Monday, April 12, 2010

Impeachment back on DUmmies' table!



Now that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Rove, Rove's cleaning lady, et al., all have left office, the DUmmies are suffering a severe case of Impeachment Deficit Disorder. So now they have turned their righteous anger toward the Supreme Court. Specifically, toward the Fascist 5 of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and sometimes Kennedy. (I suppose Swinging Anthony Kennedy is the "y" in this set of vowels, as in "a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes y.")

What is the impeachable offense of John Roberts and the Supremes? I don't know, we'll make something up. But the DUmmies have latched onto a comment by one of their heroes, Russ "He's So" Feingold, and they have run (wild) with it. Russkie Russ said something about wanting to get new justices, without specifying how, and that opened the door for the "I" word, as seen here in this
THREAD, "Senator Feingold Suggests Impeachment of Corrupt Supreme Court Justices."

So get ready for a DUmmieland high-tech lynching, in Bolshevik Red, while the commentary of your humble guest correspondent, Charles Henrickson, suddenly in the mood for a supreme pizza, is in the [brackets]:

Senator Feingold Suggests Impeachment of Corrupt Supreme Court Justices

[OK, what if I suggest impeachment of corrupt Democrat senators?]

U.S. Politicians must often result to indirect means for expressing their ideas. . . .

[Like you, DUmmie Time for change, resulting to the wrong word when you want to express the idea of "resort."]

Senator Russ Feingold recently suggested that corrupt U.S. Supreme Court justices be impeached for, among other things, their transparently corrupt decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which they asserted in a 5-4 decision that “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech (including bribery of public officials) of corporations”.

[Uh, I think you put in the part there about bribery.]

Senator Feingold called the decision “one of the most lawless in the history of the Supreme Court”.

[Sometimes called the "Xena Decision," for being the most Lawless. Thus these Supremes are the "Xena 5."]

He said . . . "The best thing to do is to get new justices, different justices, who will do the right thing."

[Hmm. . . . What do you mean, Russkie Russ, by "get new justices"? Are you inciting violence, perhaps?]

He didn’t specifically use the word “impeach” – But what else could he have meant. . . ?

[Maybe something like American Idol, where we call in and vote them off.]

One possibility is that he meant that we should wait for the current justices to retire or die of natural causes. . . .

[Why stop at natural?]

As John Bonifaz said in criticizing Feingold’s statement, “Based on the age of some of the justices in the majority, that’s suggesting that we wait a very long time”. A very long time, indeed! I’ll be long dead by that time, and so will many tens of millions of other Americans, as well as what’s left of our democracy.

[Tens of millions of Americans--DEAD! All because we waited too long! MUST ACT NOW!!!]

Another unlikely possibility is that Feingold meant to wait for the justices in question to die quicker deaths – along the lines of John F. Kennedy, his brother Bobby, or Martin Luther King. But Feingold isn’t that type of guy, so I doubt that that’s what he had in mind.

[Unlikely, doubtful . . . but I wouldn't rule it out. Thank you, DUmmie Time for change.]

There is only one other possible way that we could “get new justices”, as Feingold suggested: Impeachment.

[Yay! The "I" word is BACK! WHEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!]

Of course, impeachment of our public officials must not be taken lightly.

[Unless they're conservatives.]

The Bush v. Gore decision of December 2000, which mandated that the counting of votes for President cease, and thereby handed the 2000 Presidential election to George W. Bush by a 5-4 decision of the USSC, set the precedent for transparently corrupt USSC decisions to slide by without consequence. It is no coincidence that of the five justices who handed down this abomination, three of them (Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy) are the same ones who perpetrated the Citizens United decision on the American people; and the two others in the majority in Citizens United were then appointed to the Court by the “winner” of the 2000 sham Presidential election, George W. Bush.

[Bush, Bush, Bush!!! ARRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!! OUR HEADS ARE ABOUT TO EXPLODE!!!!!!!]

Many progressives have suggested a Constitutional amendment to deal with this attack on our democracy.

[Constitution? Amendments? Feh. Too much bother.]

Constitutional amendments are very difficult to pass and take so long. . . .

[See?]

IF illegal corruption is clearly proven in a court of law and not blogs -absolutely agree

[The Supreme 5 have been found guilty in a court of blog. That should be enough.]

That's my senator!

[DUmmie Dinger posts a picture of herself standing with Russ "He's So" Feingold {swoon}.]

What are you doing with my future husband? Aaaah, Russ Feingold. . . .

[Calm down, benburch!]

Hee hee. I know this is lame, but it kind of makes me all giggly when I think Russ put his arm around me (first), and then I did the same to him. Dang, me and a U.S. senator! Ahhhhh, it was nice.

[Feingold is on the Senate Arm Services Committee.]

I still think the remaining members should be impeached and O'Connor and Rehnquist should get little marks by their names for posterity as part of this shameful group of motherf***ers who did more to destroy this nation than anyone in Al Qaeda could ever dream of doing.

[Keeping Algore from stealing the election was WORSE than the deadliest attack in American history! Of course!]

what justifies the label "corrupt" being attached to this decision? . . . If he's saying that it was an ideologically based decision, that's not at all the same thing, and by no means impeachable.

[NO! IMPEACH NOW, LOGIC LATER!!!]

Bottom line . . . this decision was entirely in line with the free speech clause of the First Amendment (which makes no distinction based on who is doing the speaking).

[OK, DUmmie skepticscott, you are making entirely too much sense here! For that you get . . . a Kewpie Doll from us! And a DUmmieland granite cookie in your near future!]

Further, you falsely inserted the phrase in parentheses in “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech (including bribery of public officials) of corporations”. The SC decision did not contain the phrase "including bribery of public officials", despite your claim. A little more intellectual honesty would be appropriate.

[DUmmie skepticscott, you are on a ROLL! Prepare for tombstoning!!]

Do you realistically believe that any of the five will ever be impeached and removed from office?

[I BELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVE!!!!!!!!!!!]

Get a grip my friend. . . . We would be better off to concentrate on the possible . . . rather than engaging in fantasies about impeachment. . . . Dream on my friend.]

[To dream . . . the impossible dream. . . .]

What the people need to do is protest in front of the SCOTUS day by day. Send them letters. Lobby the snakes til they quit or the senate finds some balls and evicts the bums.

[DUAC! DUAC!]

"Impeachment is for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Treason? Check. . . . 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.

[Checkmate! This is the greatest crime IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!!!!!!]

Sorry. But Feingold didn't suggest impeachment. And no one with an ounce of sense is going to push for it.

[Ergo . . . enter the DUmmies!]

Since 2000, I've been calling for impeachment of Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O'Connor and Rhenquist. Now the latter two have died/retired . . .

[IMPEACH 'EM ANYWAY!!]

and yet no one has heeded your call.

[WHY has no one heeded the call of DUmmie Hawkeye-X?? When will they LEARN???]

The Congress can increase the number of justices in the Supreme Court. . . . This would be an inherently partisan act designed to pack the court in favor of the left.

[PERFECT!]

Fiengold is smart enough to know that there is no way 66 Senators will vote to remove a Supreme Court Justice, unless that Justices sacrificed a baby live on national TV at halftime during the Super bowl.

[Even then, sacrificing babies is simply a matter of "privacy" and "choice."]

Wearing brown socks and black shoes can be grounds for impeachment.

[For violating the Stacy and Clinton Act.]

I understand you are angry, and this decision is very bad, but it in no way violates any law that I know of.

[LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]

Indeed, by the logic of this proposal, every time there is majority decision with which Congress agrees, Congress should "investigate" the dissenters to see if they acted in "good faith". Dumb.

[And DUmber.]

The Fascist 5 need to be treated as the treasonous b*st*rds they are.

[Love, love, love. . . .]

With the exception of the Civil War, no greater acts of treason than Bush v. Gore and Citizens United have ever been committed in this nation's history.

[This DWARFS the Civil War!]

This is truly pointless sh*t.

[The DUmmie stock-in-trade.]

Don't suggest the Impeachment of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia & Kennedy. DEMAND IT!

[A Million DUmmie March! Nail it to the Congress door!]

On what f***ing grounds?

[Grounds? GROUNDS??]

Obama could appoint, instead of one new judge.. 3 new judges. There is no limit to the size of the supreme court, just as long as there is a deciding vote.

[OBAMA NAMES 47 DUMMIES TO HIGH COURT]

no one with a brain is thinking impeachment.

['Nuff said.]

The writer who finagled impeachment out of Feingolds statement is the real dummy. . . .

[Will the real DUmmie please stand up?]

19 Comments:

Anonymous troglaman said...

"What is the impeachable offense of John Roberts and the Supremes? I don't know..." PJinc

You don't? Once again my flabber is gasted. Let troglaman kindly and respectfully clue you in - Citizen United.

Now I know PJinc mentioned it early. But it sort of became dismissed as so much liberal tripe. Crazy shit. Much like the secret liberal remote control devices designed to turn-off Fox News (remember them? jerome was sure the crazy zombie techno-libs were standing in his backyard).

However, Citizen United changes the whole ballgame. Corporate (registered in the US) money from anywhere in the world has been given the green light to buy ad-time for local, state, or national elections. Simple as that.

China can do it. Russia can do it. Saudi Arabia can do it.

It's astonishing to me you're all OK with this. You're OK with Viet Nam, The Philippines, France, South Africa, Liberia, etc. being able to pour unlimited money into our elective process.

If it were up to me, troglaman, I'd buy a billion dollars worth of airtime devoted to the fact these fuckers sold us out. They SHOULD be impeached.

You're going to answer this post with claims that I'm an hate-filled idiot; spewing bile and other assorted digestive juices in my depraved attempt to humor you.

This, as usual, is the cry of the troglamatic dumbass. Instead of addressing the fact that you jackasses have just given up our elective processes to multi-national corporations, you make it about my many hate-filled gastric explosions.

If you are, at this very moment, wondering if I'm telling you the truth about Citizen United? I swear on my mother's grave I am.

And you're all OK with that.

Here's a novel exercise - what if you were me? What if you knew, without a shadow of doubt, that Citizen United opened up an international money pipeline to ANY candidate running in the USA? Think you might have feelings strong enough to warrant an explosion of nasty digestive juices?

Probably not, patriots. Instead it's all crazy lib-talk. Move along...nothing to see here.

12:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Um, one small problem there, Troggy.

The Constitution makes NO provision for the impeachment of SCOTUS judges. None. It's a lifetime appointment.

You embarrass yourself with your ignorance.

2:24 AM  
Anonymous Jerome Goolsby said...

Troglaman the Guttersnipe, I will bypass the usual intro and simply say you are dumber than a fence post.

That was a standard legal decision that did NOT clear the decks for the corporations to buy our elections. Even if it did, they have a lot better things to spend money on than an election campaign. Besides, spending huge sums of cash doesn't guarantee electoral success.

Once again you've slammed your head up your ass and spouted groupthink without even bothering to examine the facts. Reality really IS a alien concept to you isn't it Guttersnipe?

2:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
Yes there is, I believe it's in the 3rd article. Congress can remove a Supreme Court Justice, it has been done in the past a few times, but not for policy differences.

Read your Constitution!

2:35 AM  
Anonymous DumbAss Tanker said...

We all know DU undoubtedly has some of the stupidest people on the planet, but I am always amazed at their sheer persistence at the job of village idiot, even when some soon-to-be-tombstoned member confronts them directly with rationality.

8:48 AM  
Anonymous krazy kat said...

I'm a hate filled idiot, spewing bile...it's all crazy lib talk.

Exactly. Thanks, troglaman.

12:55 PM  
Anonymous Elrond Hubbard said...

troggy,

Remember "Impeach Earl Warren"?
Back in the 60s The Right was all over the Warren Court and its decisions. Political nuts like you never change, they always see differences in opinion as impeachable acts.

2 U.S.C., section 441e prohibits foreign principals, including corporations organized under foreign laws, from participating in U.S. elections either by direct contributions or by independent expenditures in support of a candidate. Too, FEC regulations
also prohibit contributions by foreign nationals, foreign corporations, foreign labor unions or foreign politcal committees.

Nothing in the Citizens United decision changes thses prohibitions.

So you're not telling the truth or, more likely, you're just a addled liberal high on indignation.

Still, I don't expect that the prohibitions noted above will stop the Saudis from supporting Obama.

1:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is interesting in your selected comments was that so many were saying 'get real'.

Which is about as scarce as a hen's tooth in the DU.

- Mikey NTH

6:20 PM  
Blogger HarryPrimate said...

How dare the Supreme Court up hold the Constitution, what were they thinking? Such a shame that all of these genius's at DU aren't even aware of the fact that this is a Republic, not a democracy.

6:30 PM  
Blogger Beefeater said...

You know, there are always rumors in DUmmy land about being infiltrated by RW scum in order to make them look even more MORONIC than they are naturally.


Lately I have little reason to doubt them.

9:50 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"Um, one small problem there, Troggy. The Constitution makes NO provision for the impeachment of SCOTUS judges. None. It's a lifetime appointment. You embarrass yourself with your ignorance." anon

Really?

"Can a US Supreme Court justice be impeached and removed from office?

Yes.

Under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice is awarded a lifetime commission. A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Article I and II of the Constitution. Section 1 of Article III states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior."

Hmmm. It appears anon's making shit up again. Why doesn't that surprise me? What was it you were saying about "embarrassing yourself", anon?

1:34 AM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"Back in the 60s The Right was all over the Warren Court and its decisions. Political nuts like you never change, they always see differences in opinion as impeachable acts." elrond

Bite me.

"2 U.S.C., section 441e prohibits foreign principals, including corporations organized under foreign laws, from participating in U.S. elections either by direct contributions or by independent expenditures in support of a candidate. Too, FEC regulations
also prohibit contributions by foreign nationals, foreign corporations, foreign labor unions or foreign politcal committees." elrond

Point taken (for the rest of you dipwads, this is how it's done). However these are very murky waters. Citigroup is an American Company primarily held by foreign interests. How about Toyota of America? Many many many of these multi-national corporation's interests are held by a variety of both American and foreign entities to varying degrees. Where does the line get drawn?

Secondly, there's the money. If nothing else, this decision opens the door to an infusion of corporate dollars directly into the femoral artery of our elective processes.

"Still, I don't expect that the prohibitions noted above will stop the Saudis from supporting Obama." elrond

Jesus. Do the Saudi's support Obama? Probably, since he's a closet Muslim dressed up like a Swahili Hitler studying Russian manifestos.

Google 'bush holds hands with saudi king'. They kiss. I'm sure you were outraged at the time, you frickinly transparent hypocrite.

2:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lol politics

10:26 AM  
Anonymous Elrond Hubbard said...

The Saudis gave money to Bush too.
It's got nothing to do with Obama's religion (I suspect Obama's true religion is power), it's about gaining access to the Oval Office.

It was enlightening to see Obama bowing to the Chinese President. Obama bows to foreign rulers as a sign of respect, but foreign rulers don't bow to Obama.

"Swahili Hitler" is too strong, Obama is more of a Swahili Mussolini.

2:18 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"It was enlightening to see Obama bowing to the Chinese President. Obama bows to foreign rulers as a sign of respect, but foreign rulers don't bow to Obama." elrond

Are you drunk?..."but foreign rulers don't bow to Obama."

Is this a picture of your perfect world? Foreign leaders bowing to Obama or whomever might occupy the office of president? Bowing?

Did you google "bush holds hands with saudi king"? Open up another tab and do it right now.

Imagine, for a moment, if Obama had done this? Look at the images and tell me how you'd be reacting if Obama had done exactly the same thing as W did.

I think we all know how it would've turned out if Obama had kissed and then held hands with the Saudi King.

Just let that truth soak in for a moment.

But it didn't turn out that way with you guys and W, did it? Why the heck would anyone see any kind of difference between...wait just one minute here...are you guys all using the same inner-homo avatar?

Dear God.

Fools. I know DumbTexas + RoyalSaudi = SuperSparklePony. I've confronted SuperSparklePony many times on my long and difficult journey through life.

Let me be blunt, SuperSparklePony is your inner homo. And (this is the most important part) if you ALL use the same avatar, YOU GIVE HER POWER!!! You do not want to do this, my friends, unless you choose a life filled with torture and constant horror.

On a totally unrelated topic, elrond...what are some arguments for and against spring-form pans vs regular pans? Any thoughts?

(I, troglaman, have no recollection of asking the cake pan question)

1:30 AM  
Anonymous Elrond Hubbard said...

Sorry trogs but Obama has been bowing to every foreign ruler imaginable: the Saudi king, the Chinese president, the Japanese emperor, the list grows ever longer, the groveling ever more obsequious. Maybe it's Obama indulging his own inner Sparkle Pony or perhaps it's part of his "America is not worthy" campaign.

But to one bows to Obama, foreign rulers know a loser when they see one. You'll never see the Saudi king holding hands with BO, that's an Arab sign of respect.

2:22 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"You'll never see the Saudi king holding hands with BO, that's an Arab sign of respect." elrond

And kissing him. Don't forget about that.

Are you actually saying that you'd have respected Obama for holding hands with and kissing the Saudi King?

You're so fucking full of shit and you know it. If Obama had done these things you jackasses would be howling to the moon and back.

You're smarter than this or not, elrond. Choose.

Oh, and don't forget the armed march on DC on the 19th. A singular activity meant to separate the men from the boys.

Sedition anyone?

2:24 AM  
Anonymous krazy kat said...

"A singular activity meant to sparate the men from the boys."

Are you talking about your inner homo again?

5:16 PM  
Anonymous troglaman said...

"A singular activity meant to separate the men from the boys."

Are you talking about your inner homo again?" kat

Could be. She sneaks up on me sometimes. It's an endless battle, kat.

2:46 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home