Our spineless Republican House members, and their refusal to impeach deserving Justices


When has our Republican Party Leadership in Congress ___ the self-proclaimed defenders of “law and order” ___ called for the impeachment and punishment of judges and Justices who have repeatedly and knowingly violated the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, defied the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and in so doing repeatedly spat upon adhering to the “rules of the common law” requiring an adherence to legislative intent?

While Republican leaders wine and dine our ears to their supposed desire for law and order, they continue to assume the fetal position when our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, is set aside, perverted, and overruled, by the very judicial Officers entrusted to support and defend it. Unfortunately, this has been going on for a very long time, but today, the perversions of our Constitution by judges and Justices are more profound, their usurpation of legislative power is more stark and blatant, and an air of omnipotence by judges and Justices reveals they have no fear whatsoever of reprisal for the mischief and tyranny they have engaged in.

The sad truth is, we were amply warned a long time ago about submitting to tyranny:

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.

So, in view of the recent Gorsuch opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, under what delegation of power found in our Constitution did Congress get the authority in 1964, “to enforce, by appropriate legislation,” [The Civil Rights Act of 1964], the forbidding of distinctions in the workplace within “any State on account of sex”, when the people refused to grant such power to Congress and our Constitution is silent in this respect?

Was Madison not correct when he wrote ___ ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Or in today’s opinion, with Justice Roberts being the culprit, where is our Supreme Court vested with power to second guess the wisdom or fairness of legislation having to do with abortions? And, especially, how is that regulatory authority vested in our federal government when Hamilton emphatically confirms such power rests with the various United States. He says:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. ___ Federalist Paper No. 45


“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) ___ Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Let us not forget impeachment of a Justice was all the rave among our communist/socialist democrats when Kavanaugh was confirmed for the Supreme Court.
SEE: Impeaching Kavanaugh rouses progressive Democrats after confirmation

“The movement could pick up steam if the party wins the House in November, but some legal scholars warn it’s a terrible idea.”

"WASHINGTON — Even before Brett Kavanaugh won the Senate’s consent to ascend to the Supreme Court, liberals started looking for ways to remove him.

A petition to impeach Kavanaugh has gathered over 125,000 signatures, progressive groups have raised money to expel him from the federal bench and a key Democratic lawmaker has promised to investigate the judge if the party retakes the House in November."

Of course, these frothing-from-the-mouth types were incapable of establishing why Kavanaugh was allegedly a threat to the rule of law, unlike Justice Roberts has confirmed he himself is such a threat.


Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and now pretends our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean.

Kavanaugh is a lying piece of ****, as confirmed by the Bob Woodward expose. But while it would have bee a valid grounds to vote against his confirmation, there are absolutely no grounds for Kavanaugh’s impeachment at this time.

As for Roberts, the precedent set in 1804 precludes his impeachment.

The Senate, by acquitting Samuel Chase in 1804, set the precedent that Federal Judges will not be impeached on the grounds of judicial philosophy, thus ensuring judicial independence.

I believe both the National Review and the Heritage Foundation have characterized John Roberts as a coward. Perhaps true.

But cowardice is not a grounds for impeachment. Nor is judicial pragmatism.

It is a sufficient grounds for people to be disgusted.

It is not a sufficient grounds for impeachment.


You certainly are the remarkable one! “Cowardice” and “judicial pragmatism”? What we are talking about is judicial tyranny! But hey, your sugar coating of Robert’s actions is the very kind of response I would expect from those who embrace a “living Constitution” susceptible to the whims and fancies of judges and Justices as opposed to being obedient to the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and likewise being respectful of Article V which our wise founders included in our Constitution, and is the only lawful way to accommodate change, for alleged “changing times”.

So, I do imagine you disagree with Madison’s general statement, that
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

While you wrap yourself in meaningless labels, “Cowardice” and “judicial pragmatism” we are really talking about a time honored procedure by which the true meaning of our Constitution can be discovered and enforced, rather than judges and Justices inventing meanings believed to be fair, just and reasonable and then fraudulently imposed as “the rule of law”, which is nothing other than judicial tyranny!

Safiel, let me suggest you set aside some time and study the Declaration of Independence, which surely was an indictment of King George, and lists many of the same Acts which our own federal government engages in, including members of our Supreme Court. i.e.:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it. _____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

John…this judge totally agrees with you and was posted in the wrong thread. I fixed it. :sunglasses:

One mans judicial tyranny is another pragmatism.

Stare decisis is viable.

If we didn’t have precedents the justice systems would run amok.

The case was decided in 2016.

SCOTUS has ruled.

And last time I looked you are nothing more than a layman like I.


The nerve of people - wanting to take small steps to slow down the growth of a pandemic. I want my freedom to spread this virus, dang it!!!

Wrong thread. :sunglasses:

I believe you wanted this one…

Well we need to elect politicians with some courage to do that and frankly we are not going to get any Democrat today to do that and barely a few Republicans which is the only political party with a chance of reform because the Democrats are off the far left rails! Maybe if the R’s keep the Senate and get a majority in the House they can put the fear of a possible impeachment into Roberts because he is just a shameless and useless Justice.

Stare decisis is viable? Give it a freaken break.

Stare decisis is an invention used to perpetuate a fraud upon the people. And, Justice Roberts is a prime candidate for impeachment ___ he has repeatedly violated his oath to support “this Constitution”, has ignored being obedient to that part of our Constitution acknowledging and requiring “the rules of the common law” to be adhered to, and in particular, has refused to enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution’s provisions were adopted, which give context to the constitution’s text, and, in effect, Roberts has participated in tyranny be usurping legislative powers:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47


Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and now pretends our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean.

Stare decisis is viable until is not.

It’s been in use in US courts for over 150 years.

Stare decisis is roe v Wade, which is still the binding precedent 47 years later.


I won’t give either side a pass on stare decisis to Judges of any temperament.

I do remember Earl Warren/William Brennan eviscerating 4 long standing precedents in a single day.

Any of the current Justices might stand on stare decisis if it suits them. Any of the current Justices might **** on stare decisis if it suits them.

Well we already have Thomas stating that roe was wrongly decided. Lucky for woman’s right to choose
He’s not gonna last much longer on SCOTUS.


What is that supposed to mean?

Exact as posted the life expectancy of an black male age 72 is approximately 13 years.

His time on SCOTUS is running out.


Psst that isn’t how average life expectancy works. Things like infant mortality are included to arrive at that number. How much risk of dying from SIDS do you think he has? As an example a white male who is 65 right now can expect to live on average 18 more years, even though the average life expectancy is lower than that. Which would only give him 13 more.

I went by the life expectancy of a black male aged 75 in the United States.

That’s exactly how life expectancy works. It’s a bell curve.


Not to mention all the poor lifestyle choices incorporated into the average life expectancy which may or may not be present in any individual.

Even if you use the life expectancy of his current age, it is still just an average and doesn’t say much about an individual. The average includes people that smoke etc.

Wow, what a ■■■■■■ up post.