In the wake of Thursday’s King v. Burwell Supreme Court
decision upholding Obamacare, at least one attorney who has argued cases before
the court is calling for the justices who filed the majority opinion to be
impeached.
All six are guilty of abandoning the rule of law, says the
longtime government watchdog. In its place they have substituted the
advancement of their own political agendas.
“These six justices have violated their own long-established
rules of interpretation for applying statutes to instead advance their own
political objectives or burnish their public persona,” Klayman said in reaction
to the decision. “Such personal goals corrode the role of the court. The
justices abandoned the rule of law and have become merely a political focus
group.”
As Justice Antonin Scalia makes clear in his dissent, the
six justices actually rewrote the Affordable Care Act instead of interpreting
it. Scalia wrote that the legacy of the Roberts Court will be “forever the
discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws
over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its
favorites.”
Scalia wrote that the court engaged in “somersaults of
statutory interpretation” to save Obamacare, rather than applying neutral and
consistent rules to all laws equally.
Concerns about Roberts
Klayman has become gravely concerned about the independence
of the Supreme Court following a whistleblower’s allegations that private
information about Chief Justice John Roberts was “harvested” illegally by the
U.S. government.
Although it is illegal for the Central Intelligence Agency
to operate within the domestic United States, a contractor whose company was
hired to perform the “harvesting” for the CIA has come forward to blow the whistle.
That contractor, identified in an earlier article by WND as Dennis Montgomery,
claims to have proof that the CIA harvested personal and private information
about Roberts and other federal judges and may be intimidating the Supreme
Court with the threat of leaking personally damaging information.
“To preserve the republic in its last gasps,” Congress must
impeach these justices, Klayman said.
The U.S. Constitution provides in Article III, Section 1,
that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their
Offices during good Behavior.”
It does not give judges a term for life but only “during
good Behavior.”
WND
previously reported that Klayman suggested Roberts may
have been blackmailed into approving Obamacare in 2013 after being spied on by
the NSA and CIA.
“Let’s take this possibility: Why did Chief Justice Roberts
at the eleventh hour change his decision? He was going to side with the other justices
and find that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Is it something that was dug up
on him by the NSA or the CIA? Was that used against him to blackmail him?”
Klayman asked during the Aaron Klein Investigative Radio show.
“These are the kinds of things [the government is doing],
and that’s why it’s so scary what’s going on with the NSA and the CIA,” he
said. “It can happen in a democracy. So that may help explain it, and perhaps
we can reach these issues through the NSA cases that we brought, the NSA/CIA
cases. I intend to get the truth on this.”
‘Abandoning the law’
Klayman, a former federal prosecutor, head of Freedom Watch
and previously the founder of Judicial Watch, is not the only legal analyst
that is questioning the integrity of the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.
David Harsanyi, senior editor at The Federalist, is also
attacking the court’s decision-making process.
He posted
a column Thursday accusing Roberts of
tossing the rule of law by the wayside in favor of rank partisanship.
Roberts wrote for the majority: “Congress passed the
Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.
If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with
the former, and avoids the latter.”
What that statement illustrates is that, for Roberts, the
law is a subordinate concern, Harsanyi wrote.
“Let’s concede to Roberts that the intentions of every
politician is to improve on things. Republicans believe that further
nationalizing health-care insurance is a bad idea and makes markets less
competitive and more expensive. By overturning the law they want to improve
health-care insurance markets, as well. That’s why we have legislatures, to
debate these points of view and then pass laws. Those laws codify what a
majority can agree on. And we have courts to judge the constitutionality of
laws, not bore into the souls of politicians to decipher their true intent or
find justifications to rubber stamp ‘democracy’ – as Roberts puts it.”
Harsanyi also notes that it was Roberts who helped rewrite
Obamacare the first time around, making a penalty into a tax and “for the first
time in history allowing American government to coerce every citizen into
buying a product from a private company as part of its powers to regulate
commerce.
“Here is Roberts again, abandoning law, lamenting that
Obamacare was drafted in haphazard and vague way, right before ruling that laws
can be implemented in any way the executive branch sees fit as long as judges
deem their intentions righteous.”
Harsanyi closes his column with this stinging rebuke to the
GOP. “Though Republican presidents keep nominating judges that disappoint
conservatives, you can be assured that Hillary Clinton will not disappoint
liberals with her picks.”
Related stories:
Source:http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/watchdog-lawyer-says-6-supremes-must-be-impeached/
No comments:
Post a Comment