What are you gonna do about it? Fire me?
— —
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes showed snippets of the Confirmation Hearings of Justices Alito and Roberts, tonight on his show All In. Those clips documented both of the prospective Justices confirming this foundational principle, with regards to the President of the United States:
“ [...] no one is above the law under our system, and that includes the President.”
That was during their “Job Interviews.” And given their recent Presidential Immunity Decision, they either lied then to get Job, or they are lying now, to trash the honor and precedence-respecting traditions of the Job.
In either case, such should be grounds for dismissal, IF it were like any other Job in America. But since they can’t be “fired,” or voted out of office, perhaps their ongoing “abuse of power” can serve as grounds for removal by Impeachment:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GPO-CHRG-ROBERTS.pdf
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION
OF JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
HEARING BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SEPTEMBER 12–15, 2005
pg 152 [Emphasis added]
Senator LEAHY. [...] So now let me ask you this: do you believe that the President has a Commander in Chief override to authorize or excuse the use of torture in interrogation of enemy prisoners even though there may be domestic and international laws prohibiting the specific practice?
Judge ROBERTS. Senator, I believe that no one is above the law under our system, and that includes the President. The President is fully bound by the law, the Constitution and statutes. Now, there often arise issues where there’s a conflict between the Legislature and the Executive over an exercise of Executive authority, asserted Executive authority.
[...]
pg 280
Senator DURBIN. Justice Jackson thought the bottom line on Executive power was clear in Youngstown. He said, ‘‘No penance would ever expiate the sin against free government of holding that a President can escape control of Executive powers by law through assuming his military role.’’ I assume you agree with that statement by Justice Jackson?
Judge ROBERTS. Yes, I do. It simply reflects the basic principle that no man is above the law, not the President and not the Congress. And that’s why courts have the obligation and have had since Marbury v. Madison to say what the law is. And if that means that Congress has acted unconstitutionally, they strike down the law. And if it means that the Executive has acted unconstitutionally, they have the obligation to block the Executive action.
Roberts the younger gave us the key to reversing their current system-breaking ruling:
“Congress has the obligation to block Executive action … when the Executive has acted unconstitutionally.”
Likewise by extending that logic, Congress also has the obligation to impeach Supreme Court Justices when they abuse their power, discard stare decisis, and have blatantly lied in order to get their high positions of power, in the first place.
pgs 140-141 [Emphasis added]
Chairman SPECTER. [...] In our initial conversation, you talked about stability and humility in the law. Would you agree with those articulations of the principles of stare decisis as you had contemplated them, as you said you looked for stability in the law?
Judge ROBERTS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would. I would point out that the principle goes back even farther than Cardozo and Frankfurter. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, said that, ‘‘To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the judges, they need to be bound down by rules and precedents.’’ So even that far back, the Founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability, the appearance of integrity in the judicial process.
And anointing a criminal former president to retro-actively be above the law, promotes none of those principles that the Founders keenly valued (by Roberts own admission).
In fact, that kind of executive immunity — created out of thin air — throws the principle of stare decisis right out the freaking window. [See: UNITED STATES v. Richard M. NIXON.]
— —
Congress, are you listening?
Voters, are you listening too?
Democracy is indeed on the Ballot.