IMPEACH CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTSTarget:to Vice President BidenSponsored by: G EvansA Supreme Court Justice must be above politics, but not above the law. Justice Roberts lied to congress while under oath during the confirmation process, and is legislating from the bench. Robert's ruling has taken away the voice of the people and given all the power to the corporations, some of which are multi-national...giving foreigners more say in how our country will be run than you, the American citizen.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/impeach-chief-justice-roberts

>Justice Roberts lied to congress while under oath during the confirmation process, and is legislating from the bench.<

Balderdash.

Briefly:

Judicial activism occurs when judges abandon constitutional or statutory meaning and impose their policy preferences instead.

A decision that faithfully applies the First Amendment is not activism but rather a proper exercise of the judicial responsibility to keep Congress within its constitutional bounds.

The government argued in Citizens United that it had the power to outlaw books and movies produced by unions and corporations, both non-profit and for-profit, if they included even a single line addressing an election or a political issue.

Such blatant censorship of core political speech falls well within the text and original meaning of the First Amendment, which supported an open marketplace of ideas by declaring in broad terms that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."

Contrast this with the paradigmatic examples of left-wing judicial activism [e.g., Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas], which have manufactured a host of "fundamental" rights without anything resembling such a clear textual basis. http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTk4OTA4YzlkMDg5ZmQyMWQ3OTFiZjM4OWIxMmYxNGI=

A more technical explanation for why the Citizens United decision, which overrules the earlier Austin case, is not contrary to the principles of stare decisis ("let the precedent stand") asserted by Chief Justice Roberts in his Congressional testimony is set forth in Roberts' concurring opinion:

Finally and most importantly, the Government’s own effort to defend Austin—or, more accurately, to defend something that is not quite Austin—underscores its weakness as a precedent of the Court. The Government concedes that Austin “is not the most lucid opinion,” yet asks us to reaffirm its holding. But while invoking stare decisis to support this position, the Government never once even mentions the compelling interest that Austin relied upon in the first place: the need to diminish “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.”

Instead of endorsing Austin on its own terms, the Government urges us to reaffirm Austin’s specific holding on the basis of two new and potentially expansive interests—the need to prevent actual or apparent quid pro quo corruption, and the need to protect corporate shareholders. Those interests may or may not support the result in Austin, but they were plainly not part of the reasoning on which Austin relied.

To its credit, the Government forthrightly concedes that Austin did not embrace either of the new rationales it now urges upon us. [Multiple excerpts from brief and oral argument.] …

To the extent that the Government’s case for reaffirming Austin depends on radically reconceptualizing its reasoning, that argument is at odds with itself. Stare decisis is a doctrine of preservation, not transformation. It counsels deference to past mistakes, but provides no justification for making new ones. There is therefore no basis for the Court to give precedential sway to reasoning that it has never accepted, simply because that reasoning happens to support a conclusion reached on different grounds that have since been abandoned or discredited.

Doing so would undermine the rule-of-law values that justify stare decisis in the first place. It would effectively license the Court to invent and adopt new principles of constitutional law solely for the purpose of rationalizing its past errors, without a proper analysis of whether those principles have merit on their own. This approach would allow the Court’s past missteps to spawn future mistakes, undercutting the very rule-of-law values that stare decisis is designed to protect. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZC.html

Wow, only thirty signatures from random people on the internet. With a goal of 1000 random internet people, this will represent a serious change, a grassroots movement to remove a SCOTUS judge because he was one of a majority to vote to give corporations the same Constitutional rights as Big Labor. WOAH.

------------------------------------

twitter @EyeAmU

conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, only thirty signatures from random people on
> the internet. With a goal of 1000 random internet
> people, this will represent a serious change, a
> grassroots movement to remove a SCOTUS judge
> because he was one of a majority to vote to give
> corporations the same Constitutional rights as Big
> Labor. WOAH.


Even if they had more signatures, the idea is a joke. The only realistic basis for impeaching a Supreme Court justice would be corruption in office (taking bribes and the like).

The idea of impeachment, however, is likely catnip to a certain kind of leftist, and could probably serve as a decent fundraising device.

McCain Feingold went into effect in 2002. Does anyone really think it did any good? I can't say I noticed any difference. Maybe less ads, but the influence of money has done nothing but increase (which makes me believe people were finding ways around the law).

there are always built in loopholes for the savvy to exploit and exploit them they will. Mcain fiengold was just a re-election ploy that politicians use to show the public, "hey look we are doing something, re-elect us" then get re-elected and steal more of your money and take military planes places that they shouldnt be going and charge tax payers.

conVince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, only thirty signatures from random people on
> the internet. With a goal of 1000 random internet
> people, this will represent a serious change, a
> grassroots movement to remove a SCOTUS judge
> because he was one of a majority to vote to give
> corporations the same Constitutional rights as Big
> Labor. WOAH.


That is certainly a twisted view of the decision. Corporations have 100 times the assets to buy elections.

The decision does show just how "activist" these 5 republican justices are. They over turned over 100 years of prescedence....the same "prescedence" they used as a justification for their 2nd Amendment decision. The only justification for their gun decision was prescedence.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2010 09:43PM by Vince(1).

Obama is a Communist...and is destroying America!
Wake up people and fight back.