iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Rep. Peter DeFazio Investigating Impeachment For Chief Justice John Roberts


First Posted: 10/22/10 05:52 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:05 PM ET

With Democrats increasingly outraged over the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections -- a change conservatives have been more successful at taking advantage of -- a Democratic congressman is raising the prospect of impeaching the Supreme Court's chief justice over the issue.

"I mean, the Supreme Court has done a tremendous disservice to the United States of America," Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign. They've opened the floodgates, and personally, I'm investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts for perjuring during his Senate hearings, where he said he wouldn't be a judicial activist, and he wouldn't overturn precedents."

In his 2005 confirmation hearings, Roberts famously said, "Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire."

According to DeFazio, Roberts hasn't stood by his own doctrine. He pointed to former Justice John Paul Stevens's dissent in the case, in which he said the Citizens United case was not properly brought before the Supreme Court. "This procedure is unusual and inadvisable for a court," Stevens said of the process. "Our colleagues' suggestion that 'we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell," ante, at 1, would be more accurate if rephrased to state that 'we have asked ourselves' to reconsider those cases."

"Justice Stevens makes the point that Roberts decided a case that wasn't even before the Court, and invited the issue before the Court," said DeFazio. "It was the most extraordinary condemnation I've ever read of a perverted majority on the Supreme Court, at least in recent years."

The last Supreme Court justice to face impeachment hearings was Samuel Chase in the early 1800s, who faced charges that he was being too partisan on behalf of the Federalist Party. The House of Representatives impeached him but the Senate did not convict, and he remained on the bench. Legal scholars doubt that impeachment hearings against Roberts would go anywhere.

"This is neither well-advised nor plausible," said Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. "Nominees may not perjure themselves, of course, but nothing in Roberts' testimony along these lines can fairly be characterized as perjury.

"I think it's probably an understatement to say it's extremely unlikely the House of Representatives will do anything about this," agreed University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law professor Michael J. Gerhardt. "Impeachment resolutions are introduced all the time, but very little comes of most of them, because most lack any merit and most just have no political support behind them."

Gerhardt added that Roberts has generally respected precedent. "[I]n this case, it could just be called a question of judgment," he said. "It appears to me that a judge, and in this case, the chief justice of the United States, has the independence to exercise his judgment."

DeFazio's race in Oregon's fourth congressional district has been thrust into the national spotlight because of the involvement by the Concerned Taxpayers of America, a shadowy Republican independent expenditure group funded by exactly two taxpayers who live in Maryland and upstate New York.

*************************

What's happening in your district? The Huffington Post wants to know about all the campaign ads, debates, town halls, mailings, shenanigans, and other interesting campaign news happening by you. E-mail us any tips, videos, audio files, and photos to election@huffingtonpost.com.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
With Democrats increasingly outraged over the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections -- a change conservatives have been more successful at tak...
With Democrats increasingly outraged over the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections -- a change conservatives have been more successful at tak...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,009
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (164 total)
QuietLightTraveler
Scientist, Teacher, Naturalist, Photographer
09:32 PM on 12/04/2010
"Gerhardt added that Roberts has generally respected precedent. "[I]n this case, it could just be called a question of judgment," he said." This statement is pure unadulterated BS of the worst kind. We know this abominable ruling was orchestrated by Roberts and the right wing of the court. It's outright judicial activism and Roberts did lie at the hearings. I wouldn't listen to the opinion of a any lawyer because they are all trained liars. That is why they frequently go into politics, where they can use their skills and arrogance to lie to the people. And the Democrats better do something about it otherwise their party will be history.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balkingpoints
World Citizen Forum / writer's open mic - any topi
07:28 PM on 11/12/2010
DeFazio couldn't get that though this House, let alone the one coming in 2011. Roberts can easily defend that he meant he would generally not reverse precedent, depending on merits of each case.

His Citzens United ruling itself, ignorant as it is, is not impeachable. He gets to rule on it. You can impeach for blatant misconduct in office, like perhaps fundraising.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mlmn08
Lord, please protect me from your followers.
08:34 AM on 11/05/2010
Roberts has completely reversed himself from his testimony in the confirmation hearings. He should definitely be impeached although that will never happen. Just like all politicians, the Judge should wear a Nascar jacket with the patches of his sponsoring corporations sewn on. He is undermining our government and his actions, in my view, are treason.
01:13 AM on 11/05/2010
"This is a very conservative court that's pro-business, and class actions are not good for business," he said.

LA Times

The Supreme Court Wants to eliminate Class Action suits.
photo
MaxHeadroom
My Karma ran over my dogma.
07:04 PM on 11/01/2010
Go for it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Voter4America
11:30 PM on 10/29/2010
John Roberts must be brought up on charges of treason.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dhhh
11:16 PM on 10/29/2010
If we have any sense of valuing what is left of our democracy Roberts must be impeached.If SC Justices lie to a panel before confirmation. Those lies must be impeachable...Otherwise the Supreme Court is no better than a monkey house at the zoo.
avg american
It's about jobs, jobs, jobs...
10:14 PM on 11/03/2010
Term limits for scotUS.
11:24 PM on 10/28/2010
Citizens United will prove to be the Dred Scott decision of our time. By going out of his way to decide an issue that wasn't part of the case, Roberts showed this to be the first step in a program of selling our government to moneyed interests. Kudos to Rep. DeFazio for realizing you can't have hope without audacity!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chabuka
03:35 PM on 10/28/2010
The Supreme Courts interference in the Florida's Supreme Court decision to recount all votes and hand the election of 2000 over to Bush was also unusual and unprecedented....as a matter of fact I have read that decision was unconstitutional
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:22 AM on 10/27/2010
Rep. DeFazio, I must weigh in on your efforts to address, WHAT I FEEL IS THEEEE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF OUR DAY! Beginning with the fact that Justice Roberts had, indeed, perjured himself. I pray that the citizenry of our country WAKE UP and STAND UP before it is too late!!

I, for one, am extremely afraid of the course in which "W" & Chaney carefully plotted a future where the most wealthy would "purchase our democracy", and make the rest of the population's opinions and will irrelevant, (e.g.) a Supreme Court giving corp.s the same rights as individuals, the Patriot Act (lost of privacy), leaving Washington, while leaving the middle class giving billions to their Wall Street wolves, deregulation of the oil companies, etc.

Thank you, Mr. DeFazio, for taking the lead on attempting to dialing back the madness, before this great country goes the way of other great "empires" in history! I'm quite serious when I say, "REMEMBER THE BASTILLE!"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PCMartin
Bullish on cat food and refrigerator boxes
12:10 AM on 10/27/2010
I believe impeachment is a political as well as a legal sanction, with the House of Representatives, the Senate, and ultimately the electorate being the sole judges of what constitutes bad behavior, high crimes, and misdemeanors by a Supreme Court Justice. In my opinion, the Citizens United decision violates a core, if unwritten, precept of democracy that that each citizen should have not just an equal vote, but an equal voice in political affairs: one person, one voice, and one person, one vote rather than one dollar, one voice, and one dollar, one vote. I think Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy are all impeachable for their vote in this decision.

Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia are also impeachable, on similar grounds, for their vote in Caperton v. Massey Coal. Thomas and Scalia are additionally impeachable for using deliberately forced and distorted legal reasoning in order to achieve a poltical end in Bush v. Gore, as well as for overt political partisanship, as evidenced by their participation in Koch Brothers events.

There are plenty of valid grounds for impeachment, and they need not meet with the technical requirements of high crimes and misdemeanors as traditionally defined for other positions. It's enough that these Justices have proved themselves grossly unsuitable for a position that requires the most ethical, wise, impartial, and statesmanlike of men and women. I say investigate every aspect of their lives and every potential conflict of interest. Then impeach them repeatedly until they resign or are convicted.
avg american
It's about jobs, jobs, jobs...
10:19 PM on 11/03/2010
Term limits for scotUS. They are not the best this country has to offer. They are political appointees, ruling for themselves and their richy-rich corp brethren. ex. tobacco companies, oil companies.
Impeach Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia.
06:30 PM on 10/26/2010
instead of only invoking historic precedent and the bad consequences of corporate political contributions, one should denounce directly that such contributions are a de facto usurpation of the power of money which was raised from investors small and large, private and institutional, for an economic purpose rather than for a political purpose.
indeed the CEOs of corporations usurp this power when they support their favorite candidates without an explicit and democratically obtained go-ahead from who invests in their companies.
the duty to consult investors in a democratically credible way each time that a company wants to support a specific political candidate or party should become the law of the country.
why should retirees through their pension funds, e.g., end up supporting a politician unknown to them just because their pension system invested in a company whose CEO likes that politician?
this law would allow unions to recover their political voice since as mass organizations they can poll their members very readily before federal and political elections (unlike corporations).
union statutes could specify whether a simple majority, plurality, etc. suffices for the union to support candidates, parties, etc. with money, people, and resources.
let’s see what by-bribe-only judges and politicians and let-me-grab-freely libertarians can say against a reform that stresses democracy and opposes the usurpation of private property by middle men.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:42 PM on 10/26/2010
Bombshells of honest to goodness reporting on the Supreme Court Justices and secret meetings held twice a year by the Koch brothers is on available! Go to http://www­­.palingat­e­s.blogsp­ot­.com/ which, showcases the Right Wing Agenda from the last meetings held and they are online and published, folks for the world to read!

American democracy for sale!

"We, the People", Demand Impeachment Trails of the Supreme Court justices in the United States of Corporations!

"We, the People" Demand Our Democracy be Restored, to "We, the People" of the United States of America!

American Citizens Unite - "We, the People" will not allow American Democracy to be SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER JUSTICE ROBERTS!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
siamao
01:39 AM on 10/26/2010
LILLIAN McEWEN TALKS

Lillian McEwen, the former girlfriend of Clarence Thomas, was on Larry King tonight.
She's reasonably credible, reflective, "parsing her words" (to use her own often
repeated term about both Thomas and Hill's 1991 testimonies). She believes that
Ginny Thomas was motivated by "angst" to call Anita Hill because "she thought
that she was helping her husband."

McEwen that she wouldn't have supported Thomas for SCOTUS due to what she
saw as his "instability." She describes a man who was a very heavy alcohol user,
who may have been "alcoholic", but who did a "white knuckle" sobriety without any
formal recovery or counseling. This resulted in him being often irritable and angry,
cranky, and overly sensitive. She described him as have odd "sexual preferences"
although she didn't "feel comfortable" elaborating on these.

Of most importance during the interview was McEwen's explanation about the
style which Thomas has shown on the SCOTUS. She perceives that he bases
his decisions on a belief that he's helping his "friends" or "punishing" his "enemies."
06:02 PM on 10/25/2010
Much talk of impeachment here. Too soon. First Americans must take back their government from the fascists who have hijacked it for the last 22 months.

First, Nov 2....then the calls for investigations and for impeachments will follow. And rightfully so.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ObamAtomic
03:42 AM on 10/26/2010
Only a fool could claim a president voted by the people ,selected by representatives
of the people and met all legals requirement is an hijacked government.

TBaggers are amazingly ignorant and foolish!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tj101
Hata ukinichukia la kweli nitakwambia
12:22 PM on 10/27/2010
Dream on bagger.