John Roberts Weasels Out of Impeachment Trial, Warrants His Own Impeachment

John Roberts Weasels Out of Impeachment Trial, Warrants His Own Impeachment

For decades, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts has led the SCOTUS in making some of the most controversial decisions in the nation’s history, from Bush v. Gore to Citizens United, and he was widely believed to be one of Donald Trump’s most steadfast supporters during the campaign. Now he is being called out by Democrats and Republicans alike for his weasel maneuver which could give Trump cover from impeachment proceedings and save his position as president.

The Ten Reasons Why I Think John Roberts Should Be Impeached

#7. John Roberts refuses to publicly debate his peers, as expected by the U.S Constitution. #6. John Roberts unjustly dissolves laws that he disagrees with, such as the Defense of Marriage Act and Title IX ban on Sex Discrimination in Education. #5.

After former president Barack Obama had already been elected for a second term with over seven million more votes than Trump had in his campaign for president, John Roberts started the US in its present downward spiral after putting George W Bush back into power when it should have gone to Al Gore due to obvious fraud. There is also evidence that he wasn’t just guilty of this but at least 3 other presidents or prime ministers since 1968…

The Importance of the Immigration Crisis

President Donald Trump has severely been criticized for the immigration crisis at the southern border. In December 2018, Congress passed a bill to avert another shutdown and approved a 4.6 billion dollar package in humanitarian aid to address the crisis over the next few months.

Critics feel as if President Trump should use presidential power to close down sections of the border rather than wait for Congress to come up with an immigration solution. But President Trump is unwilling to circumvent Congress because he believes that it would be unlawful according to his views on the separation of powers.

A Brief Background on Presidential Pardons

The presidential pardon is one of the most well-known presidential powers granted by the United States Constitution. The President has an unrestricted power to issue a pardon or reprieve to any individual convicted of any offense against the United States with exceptions for impeachable offenses.

This act essentially immunizes the person from criminal liability for that offense. Historically, when presidents have used this power, it’s typically been to forgive a wrongdoer (take Bernie Madoff for example), for personal reasons (i.e., William Jefferson Clinton), or to reflect a policy stance on pardoning and clemency generally (i.e., George H. W.

Section 4, Article II of the Constitution

Section 4. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President.

Court Decisions and Congress Actions about Presidential Pardons

Article II, Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution gives broad powers to the president to grant pardons. The clause reads: The President shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Congress has no power to prevent a pardon from taking effect. And there is only one restriction. It prohibits pardoning impeached officials who have not yet been convicted by the Senate but are already under investigation.

Conclusion #1

The first breakthrough with the Donald Trump impeachment trial came when Robert Mueller shared his evidence on Saturday. In response, John Roberts released an additional warrant for Justice Department to pursue the missing documentation.

The only thing that’s stopping the case from going forward is a third-party filibuster because this case has everything to do with the US Constitution and Congress needs to live up to its responsibilities. The idea that Mueller has seen enough evidence means it’s time for Congress to step in

but they can’t because it would be too hard is insulting and false as shown by their inaction over every major issue in modern history including this one.

Obama should have appointed a stronger replacement as Chief Justice

For any Chief Justice to have their independence called into question so quickly following their appointment is both alarming and appalling. It was bad enough for Obama to have John Roberts be a Chief Justice in the first place – but his swift backpedaling on his earlier call for an impeachment trial against President Trump should set off warning bells for Congress and make them suspicious of John Roberts’ motivations and future decisions.

Luckily, there are plenty more legal experts who can lead an impeachment trial. But even worse is that while they would still likely find the necessary information to convict the President (such as Trump’s alleged campaign-financing ties with Russian agents), a civil trial without its backing by Congress would not receive nearly as much attention or public opinion influence on either side.

Gorsuch and Judicial Independence—Does it still exist?

Since January 20th when Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States, he has undergone quite a lot in his first year as commander and chief. He’s often made headlines for his actions that ranged from presidential to downright offensive. And let’s not forget about the health care debacle.

Thankfully, this past Friday it came out that Chief Justice John Roberts had denied any requests for immediate court hearings about Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S Supreme Court.

This is no small feat considering it just occurred mere hours after both Christine Blasey Ford and her lawyer had gone public with her allegations on national television against Kavanaugh without either knowing if they would have anything more than an audience before Fox News anchors.

What Will it Take for Conservative Judges to Start Standing Up to Conservative Presidents?

The impeachment trial for the current US President is shaping up to be one of the most controversial since Nixon in 1974. The only problem is that you need 2/3rds support from all four parties to get it. Needless to say, it won’t happen with a Republican majority House and Senate,

which begs the question: what will it take for conservative judges like John Roberts to start standing up to conservative Presidents? The risk seems too high at this point given how much power Trump has already put on the table by appointing two Supreme Court Justices.

Perhaps judges should wait until Trump throws America into a recession or he takes away everyone’s healthcare before they can make their move.

Keep browsing Law Scribd for more updates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *