Sunday, January 24, 2010

Obama's Argument Leads to Impeachment of Supreme Court Justices - Democratic Underground

Obama's Argument Leads to Impeachment of Supreme Court Justices - Democratic Underground

Here's the president:

"When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with Members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision. We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done."


Forget the "bipartisan" BS, the point is that this statement advocates a forceful response from Congress. What could such a thing be? Legislation could lessen the damage, but not reverse it, and could hardly be seen as forceful. A Constitutional Amendment gets closer and is ultimately what's needed, but it requires that the states take action, as well as, or instead of, Congress. The only forceful response Congress can offer, regardless of whether it's uni-partisan, bi-partisan, tri-partisan, or non-partisan, is impeachment.
...
Impeachment is for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Treason? Check. These five jusices have, according to Obama, just given foreign, not to mention international, corporations the power to greatly influence the outcomes of U.S. elections.

Bribery? Check. This decision facilitates, not to say legalizes, massive bribery the likes of which the world has never known.

Other high crimes and misdemeanors? Check. These five justices ruled on an issue not requested of them and not relevant to the case they heard, and did so in a manner destructive of long-standing precedent. That's a serious abuse of power.

So, take your pick: treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors: we've got 'em all here, and we've got the president of the United States pointing this out to us and Congress.

Let's hurry up and demand impeachment proceedings before President Obama declares concern over this decision to constitute looking backwards.

No comments: