What would be the best way to encourage Roberts to resign from the court?

[LiberalFighter]

I guess he would need another seizure.

[Vincardog]

1. I think public shaming would help. Every time he appears in public everyone should turn their backs

[Yurovsky]

58. and fart in his general direction...

That would get his attention...

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Wizard]

3. Release the compromising pictures

of him and his gay lover at the Ramrod Club.

[Cosmocat]

4. Not going to happen ...

Bush left a boatload of long terms FUs to the country ...

Roberts might just head the list ... the ONLY hope is that what happens at times with right wing ideologues who actually have a conscience (this of course leaves Scalia out) and are in government for a very long time, find that they are grow as human beings ...

Long shot, I know, but ...

[backscatter712]

10. I'd say Scalia is the one with the best chance of retiring soon.

And he probably won't until he's bleeding out his eyeballs... He's the oldest conservative on the court. Thomas also has a small chance of retiring in the next few years, but I don't think he will.

If you ask me, I think it's time for Congress to begin some public investigations of the behavior of the Supreme Court. Nothing sucks more than being called before the Senate Judiciary Committee to get grilled for hours before Patrick Leahy, all while the entire nation watches...

[hlthe2b]

24. Why would Thomas ever retire... He gets all his sleeping done

during court sessions. :eyes:

[tridim]

5. Maybe the media should follow him and make him explain..

not only his "Not true" statement from last night, but also his reason for saying it and the specifics of his ruling that would stop foreign and international companies from buying American elections.

But for some reason the media leaves the SCOTUS alone. Do they have special protections?

[bigwillq]

6. I thought Alito mouthed "not true"

Maybe Roberts did too, but I thought it was Alito.

[tridim]

9. Sorry, I misread the OP.

Roberts/Alito are basically the same person IMO. They're both RW tools.

[jobycom]

14. That was Alito. And he was probably more right than Obama, sadly.

Obama claimed the Supreme Court struck down "a century" of law, but that's not true. The law they overturned was only 20 years old. There is a misconception that the SCOTUS allowed corporations to donate to individual campaigns, and if they had that would have struck down a century old law, but their ruling specifically said that corporations were still forbidden to donate, that the older law was not affected--in fact, they pretty much upheld it.

Also, the point about foreign corporations was iffy. Foreign corporations and American subsidiaries are still forbidden from running political ads, and of course they were never allowed to donate to campaigns.

Obama probably knows all that, which means he was trying to whip our side into a frenzy with rhetoric.

Either way, it would be bad if the media did make a big deal about Alito's comments, because unlike Joe Wilson he was right on that point. The reason the media doesn't cover the SCOTUS like that, though, is because most Americans can't understand logic and nuances, and Supreme Court decisions are usually too complicated to fit into one angry, screaming headline. They want SENSATION to sell their stories, so they scream "COURT OPENS FLOODGATES ON CORPORATE MONEY INTO AMERICAN POLITICS!!!1" rather than explaining the details of a case that was nowhere near that important. Now, if they tried to explain that Alito technically had a point, they would also have to admit that their own rhetoric wasn't accurate, and so they just don't cover things like that.

Don't take my word for it, here's Linda Greenhouse's opinion on it. She's a liberal reporter who regularly pisses off the Right, and is now a law professor at Yale. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/justice-alitos-reaction/

[krispos42]

22. For now.

You know what the next step is on the corporate agenda.


Nice to see the media hyperbole on our side for once.

[jobycom]

31. Oh yeah, they'll keep fighting for more, and that was a warning shot for us.

So the rhetoric may be valid anyway.

[timeforpeace]

51. But as you say, Alito was right, and the attention it's getting will overwhelm the rest of

the speech.

[snagglepuss]

27. I appreciate this clarification. Thanks for posting.

[ThomThom]

37. the fact is the corporations don't have to give the money directly to the candidate

What they will do is spend as much money as they want to stand up for a candidate or issue, or slam a candidate or issue.
This money will give them a huge opportunity to influence the election. I think it depends on how you look at it if they struck down 20 years or 100 years, that is not the point. This will have an impact on our elections and give corporations a stick to hold over every elected official to get them to vote the way they want.
We need public financed elections not corporate influenced extortion.

[golfguru]

50. Thanks for educating me and others n/t

[boppers]

56. American corporation, on paper, vs. large chunks of non-american ownership....

It doesn't sell well as a headline, though, to say "people who are foreign entities can own large portions of stock in US corporations and through that mechanism influence domestic politics".


edit: stray word

[Hekate]

19. They are Constitutionally protected by being appointed for life and not elected. However...

... impeachment Is provided for in Article I of the Constitution, same as for the President. It has to move through the House and be brought to the Senate.

This, however, has only been done once, in 1805, and it was unsuccessful. --> "One conclusion drawn from the acquittal of Chase is the independence of the Judiciary from legislative interference, for no other Supreme Court Justice has been impeached."

Hekate

http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/chasesam.htm

> (Samuel) Chase is best known, however, as the only Supreme Court Justice to be impeached. After federal judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was impeached and convicted in 1804, Chase was impeached by the House of Representatives, pursuant to a quiet request by President Thomas Jefferson. Chase was impeached for his conduct in several "political" trials and his intemperate remarks to a Baltimore grand jury while riding circuit. In early February 1805, thirty days after he was impeached by the House, he was tried in the Senate. The Senate prosecutor was Jefferson’s and John Marshall’s distant cousin, John Randolph. Randolph was an extremely partisan Republican. He was also an opium fiend who had a vicious tongue. At this time there were 34 senators, 25 Jeffersonian-Republicans and 9 Federalists. If the Senators voted along party lines, Chase was facing conviction. However, in the period between the presentment of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, and the trial, Randolph assailed Jefferson’s attempted compromise of the Yazoo land fraud (which would not be settled until 1814. The Supreme Court, in an 1810 decision, upheld the sale of 25 million acres of Georgia land to speculators. The sale occurred after nearly the entire Georgia legislature was bribed. The Court held the act of sale by the Georgia legislature was constitutional under either principles of natural law or the contracts clause, Art. I, section 10, clause 1). The Republicans disaffected with Jefferson's efforts to settle the Yazoo land fraud scandal joined with the nine Federalists to block the 2/3 vote necessary to convict Chase. No more than 19 votes were garnered for any of the eight Articles of impeachment. The Article that received that number of votes for conviction concerned Chase’s excoriation of the Baltimore Grand Jury in May 1803.
>
> One conclusion drawn from the acquittal of Chase is the independence of the Judiciary from legislative interference, for no other Supreme Court Justice has been impeached. Whether conclusion was reached at the time of the acquittal is the subject of considerable debate. Some scholars argue that Chase's behavior was known to be so different from that of Marshall and other Federalist judges that Marshal and others were in no danger of impeachment from the Republican Congress. Others claim that Chase's acquittal was attributable to intervening political events, not a consensus concerning judicial independence. As a result, Federalists on the courts remained concerned about the threat of impeachment. Probably the most important consequence of Chase's impeachment was the understanding that members of the Judiciary were expected to withdraw from the hubbub of partisan politics to the cloister of the judicial chambers. Throughout American history, judges and justices have found themselves in trouble when they are perceived to be involved in ordinary politics.
>
> Chase remained on the Court until his death in 1811 at age 70. >end

[jobycom]

33. Not for life. They serve "during good behavior." It's a distinction without a difference now

but it could be pushed one day. I did a lot of research on this after the Bush v Gore ruling. My theory is that "during good behavior" can mean "as long as the Senate approves," since the Justices are appointed only by "advice and consent" of the Senate. That phrase "Advice and consent" usually means that the real power lies with the legislature, not the executive--it was common in English law at the time in charters limiting the power of the king. The implication is that the Senate has at least as much authority over the Court appointments as the president.

Good behavior, to me, should mean good judicial, not personal, behavior--not taking bribes or creating conflicts of interest or even giving poorly reasoned decisions.

But for now, it means for life, barring impeachment. I just like my hypothetical theories so much I have to work them into a conversation now and then. :)

-------

Article III, section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article II, section 2: shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[onenote]

48. here is an interesting article on the concept of tenure for "good behavior"

It argues that impeachment is not the only way that a Justice could be removed; but it also concedes that the "misbehavior" upon which the removal of a member of the Judiciary could be based cannot simply be disagreement with the outcome of a case.

http://www.knowyourcourts.com/FedJD/docs/2006-10_misunderstandingGoodBehaviorTenure.pdf

[quakerboy]

7. Nothing legal

and nothing that a pacifist could do. So Im kinda stuck.

I liked someones idea of increasing the number of justices. But I dont see it as at all likely. Not even sure what it would take to do that.

[LiberalEsto]

8. Horse head on his bed? nt

[LiberalFighter]

21. Preferably one that was already dead and has maggots.

[mopinko]

59. you beat me.

how about thomas's wet robe wrapped around some trout.

[bergie321]

11. We should

Break into his office and bug his phones as a "prank"...

[Cleita]

12. Find some juicy scandal on him. Uses call girls; has a mistress;

has a love child; is a closet gay. Pick any one.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ozymanithrax]

13. He has a job for life making everything RIGHT with the world...

He will be there for another 20 years, minimum.

[LiberalFighter]

46. Now if we can get enough vacancies filled before Obama leaves office.

It will make life very difficult for Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. I expect Scalia to be gone before Obama leaves office.

We need to make sure Obama wins re-election at the minimum. And replace 5 more of the Justices with younger Justices. Then just keep hitting Roberts, Alito, and Thomas as being ineffective Justices because they are usually the dissenting votes with absolutely no say in the matter. With them asking themselves what is the point of being a Justice if their opinion doesn't matter.

It would help if we elect another good Democrat after Obama leaves office so we can extend the period to fill vacancies.

[jobycom]

15. We could do like they did in that episode of Cheers.

We could all just leave and pretend they had closed the Court for the day, then when he went home we could open it back up. Maybe after a while he'd get annoyed and leave.

Other than that, he strikes me as the kind of rightwinger who will cling to the bench hours after his body has died, his cold fingers dug into the wood, his stench probably just a little less offensive than when he was alive. He'll probably live to be 150, too. Only the good die young.

I'm thinking we could trick Thomas into resigning. He never reads any of the cases before him, so all we need to do is type up a resignation letter, tell him it's an order form for his new videos, and have him sign. :)

[LiberalFighter]

18. Does the video have a Coca-Cola can and public hair in it?

[jobycom]

34. Depends on whether he wants a rerun or a new video, I suppose.

[MO_Dem]

16. Cameras in the SC?

I think I remember that some time ago, a justice made a comment about there being cameras in the SC over his dead body. Was it Renquist that said that, or was it one of the current members? Maybe Roberts, along with some of his cronies, would find the idea unacceptable, too.

[harkadog]

28. All of the current Justices have said no to cameras at some point.

They make their own rules.

[MO_Dem]

40. Thanks for the info

I didn't know that they make their own rules.

[onenote]

42. the individual justices are somewhat divided on the idea

Legislation that would have resulted in the televising of SCOTUS oral arguments was considered a few years ago. Certain Justices were adamant in their opposition. Souter, who is the Justice who made the "over my dead body" comment and Kennedy in particular. Scalia and Thomas also have indicated their opposition. Certain other Justices, including Sotamayor, Alito, Roberts, Breyer, and Ginsburg have not definitively ruled out the idea, but there seems to be some feeling within the court that unless all of the Justices agree, they are not going to push for it.

[msanthrope]

17. Investigate how he skirted Irish law to buy his children.

Seriously.

[LiberalFighter]

20. The Irish government needs to bring that up to get it started.

[Vidar]

23. Cement tennis shoes?

[jobycom]

35. If there wasn't an FBI file on you before, there is now.

:rofl:

[PA Democrat]

25. Cut his salary. He's repeatedly complained about how inadequate his salary is.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/01/chief-justice-urges-pay-raise-says-cola-unfairly-d/

<snip>

"Judges knew what the pay was when they answered the call of public service. But they did not know that Congress would steadily erode that pay in real terms by repeatedly failing over the years to provide even cost-of-living increases," Chief Justice Roberts said.

The chief justice also lamented Congress' failure to pass larger salary increases for judges. Committees in the House and Senate voted nearly 30 percent increases for federal judges, but neither house of Congress acted on the measure.

In prior reports, Chief Justice Roberts has focused on the need for the larger increase, which would take his pay to around $280,000 a year and increase trial judges' annual salaries to $218,000.

Two years ago, he said pay for federal judges is so inadequate that it threatens to undermine the judiciary's independence.

[IggleDoer]

45. Does he need to supplement his income ...

... by taking bribes from corporate interests?

[LiberalFighter]

47. He's not supplementing his salary already?

With free trips, lodging and meals to conferences in exotic settings?

That needs to stop.

[monmouth]

26. Make his wife cry....a lot and loudly...n/t

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

43. Maybe it's time to get one of the tabloids on it.

Let them get the photos like what they did to John Edwards and Reille Hunter. But then maybe they don't do fair and balanced when it's a Republican involved. :shrug: There's got to be a place to publish such photos.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomThom]

32. get him a job that pays big bucks

he has already made a comment about how much money he could be making
he took a major pay cut to take his present position

[jobycom]

36. See, that's what I'm thinking, too. Research his childhood dreams, find out what he really wanted to

be.

You know, maybe he wanted to be a jazz drummer. Then we just call one of the Marsalis blokes, get him an obscenely lucrative contract, and voila! he's a jazz musician and Obama can appoint Sheila Jackson-Lee to his spot. :)

[iceman66]

38. That's the only thing that could do it.

[onenote]

39. well, since he took a pay cut for the position, offering more money won't work

he obviously values being CJ of the SCOTUS more than what he was making.

The only thing that probably might lead to his resigning (apart from health issues) would be if at some point the majority on the court shifted so that, even though he is CJ, he doesn't have much real sway because a reliable majority disagrees with him on everything. At that point, he might decide that being remembered as the CJ with no influence isn't much fun.

[Cleita]

65. This is the best suggestion yet. Maybe Richard Melon Schiafe

has a good paying job for him in one of his think tanks. I, for one, would breathe much more easily if all the rats herd together in the same sewer. At least we know where they are.

[TexasObserver]

41. Double the size of the court. Appoint 9 new Dems. Outnumber him 13-5.

Then let him know that the court will never get a raise as long as he's still on it.

If we could tip the scales to Democrats, Roberts or Alito might leave. Thomas is too stupid to get a job paying as much as he makes at the court. Scalia will have to be carried out.

[depakid]

49. Worked for FDR

Even though the legislation itself didn't pass.

[onenote]

52. how did it "work" for FDR?

What worked for FDR was that Justices Van Devanter and Sutherland retired (in 1937 and 1938, respectively), a year later Justice Butler died, and two years later Justice McReynolds retired.

[depakid]

53. The switch in time that saved nine

In response to the heat- Justice Owen Roberts switched positions shortly thereafter- and began voting to uphold New Deal measures, effectively creating the liberal majority that ended the odious the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era">Lochner era, providing government(s) more power and latitude on questions of economic policies.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

It's an example of how bold (and risky) political moves can achieve their intended results simply by forcing the issue and putting the dynamics into play.

Of course, it helps if you have some credibility... with both your supporters and your opponents.

[onenote]

61. its a nice story, but the historical record undercuts

the claim that Roberts' altered his position in response to the court packing bill. Rather, there is documented evidence that Roberts had already cast his vote to uphold the law in question more than three months before FDR announced his court packing bill.

[TexasObserver]

54. Yes, it did, as any good US historian knows.

He backed them down, and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't have the same impact on one or more of the GOP justices who are clogging up the works now.

[onenote]

62. actually the "good" historians know exactly the opposite

At the time it was thought that Justice Roberts changed his vote to join with the pro-FDR wing in response to the introduction of the court packing bill. But, in fact, the documented historical record shows that Roberts cast his vote in the case in December 1936, more than three months before FDR introduced his bill.

The "switch in time" is a nice myth, but a myth nonetheless. And the reaction to the introduction of a court packing plan by Obama would be so widely and severely lambasted by historians and legal scholars that it would be crippling.

[TexasObserver]

64. Bullshit. Those of us who are historians know better.

Try that lame nonsense on someone who doesn't have a degree in History and a doctorate in Law.

Get back to me after you get yours. We'll discuss all the things you think you know about FDR and the Supreme Court that you're misinformed about.

[onenote]

67. I don't know what kind of historian you are, but constitutional historians

are united in their agreement that Roberts first cast his vote in the Parrish case (the so called "switch in time.." case) in December 1936, well before the announcement of the court packing plan. If you can cite to any reputable historian (or any historian at all) who disputes that this is what actually happened, please do so.

It is true that debate continues among historians as to whether and to what degree Roberts "shift" was really a shift and to what extent, if any, it was influenced by political factors (such as the election in 1936). Some historians (and Roberts himself, along with Justice Frankfurter) argue that Roberts' position in Parrish can be reconciled with his earlier decisions, particularly when one considers his decision in Nebbia. These historians contend that the court packing plan was already a dead letter at the time most of the post-Parrish decisions upholding New Deal programs came out, so it hardly could have been the cause. Others concede that the packing plan itself wasn't the cause of the switch, but argue that Roberts (and Hughes) were influenced by the political winds and thus shifted their jurisprudence.

But if you can find a scholar that today accepts the pure "switch in time" story -- that Roberts joined with the liberals on the Court in the Parrish case in reaction to the court packing plan -- please cite to that scholar.

[totodeinhere]

55. Lets talk about something realistic.

Lets not waste out time on an impossible fantasy like that.

[LynneSin]

57. As much as I'd like to do a Pat Roberston I won't stoop to his level

So we're stuck with Roberts.

Why do you think Bush put someone so young in as head justice - that guy will be around for decades.

[LiberalFighter]

63. Not if he has more seizures

[Dinger]

60. Tell him You Have A Sex Tape

of him with monkeys.:shrug:

[Paladin]

66. Tell Him He Can't Dress His Kids Funny Anymore.

Remember those nasty little outfits they were sporting at Daddy's swearing in?

[WI_DEM]

68. I'd rather Fat Tony or Thomas retire.