Democrats’ History Of Intimidating
SCOTUS Justices Carries Over Into
Impeachment
The Federalist,
by
Erielle Davidson
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
2/2/2020 10:29:49 AM
Chief Justice John Roberts’ expression was priceless after reading Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s garish question during the Senate impeachment trial Thursday night, a question which lacked any remote sense of self awareness.
The inquiry facetiously read, “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”
The purpose of the question was stunningly obvious.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
john56 2/2/2020 10:35:00 AM (No. 304996)
All questions should have been addressed to both counsels. Asking the RAT managers their prepackaged questions allowed them to rant on. Although watching Nadler the Hutt elbowing out Shift Schiff was worth the price of admission.
25 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 2/2/2020 10:58:34 AM (No. 305030)
You let yourself be intimidated.
18 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Highlander 2/2/2020 11:06:28 AM (No. 305039)
This is what it is coming to:
French Tribunal Révolutionnaire, the court that was instituted in Paris by the National Convention (think Democrats) during the French Revolution for the trial of political offenders (think Republicans).
www.britannica.com/topic/Revolutionary-Tribunal-French history
6 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
jacksin5 2/2/2020 11:09:46 AM (No. 305043)
Justice Roberts response was that in the case of a tie, he would noe weigh-in, and the motion would fail.
11 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
nina584 2/2/2020 11:25:34 AM (No. 305056)
Warren is a dangerous creep as is Sanders. This people with power would be the end of this nation. Of course they are not counting in the revolution that would ensue following their policies. The next generation Aoc and company need to be defeated as well.
14 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
EQKimball 2/2/2020 11:30:39 AM (No. 305059)
If that question were posed to a witness in a trial court, the attorney would be held in contempt. On the spot. Because it was written ahead of time and calculated to embarrass the court there would be no sympathy on appeal. And she teaches at Harvard Law School?
29 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 2/2/2020 12:14:08 PM (No. 305091)
The dems have let the thuggish behavior of some of their base bubble up to define the party. As others have said, you CHOOSE whether to be intimidated. The dems still have some power but it is far reduced from what it was, as is their media's. If you cave in to the thugs, you are guaranteed to have lost. Only in resistance can you win and defend the Country, as Trump has vividly demonstrated and is WHY they hate him. I suggest that if a Justice finds it too onerous to defend the law and the integrity of the SCOTUS, that they resign and we will find someone else up to the task.
Roberts answered the question well and provided clear explanation to set precedent. The SENATE has the power of trial and to convict, NOT the courts. Also, he correctly pointed out, a 50/50 vote LOSES. That effectively placed a near impossible roadblock in front of the dems to get witnesses. Robert's statement defeated them. Roberts has been a disappointment at times but I give him credit in this.
12 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
davew 2/2/2020 12:53:50 PM (No. 305129)
I've really tried to conceptualize what it is the essence of the Democrat's behavior that angers and frustrates me most. It is their belief that "by any means necessary" gives them the right to ignore the rules of the game and cheat while still exclaiming their moral superiority. They don't care to actually take a vote in the House to legitimize their judicial authority to issue subpoenas. They don't go through a legitimate process to find the truth by following standards of due process and cross examining fact witnesses. They vote to pass campaign finance reforms and then ignore the very laws they established to protect voters. They lecture the Ukrainian Parliament on how they should clean up their corruption while taking bribes from the very oligarchs that were doing the corrupting. Its more than just hypocrisy, its a cynical belief that they really are smarter than the morons that vote for them and they don't have to follow any rules to achieve their ends.
17 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Highvoltage 2/2/2020 2:07:23 PM (No. 305172)
The Democrats no longer support 'innocent before proven guilty'. This is demonstrated in the Kavanaugh hearings where he was accused with unsupported claims of guilt, also on liberal campuses where men are simply accused of sexual misconduct and punished by the schools and in Trump presidency where he was accused of Russian collusion, bribery and numerous dastardly deeds - without proof. Furthermore the Democrats want to remove your 2nd amendment rights and are chipping away at your first amendment right of free speech and due process. I make my case they are unworthy to represent the people. It's time to disenfranchise them at the polls for a generation or two.
9 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Tet Vet 68 2/2/2020 7:38:10 PM (No. 305349)
After SC Chief Justice Roberts decision on the Obamacare "Tax" decision and his shutting down Senator Rand Paul on his impeachment question I can't help but think the The Democrats have serious dirt on the Chief Justice.
0 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
doctorfixit 2/3/2020 7:55:03 AM (No. 305724)
The federal judiciary is a political; body without political consequences. It really needs to go. Un-elected, um-accountable, autocratic. Judicial impartiality is a pernicious myth.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Watching Casper Milquetoast Roberts in what passes for action, it doesn’t seem it would take much to intimidate him. That monkey business about Rand Paul’s question was pathetic...