has been a Godsend to the Supreme Court and has more than earned his re election.

[VA Yankee]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

They "all" say? You have spoken with the owners of every construction company across the country? Doesn't matter they have no lawful right to hire illegal aliens! Are you saying the legal immigrants won't do those jobs either? Just because our government has been lax in enforcing our immigration laws doesn't mean that the illegals or those who hire them are guilt free. They are both still breaking the law! If you leave your front door unlocked and a thief gets in does that just make you the guilty one but not the thief?

Please don't insult my intelligence by misquoting me! I said it is usually those who call names first that Trump retaliates with same. I also said that I don't like the name calling from him or anyone else. Did you miss that part or just ignore it? I also said that words won't sink this country but bad policies will. That is my focus point on Trump not the name calling.

Play your semantics I never stated I spoke with every construction owner but they're there unless your too blind to see. You keep excusing the government but continue to condemn those who take advantage of their laziness. The bolded line, that's a good one you keep believing that. As for policies it doesn't matter how good it is when its delivered with so much politicizing and name calling from him not just to elected leaders in this country but around the world it diminishes anything positive about it.

[LordSquidworth]

Originally Posted by Icy Tea

The guy is compromised and he's being blackmailed and controlled to swing votes. Which is why Trump has been a Godsend to the Supreme Court and has more than earned his re election.

Nah. He takes his job and oath seriously. Something the trump administration doesn’t do.

[warhorse78]

Originally Posted by Kavalier

Looking back on the travesty of the liberal George Bush's presidency, his appointment of the so-called "conservative" Roberts might be the biggest stain of all of the many stains on his horrid track record (right after Iraq War for Israel).

George Bush was a liberal: The liberal leanings of George W. Bush



Roberts has single-handedly changed the face of America. I suspect he was a Bill Kristol appointment.

The entire Bush family is corrupt to the core. And they are hard to bring down because they started in the CIA so now they know everyone's secrets. It's probably how they got the Clintons to play their games. Obama was just a relative they hand picked to keep on the Bush family legacy. They bomb countries and then play golf while soldiers and innocent civilians are destroyed.

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by VA Yankee

Play your semantics I never stated I spoke with every construction owner but they're there unless your too blind to see. You keep excusing the government but continue to condemn those who take advantage of their laziness. The bolded line, that's a good one you keep believing that. As for policies it doesn't matter how good it is when its delivered with so much politicizing and name calling from him not just to elected leaders in this country but around the world it diminishes anything positive about it.

Then you are too blind not to see that an honest construction company owner would have no problem finding good American construction workers. Where did I excuse our government for anything? Putting words in my mouth now? I think it is shameful that for several administrations the problem of illegal immigration hasn't been handled as it should have been but that doesn't excuse thieves in the night jumping our border illegally either. Did you miss my analogy of not locking your door?

I disagree. Although I don't like name calling it does nothing to diminish good policies that are implemented.

[Oldglory]

Originally Posted by LordSquidworth

Nah. He takes his job and oath seriously. Something the trump administration doesn’t do.

[TimTheEnchanter]

Originally Posted by VA Yankee

Its not twisted, the actions of the current administration created the case that reached the court for a decision. Illegal perversion according to whom, the Presidents, the religious right, you? Oh well most of the world doesn't view the world as you do and I'm glad to see the court operating independently as they should.

The SCOTUS is not "operating independently as they should", but as a super-legislative body; writing or re-writing laws as they like.

Originally Posted by shokwaverider

Ha Ha OK, so ANYONE who disagrees with Trump or ANYONE (Who he hired in the first place, all GREAT people by the way) leaves and exposes Trumps corruption, lies and complete incompetence ..... the OP hates and should be removed. The OP is joking of course just for this biased group. How do we even allow these people to vote? Scary.

Not sure what is in that incoherent post, but the bottom line is we've seen a lot of people prosecuted lately for "lying to Congress" (even though it seems selective) and Roberts clearly lied to Congress, which is a felony and grounds for impeachment.

Originally Posted by Goodnight

If you read through Robert's opinion what do you think he got wrong.

I've outlined at least three cases in previous replies. There are more, but here's three.

1) In King v Burwell the SCOTUS literally had to re-write the ACA in order for there to be subsidies to federal-run exchanges. There was nothing in the law about federal-run exchanges, just state-run exchanges. The proper remedy for the court was uphold the lawsuits and let Congress fix the oversight, but they didn't; they re-wrote the law stepping on Congress's appropriation powers.

2) In Burdick v Georgia the SCOTUS changed the plain and clearly understood usage of the word "sex" in Title VII of the CRA and changed it completely. If Congress had never considered sexual orientation nor transgender rights as it pertains to Title VII you might have been able to argue it was an "updating" of the text, but Congress has considered such changes in every Congress since 1994 and chosen not to add protections for sexual orientation nor transgender. It is completely wrong for an unelected body to step outside of their proscribed role to intrude on the will of the people, as expressed by their representatives.

3) re:ACA the SCOTUS shouldn't be hearing cases on administrative procedures. A simple phone call to the White House COS or AG to tell them to clean up the rescind order would have been more appropriate. It is particularly galling that a clearly illegal EO is allowed to stand while you nitpick the remedy.

Originally Posted by TristramShandy

Agree 100%. I can disagree with individual decisions (or, at the very least, be disappointed in them), but he's proving to be fair rather than a mouthpiece. I have to respect that.

Roberts isn't being "fair", he is being "activist". Only he knows why, but he still lied about that to Congress.

Originally Posted by jazzarama

Not partisan In this case and the sexual orientation case did you have any doubt how six of the Justices would rule ? The four liberals, Thomas, and Alito ? Once a term they might surprise, but on issues like those they're as predictable as snow in Alaska. Whether you call it partisan or shaping rulings to fit their preferences, object constitutional and statutory interpretation are back-burnered.

The thing is the Liberal Wing of the SCOTUS never, EVER surprises on a major ruling. What was the last major case where a liberal sided with the conservatives?

Originally Posted by jacqueg

I clearly remember how THRILLED conservatives were when Robert was nominated and approved. Pretty sure you all felt tingles down your legs. I think Roberts today is still pretty much who he's been throughout his career - a conservative. Your problem is that you now think traditional conservatism equates to liberal/progressive. It doesn't.

People were happy with Roberts partly because of his testimony before Congress and his pledge to call "balls and strikes". Nothing about Robert's major rulings has been "conservative", they have been activist. If he is calling "balls and strikes" he's made the strike zone ten feet high and forty feet wide.... when he wants to be, but not at other times. He is precisely what he said he would not be.

Originally Posted by VA Yankee

I'll share a story about Construction Jobs, our district was building another school and we walked over to check the progress, we noticed that almost all the workers were Hispanic. Talk with the foreman we asked about that he said if 10 American guys apply on Monday, 5 will fail the drug test, 3 have felony records and of the 2 who get through it 1 won't show up on Monday, the remaining guy will almost always quit by the end of the week. The Others show up, work and he doesn't have to worry; when asked about kids going into the trades he just laughed because kids don't want to do this kind of work and the schools see the same thing.

I'll share a story about Construction Jobs too. In the early 1980's a good number of my surfing friends were contractors and construction workers. The construction workers, many of whom were dry-wallers and framers, were making about $20 an hour, which was a great wage considering the federal minimum wage was $3.35 at the time. They all showed up to work every day and were happy to do so.

But around 1983 or so a lot of illegal aliens started showing up and were willing to work at $10 an hour and off the books, meaning the contractor didn't have to pay any of the federal or state taxes he did the legal workers, which saved him another $6-8 an hour.

Not every contractor hired the illegal labor..... or at least not at first, but after coming in 30-40% higher on every bid and not winning any new business they had to cave too and hire the illegal labor.

My friends who'd lost their $20 an hour job either had to find new jobs or work for substantially less, IF they could get hired at all. A legal $10 an hour worker is more expensive than an illegal $10 an hour worker because of FICA, SSI, SDI, etc.

U.S. workers are not lazy, criminals, drug addicts or irresponsible. The anecdote (if it is true even) is offensive.

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

The wealthy benefitted the most from the bush tax cuts.

Way off topic.

But.... yes, people who PAY more taxes will benefit more when tax rates are lowered than people who pay LESS in taxes.

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Man.....Republicans are FUMING Roberts didn't play the activist judge like the others did.

Roberts IS the activist, which is why people are disappointed.

[pennyone]

Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter

The SCOTUS is not "operating independently as they should", but as a super-legislative body; writing or re-writing laws as they like.


Not sure what is in that incoherent post, but the bottom line is we've seen a lot of people prosecuted lately for "lying to Congress" (even though it seems selective) and Roberts clearly lied to Congress, which is a felony and grounds for impeachment.


I've outlined at least three cases in previous replies. There are more, but here's three.

1) In King v Burwell the SCOTUS literally had to re-write the ACA in order for there to be subsidies to federal-run exchanges. There was nothing in the law about federal-run exchanges, just state-run exchanges. The proper remedy for the court was uphold the lawsuits and let Congress fix the oversight, but they didn't; they re-wrote the law stepping on Congress's appropriation powers.

2) In Burdick v Georgia the SCOTUS changed the plain and clearly understood usage of the word "sex" in Title VII of the CRA and changed it completely. If Congress had never considered sexual orientation nor transgender rights as it pertains to Title VII you might have been able to argue it was an "updating" of the text, but Congress has considered such changes in every Congress since 1994 and chosen not to add protections for sexual orientation nor transgender. It is completely wrong for an unelected body to step outside of their proscribed role to intrude on the will of the people, as expressed by their representatives.

3) re:ACA the SCOTUS shouldn't be hearing cases on administrative procedures. A simple phone call to the White House COS or AG to tell them to clean up the rescind order would have been more appropriate. It is particularly galling that a clearly illegal EO is allowed to stand while you nitpick the remedy.


Roberts isn't being "fair", he is being "activist". Only he knows why, but he still lied about that to Congress.


The thing is the Liberal Wing of the SCOTUS never, EVER surprises on a major ruling. What was the last major case where a liberal sided with the conservatives?


People were happy with Roberts partly because of his testimony before Congress and his pledge to call "balls and strikes". Nothing about Robert's major rulings has been "conservative", they have been activist. If he is calling "balls and strikes" he's made the strike zone ten feet high and forty feet wide.... when he wants to be, but not at other times. He is precisely what he said he would not be.


I'll share a story about Construction Jobs too. In the early 1980's a good number of my surfing friends were contractors and construction workers. The construction workers, many of whom were dry-wallers and framers, were making about $20 an hour, which was a great wage considering the federal minimum wage was $3.35 at the time. They all showed up to work every day and were happy to do so.

But around 1983 or so a lot of illegal aliens started showing up and were willing to work at $10 an hour and off the books, meaning the contractor didn't have to pay any of the federal or state taxes he did the legal workers, which saved him another $6-8 an hour.

Not every contractor hired the illegal labor..... or at least not at first, but after coming in 30-40% higher on every bid and not winning any new business they had to cave too and hire the illegal labor.

My friends who'd lost their $20 an hour job either had to find new jobs or work for substantially less, IF they could get hired at all. A legal $10 an hour worker is more expensive than an illegal $10 an hour worker because of FICA, SSI, SDI, etc.

U.S. workers are not lazy, criminals, drug addicts or irresponsible. The anecdote (if it is true even) is offensive.


Way off topic.

But.... yes, people who PAY more taxes will benefit more when tax rates are lowered than people who pay LESS in taxes.


Roberts IS the activist, which is why people are disappointed.

Oh you’re just sore because the SCOTUS just made sure gays and trans can’t be discriminated against in the work place. The world is getting happier and fairer but some people hate that. Lol

[RowingFiend]

Originally Posted by pennyone

Oh you’re just sore because the SCOTUS just made sure gays and trans can’t be discriminated against in the work place. The world is getting happier and fairer but some people hate that. Lol

The point you and every other liberal is missing is this: It is not the Supreme Court's job to "make sure gays and trans can't be discriminated against." That is the job of Congress and Congress rejected "making sure gays and trans can't be discriminated against."

The reason it's important for Congress to decide these political questions is that the people vote for Congress. They don't vote for Supreme Court judges. You may be celebrating this decision because you like the outcome, but there is nothing to stop the unelected and unaccountable Supreme Court from legislating in a way you DON'T like in the future.

All four liberal judges and Roberts are rogues who don't understand the separation of powers. Or, if they do understand it, they don't care about it. They're drunk on their own power and think the Supreme Court is more important than the other two branches of government.

[TimTheEnchanter]

Originally Posted by pennyone

Oh you’re just sore because the SCOTUS just made sure gays and trans can’t be discriminated against in the work place. The world is getting happier and fairer but some people hate that. Lol

Apparently you didn't read any of my post.