Watchdog lawyer says 6 supremes must be impeached
Jun 26, 2015 23:00:23 GMT -5
Post by J.J.Gibbs on Jun 26, 2015 23:00:23 GMT -5
Watchdog lawyer says 6 supremes must be impeached
How the Obamacare ruling snubs 'rule of law'
Published: 1 day ago
Leo Hohmann
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, nominated by President George W. Bush, has been a disappointment for conservatives.
In the wake of Thursday’s King v. Burwell Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare, at least one attorney who has argued cases before the court is calling for the justices who filed the majority opinion to be impeached.
All six of them need to go, says Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch.
All six are guilty of abandoning the rule of law, says the longtime government watchdog. In its place they have substituted the advancement of their own political agendas.
“These six justices have violated their own long-established rules of interpretation for applying statutes to instead advance their own political objectives or burnish their public persona,” Klayman said in reaction to the decision. “Such personal goals corrode the role of the court. The justices abandoned the rule of law and have become merely a political focus group.”
As Justice Antonin Scalia makes clear in his dissent, the six justices actually rewrote the Affordable Care Act instead of interpreting it. Scalia wrote that the legacy of the Roberts Court will be “forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
Scalia wrote that the court engaged in “somersaults of statutory interpretation” to save Obamacare, rather than applying neutral and consistent rules to all laws equally.
What do YOU think? Should the progressive wing of Supreme Court be impeached? Sound off in today’s WND poll!
Concerns about Roberts
Klayman has become gravely concerned about the independence of the Supreme Court following a whistleblower’s allegations that private information about Chief Justice John Roberts was “harvested” illegally by the U.S. government.
Although it is illegal for the Central Intelligence Agency to operate within the domestic United States, a contractor whose company was hired to perform the “harvesting” for the CIA has come forward to blow the whistle. That contractor, identified in an earlier article by WND as Dennis Montgomery, claims to have proof that the CIA harvested personal and private information about Roberts and other federal judges and may be intimidating the Supreme Court with the threat of leaking personally damaging information.
“To preserve the republic in its last gasps,” Congress must impeach these justices, Klayman said.
The U.S. Constitution provides in Article III, Section 1, that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.”
It does not give judges a term for life but only “during good Behavior.”
WND previously reported that Klayman suggested Roberts may have been blackmailed into approving Obamacare in 2013 after being spied on by the NSA and CIA.
“Let’s take this possibility: Why did Chief Justice Roberts at the eleventh hour change his decision? He was going to side with the other justices and find that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Is it something that was dug up on him by the NSA or the CIA? Was that used against him to blackmail him?” Klayman asked during the Aaron Klein Investigative Radio show.
“These are the kinds of things [the government is doing], and that’s why it’s so scary what’s going on with the NSA and the CIA,” he said. “It can happen in a democracy. So that may help explain it, and perhaps we can reach these issues through the NSA cases that we brought, the NSA/CIA cases. I intend to get the truth on this.”
‘Abandoning the law’
Klayman, a former federal prosecutor, head of Freedom Watch and previously the founder of Judicial Watch, is not the only legal analyst that is questioning the integrity of the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.
David Harsanyi, senior editor at The Federalist, is also attacking the court’s decision-making process.
He posted a column Thursday accusing Roberts of tossing the rule of law by the wayside in favor of rank partisanship.
Roberts wrote for the majority:
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”
What that statement illustrates is that, for Roberts, the law is a subordinate concern, Harsanyi wrote.
“Let’s concede to Roberts that the intentions of every politician is to improve on things. Republicans believe that further nationalizing health-care insurance is a bad idea and makes markets less competitive and more expensive. By overturning the law they want to improve health-care insurance markets, as well. That’s why we have legislatures, to debate these points of view and then pass laws. Those laws codify what a majority can agree on. And we have courts to judge the constitutionality of laws, not bore into the souls of politicians to decipher their true intent or find justifications to rubber stamp ‘democracy’ – as Roberts puts it.”
Harsanyi also notes that it was Roberts who helped rewrite Obamacare the first time around, making a penalty into a tax and “for the first time in history allowing American government to coerce every citizen into buying a product from a private company as part of its powers to regulate commerce.
“Here is Roberts again, abandoning law, lamenting that Obamacare was drafted in haphazard and vague way, right before ruling that laws can be implemented in any way the executive branch sees fit as long as judges deem their intentions righteous.”
Harsanyi closes his column with this stinging rebuke to the GOP.
“Though Republican presidents keep nominating judges that disappoint conservatives, you can be assured that Hillary Clinton will not disappoint liberals with her picks.”
link
How the Obamacare ruling snubs 'rule of law'
Published: 1 day ago
Leo Hohmann
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, nominated by President George W. Bush, has been a disappointment for conservatives.
In the wake of Thursday’s King v. Burwell Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare, at least one attorney who has argued cases before the court is calling for the justices who filed the majority opinion to be impeached.
All six of them need to go, says Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch.
All six are guilty of abandoning the rule of law, says the longtime government watchdog. In its place they have substituted the advancement of their own political agendas.
“These six justices have violated their own long-established rules of interpretation for applying statutes to instead advance their own political objectives or burnish their public persona,” Klayman said in reaction to the decision. “Such personal goals corrode the role of the court. The justices abandoned the rule of law and have become merely a political focus group.”
As Justice Antonin Scalia makes clear in his dissent, the six justices actually rewrote the Affordable Care Act instead of interpreting it. Scalia wrote that the legacy of the Roberts Court will be “forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”
Scalia wrote that the court engaged in “somersaults of statutory interpretation” to save Obamacare, rather than applying neutral and consistent rules to all laws equally.
What do YOU think? Should the progressive wing of Supreme Court be impeached? Sound off in today’s WND poll!
Concerns about Roberts
Klayman has become gravely concerned about the independence of the Supreme Court following a whistleblower’s allegations that private information about Chief Justice John Roberts was “harvested” illegally by the U.S. government.
Although it is illegal for the Central Intelligence Agency to operate within the domestic United States, a contractor whose company was hired to perform the “harvesting” for the CIA has come forward to blow the whistle. That contractor, identified in an earlier article by WND as Dennis Montgomery, claims to have proof that the CIA harvested personal and private information about Roberts and other federal judges and may be intimidating the Supreme Court with the threat of leaking personally damaging information.
“To preserve the republic in its last gasps,” Congress must impeach these justices, Klayman said.
The U.S. Constitution provides in Article III, Section 1, that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.”
It does not give judges a term for life but only “during good Behavior.”
WND previously reported that Klayman suggested Roberts may have been blackmailed into approving Obamacare in 2013 after being spied on by the NSA and CIA.
“Let’s take this possibility: Why did Chief Justice Roberts at the eleventh hour change his decision? He was going to side with the other justices and find that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Is it something that was dug up on him by the NSA or the CIA? Was that used against him to blackmail him?” Klayman asked during the Aaron Klein Investigative Radio show.
“These are the kinds of things [the government is doing], and that’s why it’s so scary what’s going on with the NSA and the CIA,” he said. “It can happen in a democracy. So that may help explain it, and perhaps we can reach these issues through the NSA cases that we brought, the NSA/CIA cases. I intend to get the truth on this.”
‘Abandoning the law’
Klayman, a former federal prosecutor, head of Freedom Watch and previously the founder of Judicial Watch, is not the only legal analyst that is questioning the integrity of the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.
David Harsanyi, senior editor at The Federalist, is also attacking the court’s decision-making process.
He posted a column Thursday accusing Roberts of tossing the rule of law by the wayside in favor of rank partisanship.
Roberts wrote for the majority:
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”
What that statement illustrates is that, for Roberts, the law is a subordinate concern, Harsanyi wrote.
“Let’s concede to Roberts that the intentions of every politician is to improve on things. Republicans believe that further nationalizing health-care insurance is a bad idea and makes markets less competitive and more expensive. By overturning the law they want to improve health-care insurance markets, as well. That’s why we have legislatures, to debate these points of view and then pass laws. Those laws codify what a majority can agree on. And we have courts to judge the constitutionality of laws, not bore into the souls of politicians to decipher their true intent or find justifications to rubber stamp ‘democracy’ – as Roberts puts it.”
Harsanyi also notes that it was Roberts who helped rewrite Obamacare the first time around, making a penalty into a tax and “for the first time in history allowing American government to coerce every citizen into buying a product from a private company as part of its powers to regulate commerce.
“Here is Roberts again, abandoning law, lamenting that Obamacare was drafted in haphazard and vague way, right before ruling that laws can be implemented in any way the executive branch sees fit as long as judges deem their intentions righteous.”
Harsanyi closes his column with this stinging rebuke to the GOP.
“Though Republican presidents keep nominating judges that disappoint conservatives, you can be assured that Hillary Clinton will not disappoint liberals with her picks.”
link
