John Roberts didn’t just go out of his way yesterday to trash Trump on a purely political matter—impeachment of corrupt judges—over which Roberts has no authority. He did it by selectively leaking his statement to left-wing corporate media outlets, lying about its nature (claiming it was only in response to press inquiries rather than a general statement), and then refusing to provide the full statement to conservative media outlets when requested, including @FDRLST.
To date, no one knows the full extent of what Roberts and his taxpayer-funded PR agents have said, because no record of any statement from the court can be found anywhere on the Supreme Court website, a shocking breach of protocol and transparency.
Did the left-wing corporate media outlets hand-picked by Roberts to receive his political rant print it in full, or did they selectively quote it? It is impossible to know, because the Chief Justice is refusing to be transparent about what he said and who he said it to.
I have now asked the Supreme Court public information office five separate times to be provided a copy of Roberts’ full statement. I was hung up on twice, rudely told to send an email by someone who thought that was easier than just answering why the statement wasn’t on the Supreme Court’s website, and have sent multiple e-mail inquiries that have been ignored by government employees whose sole job is to respond to media inquiries.
Do these sound like the actions of an impartial jurist doing his best to defend the Constitution and the rule of law? Or does that sound like something a nakedly political partisan activist would do?
You would think an institution that nearly got two of its own members killed after a leak of its deliberations would go to great leaks to make sure all statements and records of the Court would be transparently provided to everyone at the same time, as opposed to leaking statements—and comments about them from Supreme Court PIO staff—to select news outlets for the purpose of politically shaping coverage.
You would think that, but you’d be wrong. We have known for more than a decade that John Roberts is a political schemer, not an impartial jurist. His latest anti-Trump rant—and his refusal to be honest and transparent about it—only makes his gamesmanship more obvious, and more dangerous to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Another means to rid ourselves of corrupt judges:
Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Stella's Place 
LikeLiked by 4 people
LikeLiked by 4 people
Obamacare. John Roberts. Case closed for me a long time ago. He destroyed any slight possibility of impartiality. Okay, he confirmed he never had any. His actions since then have not made a dent in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Over at “The Last Refuge” site, a commenter named hokkoda had this to offer last night:
…”It’s important to remind people that the inferior courts do not work for or report to the Supreme Court. CONGRESS creates the inferior courts and as such, Congress can eliminate courts, add courts, and control funding of the courts. Congress also can impeach. And a key element of impeachment is the hearings process.
A hearings process that subpoenas Federal district court judges to testify before Congress would cast a lot of sunlight on the corrupt Judicial-Lawfare-Complex. Could the end result be impeachment? Certainly.
But it could also lead to something better in the long run: descope of the Federal court system which has grown bloated, corrupt, and arrogant because it answers to nobody.
They’re the 3rd branch of government for a reason – they are not elected by anyone, and therefore hold the least amount of power when it comes to governance. SCOTUS doesn’t even control their own budget. They can’t levy taxes. They can’t declare war. They can’t decide what constitutes citizenship.
The answer to all of this is sunlight. Simply compel Biasberg to testify in open public hearings about his role in Lawfare and his interpretation of the Federal district court’s ability to direct the actions of the Commander in Chief, issue “nationwide injunctions” and so forth. Then let’s get into his direct role in Lawfare.
Roberts wants to pretend impeachment of Biasberg is about a “political disagreement”. But it is not. This is a judicial coup d’etat we are witnessing. And the only way to stop it is to descope the judiciary and limit its ability to issue injunctions.
If crimes are discovered, such as aiding and abetting terrorist organizations, the judges should be removed. Judges can “obstruct justice” too. They are not Jesus in black robes. They are every bit as tempted by corruption – perhaps more so because they are deemed infallible by the Chief Justice – as any politician.”…
LikeLiked by 3 people
That is the question that I have is that why waste time talking about impeachment and legislate the President out of this log jam of inferior courts. Cant the legislative branch dissolve all of these districts and reapportion them????? Dont waste time and energy on things that you have no chance at winning!!! Impeachment is (as pointed out by others ) impossible of a threshold to make!!!! You need 67 Senators you dont have 67 Senators!!! Legislate, Legislate, Legislate!!!! You have majority in two houses!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person