Desperate Democrat Peter DeFazio Investigating Impeachment For Chief Justice John Roberts

When courts make decisions that they don't like not only will they attempt to embarrass you, but they'll try to get rid of you too:

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."

Of course DeFazio's really mad about a independent advertising campaign that has been launched against his reelection, but why would the Huffington Post or any other member of the lamestream media want to get in the way of a good whine?

RELATED: Justice Alito Will Skip State Of Union

Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Against Animal Cruelty Videos

WaPo.com:

The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos depicting graphic violence against animals, saying that it violates the constitutional right to free speech.

Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs.

"The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."

The law was enacted in 1999 to forbid sales of so-called "crush videos," which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by depicting the torture of animals or showing them being crushed to death by women with stiletto heels or their bare feet. But the government has not prosecuted such a case. Instead, the case before the court, United States v. Stevens, came from Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fighting.

Animal rights groups and 26 states had joined the Obama administration in support of the 1999 law. They argued that videos showing animal cruelty should be treated like child pornography rather than granted constitutional protection.

But Roberts said the federal law was so broadly written that it could include all depictions of killing animals, even hunting videos. He said the court was not passing judgment about whether "a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional."

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter.

"The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes," Alito wrote.

I agree with Justice Alito. What the hell does the 1st Amendment have to do with people who harm animals for the sport of it?

Obama Nominates Radically Liberal Activist Judge Goodwin Liu To Appeals Court

AP.com:

Thirteen months into his presidency, Barack Obama finally gave liberal supporters the kind of judicial nominee they had sought and conservatives feared.

Goodwin Liu, 39, is an unabashed liberal legal scholar who, if confirmed, could become a force on the federal appeals court for decades. There's talk that in time, the Rhodes Scholar, former high court clerk and current assistant dean and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, could be the first person of Asian descent chosen for the Supreme Court.

"I can easily imagine him" as a high court nominee, said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Liu supporter and dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine.

Obama's choice of Liu for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco drew quick and vociferous criticism from conservatives. Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, described Liu as "far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence."

No way this guy should be a judge on any court, much less the powerful 9th Circuit. Guys like Yu interpret the Constitution to fit their own personal ideology, that's trademark activism. Yu is so radically Left that he even tried to stop Samuel Alito from being confirmed to the Supreme Court. Once again, Barry makes another horrible decision suited to satisfy his Leftist base, while disrespecting our storied Constitution.

Why Obama Shouldn't Pick Fights With The Supreme Court

This piece of advice comes from the NYTimes of all places, too bad with narcissism running rampant in the White House, Barry and company won't have time to listen:

IN his State of the Union address, when President Obama criticized the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito shook his head, scowled and mouthed a two-word dissent: “Not true.” Chief Justice John Roberts, meanwhile, smiled serenely, apparently untroubled by the president’s attack.

Now we know what Chief Justice Roberts really thinks.

Last week, he fired back, describing the scene as “very troubling.” The chief justice painted a harrowing picture of “one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless.”

The White House, for its part, seems eager to resume hostilities. Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, retorted that what was really “troubling” was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 5-to-4 ruling that President Obama criticized in his speech. Mr. Gibbs and his colleagues may feel emboldened by a recent poll showing that 80 percent of the public opposes that decision, which swept away restrictions on spending by corporations in political campaigns. Following the White House’s lead, Democratic strategists are portraying conservative justices as beholden to business interests. It has become the opening salvo in the battle over the next Supreme Court nomination — even before a vacancy occurs.

This sort of presidential push-and-shove with the judiciary is unlike any since the 1930s, when Franklin Roosevelt waged a very public battle with the court’s conservative majority over the fate of the New Deal — a fight that culminated in Roosevelt’s plan to enlarge and pack the court. The White House tends to welcome comparisons between Presidents Obama and Roosevelt. But in this case, it is an analogy to avoid. Roosevelt’s court fight makes clear just how much Mr. Obama stands to lose in any such protracted struggle.

Beginning in 1935, in one decision after another, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court struck down New Deal programs, rejecting the underlying notion that governmental power should be used to remedy society’s ills. Roosevelt, in response, accused the court of dragging America back to the “horse and buggy” era and creating a “no man’s land where no government — state or federal — can function.”

In his 1937 State of the Union address, Roosevelt warned the court to toe the line, bringing Democrats to their feet in wild applause. (To his disappointment, all nine justices, in a break from precedent, boycotted the speech.) One month later, the president made his audacious proposal to increase the number of justices from 9 to 15, and to fill the new seats with liberals.

Roosevelt was not the first president to spar with the Supreme Court. A number of reform-minded presidents — Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt among them — had complained that the court was wrongheaded or reactionary. But none carried the fight as far as Franklin Roosevelt did, or paid as dearly for it. Congress defeated his proposal to expand the court. And though the court did reverse itself in 1937 — in the middle of the Senate debate on the president’s plan — Roosevelt had split the Democratic Party, reawakened the opposition and undermined his second-term agenda.

The Obama administration should keep this in mind as it escalates its war of words with the court. Even though most Americans agree with the president’s position on campaign spending by corporations, the political upside of attacking the court may be short-lived. It is one thing for a president to forcefully disagree with a decision. But to engage in a public back-and-forth with the chief justice is fraught with risk. Arguments with the Supreme Court are, as one magazine put it in 1936, “packed with the most deadly dynamite,” for at least three reasons.

First, the Supreme Court is highly resilient. While Americans are often unhappy with it — and can be quick to complain that its members are politically or ideologically driven — the institution is consistently held in higher regard than either of the “political” branches of government. The judicial robe confers a kind of exaltation on nearly everyone who wears it. Judicial sanctity may be a myth, but it is a powerful one; it reinforces our hope that this really is a government of laws, not merely of fallible human beings.

Second, justices are not easily intimidated. Granted life tenure by the Constitution, they are untouchable except by impeachment. In the 1950s and ’60s, as the Supreme Court greatly expanded civil rights and strengthened civil liberties, billboards appeared across the South that said, “Impeach Earl Warren.” But the chief justice and his brethren were unbowed. They knew that only one justice had ever been impeached — Samuel Chase, in 1804 — and he returned to the bench after the Senate acquitted him.

Of course, the Supreme Court does not operate in a vacuum. Justices are human, and are open to influence by public events and political pressure. Roosevelt was convinced that in his fight with the Supreme Court he “lost the battle but won the war,” because one justice finally yielded, swinging the court with him. Similarly, intense criticism of Bush v. Gore, the decision that awarded the 2000 Florida vote to George W. Bush, seems to have had a moderating effect on two members of that majority, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, at least for a time.

If the Roberts court, like the court led by Charles Evans Hughes in the 1930s, continues to defy popular opinion as flagrantly as it did in Citizens United, Americans might well turn against it. There is a very real chance that the court, as now composed, would strike down key elements of the Obama agenda — health care mandates, for example, or financial reform, or new environmental regulations — if they find their way onto the docket in the coming years. In that event, progressives might well erupt in protest; Congress might be tempted to curb the court.

"Curb the court"?!? Puh-leeze. That will never happen. Barry made a idiot move in dissing the SCOTUS to their faces and he's even dumber for continuing to egg them on esp. knowing that he current court leans right. But the Narcissist-in-Chief doesn''t care because liberals always think that they're the smartest ones in the room.

Samuel Alito Was Right, Barack Obama Was Wrong

Newsmax.com:

The president's open scolding of the judicial branch — and Alito's response — triggered a sharp reaction from conservatives as well.

"I tell you, this is why people are disenchanted and are becoming more and more disengaged really from what their government is doing," former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "Because when we see an issue like this, words spoken that may not be true, coming from our president and embarrassing our Supreme Court and not respecting the separation of powers, we have a problem. And that is illustrated there by that justice mouthing those words, 'Not true.'"

"The president’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum," wrote election-law expert Bradley A. Smith of the Center for Competitive Politics wrote on National Review's The Corner, “and represents the worst of Washington politics — scapegoating ‘special interest’ bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy.”

A broad range of experts challenged the accuracy of the president's assertions Thursday.

The Politifact.org fact-checking organizing evaluated Obama's statements and determined they were "barely true," adding, "We found Obama was exaggerating the impact of the ruling."

The president, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago before he ran for the U.S. Senate, was wrong on two counts, Judicial Watch's Fitton said: There was no century-old precedent in the case, and the ruling did not alter restrictions involving electioneering by foreign-based companies.

Once again, Barry lies. It is not established that domestic and foreign corporations can now have free reign regarding political contributions, given other prohibitions currently in place. Barry broke protocol and disrespected SCOTUS to their face all because of a ruling that he didn't like. What an arrogant SOB.

Obama's State of the Union Speech: "Stay the Course and Blame Bush"

First, Virginia Governor Bob McConnell's response to Barry was terrific and to the point in calling for lesser government and showing that the GOP isn't the "Party of No" that the Left would like you to believe it is.

Secondly, the irony that Hillary Clinton was picked as the designated as the Cabinet member in absence (in case all hell breaks out), just struck me as well.....weird.

Lastly, Barry delivered a SOTU that was way too long (no surprise there considering how much man loves to hear himself talk), listless and full of "stay the course" rhetoric that clearly shows this guy still doesn't get it. Then too, Barry had the nerve to diss the Supreme Court to their faces (Justice Alito's response was priceless), promise to repeal a "don't ask, don't tell" law that our military leaders oppose, took below-the-belt shots at the GOP and once again blamed President Bush for all the evils in the world, yunno the ones he "inherited". Typical. Thank goodness, come this November, Americans will have the opportunity to show that they've had enough of Barry's pompous dog-n-pony act.

Rush Limbaugh Now Supporting Sonia Sotomayor

CNN.com:

A week after calling Sonia Sotomayor a "racist" in reference to her 2001 "wise Latina" remarks, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday he's now open to supporting President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

"I can see a possibility of supporting this nomination if I can be convinced that she does have a sensibility toward life in a legal sense," Limbaugh said on his radio program.

Limbaugh's statement comes the same day former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who himself derided Sotomayor as a "racist" last week, wrote in an op-ed that he regretted his choice of words.

On his show Wednesday, Limbaugh said his potential support of Sotomayor stems from the nominee's unclear stance on abortion coupled with the fact that she is a Catholic.

"I don't know that it will ever happen, but if you know, the opportunity to get somebody like her, she's a Catholic, she's a devout Catholic, she's a Hispanic Catholic, Puerto Rican, they tend to be devout, she hasn't got a record on this. Normally liberals do have a record," Limbaugh said.

Good for Rush on changing his mind and supporting Sotomayor. Now's a bad time for the GOP to risk pissing off their Hispanic base and the feeling here is that Sotomayor will not be an activist judge like Ruth Ginsburg--indeed, even liberals are scared at what type of Justice she'll be on the bench. And Rush still needs to quit with the "racist" stuff, because while she's may've made some silly comments (that were similar to Justice Alito IMO), there's just nothing in Sotomayor's legal record that proves it.

Media Is Obsessed With Filibustering Alito

Democrat senators don't seem to be as concerned about Samual Alito as the media is.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON - A Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday he believes Samuel Alito will get an up-or-down vote on his Supreme Court bid.

"We should commit," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., minimizing prospects of a Senate filibuster that would prevent final action on President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"I think the probability is that will happen," Biden said on ABC's "This Week."

Bush last week selected Alito, a former Reagan administration lawyer who is currently a judge on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, after White House counsel Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination amid withering criticism from conservatives.

Alito's confirmation hearings begin in the committee on Jan. 9. Some Democrats have raised the prospect of a filibuster until they get a fuller sense of his views on abortion and other social issues on which O'Connor has been a swing vote.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., another Judiciary Committee member, said he was not hearing his Democratic colleagues discussing the filibuster option.

Kennedy said he had an open mind about Alito's nomination, although he was concerned about the judge's rulings on privacy rights and rights of the disabled.

I can't count how many times I've seen the media ask Democrat senators questions about a possible filibuster over the nomination of Justice Alito to the Supreme Court. It's almost become obsessive and it's not just liberal-leaning MSNBC that's doing it: they're ALL guilty. Whether it's CNN, the AP or one of the local news networks, the media seems to be on a mission to constantly remind Democrats that they can do harm to President Bush by filibustering Alito. And for what? Because Alito is so well-liked by the same right-wing extremists who hated on Harriet Miers? Or because the filibuster is seen as such an entertaining (i.e. "ratings") move? Or could it be because George W. Bush is getting to pick another justice instead of last year's media darling and presidential loser John Kerry?

Or maybe it's just all of the above.

Either way, It would seem to me that even Democrats know that they would have a very time selling to the American public the need to filibuster Alito. Why? Because the case agaiust Alito being on the Supreme Court is nonexistent. Put aside the usual hyperbole by liberals that any conservative judge is a threat to mankind as we know it, and you're left with a judge who is highly qualified, has a huge paper trail, clearly seems to understand constitutional law, has firsthand experience in dealings with the high Court and simply put, deserves the job.

In other words . . . HIRE THIS MAN!

The media's obsession with the filibuster and the Democrats response to it demonstrates clearand absolute media bias against Alito. After all, when you consider that even Ted Kennedy seems to be taking a "we'll see" approach to a conservative nominee, a fair-minded person might be inclined to think that Justice Alito might not be so bad after all.