Impeach Roberts!

Yeah, if Trump is acquitted, that’s the first thing he should do, so he can get a real conservative on the bench.

What is this crapola about Roberts declining to read Rand Paul’s question because it mentioned the suspected whistleblower’s name? And the other GOP senators behaving as if the whistleblower were a rape victim or something?

Chief Justice Roberts, you must know, surely, what every lawyer knows: whistleblower statutes do not protect the whistleblower’s identity. They protect the whistleblower from retaliation, like being fired. Which, btw, obviously would not be necessary if his (or “their” as Schiff kept saying) identity were not disclosed.

And it is too basic a tenet of due process, perhaps the most fundamental, thensine qua non of due process, that the accused has a right to confront his accuser—-for us not to be shocked at Roberts’ knee-jerk protection of these Obama officials.

Why isn’t anybody saying that? In a roomful of attorneys!!

This convinced me that Roberts, who saved Obamacare, is in the Dems’ pocket. He has fudged the most important, the unique, rôle constitutionally assigned to his position: presiding impartially over an impeachment trial. Impeach him!

13+
avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

17 thoughts on “Impeach Roberts!”

  1. After the Obamacare decision, are you really surprised? This guy has zero ideological beliefs but to protect the image of the Supreme Court as non-partisan. What. a. joke.

    Frankly, I knew we were in trouble when his confirmation breezed through the Senate with a 78-22 decision. Gorsuch-who is the smartest justice on this planet- squeezed by with a 54-45.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  2. With Obamacare, Roberts, who might be the smartest person in that room, made clear that the most important thing to him was that everyone acknowledge that he is the smartest person in that room.

    I haven’t trusted him since.

    He has rewarded my mistrust several times.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  3. MJBubba:
    With Obamacare, Roberts, who might be the smartest person in that room, made clear that the most important thing to him was that everyone acknowledge that he is the smartest person in that room.

    I haven’t trusted him since.

    He has rewarded my mistrust several times.

    It’s more than ego. Roberts is obsessed with the image of ‘the office’ so to speak; not particularly the law, but how the highest court in the land is perceived by the public. He’s actually serving in the wrong branch of govt; he should be running for political office.

    2+
    avataravatar
  4. EThompson:

    MJBubba:
    With Obamacare, Roberts, who might be the smartest person in that room, made clear that the most important thing to him was that everyone acknowledge that he is the smartest person in that room.

    I haven’t trusted him since.

    He has rewarded my mistrust several times.

    It’s more than ego. Roberts is obsessed with the image of ‘the office’ so to speak; not particularly the law, but how the highest court in the land is perceived by the public. He’s actually serving in the wrong branch of govt; he should be running for political office.

    Yup.  I wrote about this years ago — cannot find it now.  Shucks.
    Roberts has interpreted his duty as defending the Supreme Court from the depredations of the Constitution.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  5. Haakon Dahl:

    EThompson:

    MJBubba:
    With Obamacare, Roberts, who might be the smartest person in that room, made clear that the most important thing to him was that everyone acknowledge that he is the smartest person in that room.

    I haven’t trusted him since.

    He has rewarded my mistrust several times.

    It’s more than ego. Roberts is obsessed with the image of ‘the office’ so to speak; not particularly the law, but how the highest court in the land is perceived by the public. He’s actually serving in the wrong branch of govt; he should be running for political office.

    Yup.  I wrote about this years ago — cannot find it now.  Shucks.
    Roberts has interpreted his duty as defending the Supreme Court from the depredations of the Constitution.

    If you find your comment, pls post. Sounds as if you were ahead of your time.

    1+
    avatar
  6. EThompson:

    Haakon Dahl:

    EThompson:

    MJBubba:
    With Obamacare, Roberts, who might be the smartest person in that room, made clear that the most important thing to him was that everyone acknowledge that he is the smartest person in that room.

    I haven’t trusted him since.

    He has rewarded my mistrust several times.

    It’s more than ego. Roberts is obsessed with the image of ‘the office’ so to speak; not particularly the law, but how the highest court in the land is perceived by the public. He’s actually serving in the wrong branch of govt; he should be running for political office.

    Yup.  I wrote about this years ago — cannot find it now.  Shucks.
    Roberts has interpreted his duty as defending the Supreme Court from the depredations of the Constitution.

    If you find your comment, pls post. Sounds as if you were ahead of your time.

    Here’s the closest I can find. This was toned down to meet the limits of the publishing site.  I know that I wrote about this in more fiery terms somewhere, but heck if I can find it.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  7. Here is Roberts shutting down Rand Paul’s question.

    Rand Paul comments on the question and the propriety of investigating the source of the inquiry.

    From Rand Paul’s Twitter feed, the question as posed.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  8. I saw Paul being interviewed by one of the Foxy Blondes, and she said, “I’ll ask you not to say the name here,” mentioning that it was on his Twitter feed “for those who want to see it”.

    Wait, WHAT?

    I can’t even get my head around this one.
    So,calling someone a “whistleblower” is now tantamount to, idk, the N word?

    I mean, what can be slanderous about it?  The effing House of Representatives took his word as Gospel, even though it was contradicted by the President and by the transcript!

    So suppose a Fox News anchor, or an interviewee, pronounced the now unthinkable words “Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower”.

    Where is the liability?
    For one thing,  this is fair comment on a matter of public concern, and for another thing, it is not, even if proven false, a defamatory statement, meaning words  which tend to  blacken character or reputation!  Being a “whistleblower” generally implies courage and honesty (although, come to think of it, not so much, if you do it anonymously..)

    WTF?!?!  I don’t understand.

    I think this has to be a holdover, a race-memory, from Watergate and the legendary Woodward and Bernstein’s mysterious, anonymous source “Deep Throat”, the story all good little future journalists, and maybe all good little future politicians, imbibe with their mothers’ milk.  “The Once and Future Fink”.

    7+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  9. Hypatia:
    I saw Paul being interviewed by one of the Foxy Blondes, and she said, “I’ll ask you not to say the name here,” mentioning that it was on his Twitter feed “for those who want to see it”.

    Wait, WHAT?

    I caught that also.

    Shame on Fox News.   Their decline has been precipitous.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  10. Mike LaRoche:
    I have referred to him as The Coward John Roberts since June of 2012, because that is what he is. And a liar as well.

    You forgot to add ‘political.’ If I had my druthers, I’d have an entire court made up of Thomases and Alitos but I continue to gain personal respect for Gorsuch. Granted, he has sided at times with the four liberals but after reading his summations, he appears quite precise about the interpretation of the Framers and makes decisions with less political bias. I would of course defer to our resident attorney Hyp for confirmation!

    1+
    avatar
  11. Haakon Dahl:
    High patootie is a lawyer?  But she *seems* perfectly nice ?

    She is a highly intelligent and educated member with a seemingly endless flow of information. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to read her commentaries and posts.

    She saves me endless “Google time.” 🙂

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  12. Haakon Dahl:
    High patootie is a lawyer?  But she *seems* perfectly nice ?

    “High Patootie”? Is that what you guys call me in the RAMU sessions?
    Well!  All I can say is

    ….I love it!  Too kind!

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar

Leave a Reply