Age: 63
Birthplace: Boston, Massachusetts
Claim To Fame: Oregon’s most senior member of Congress
Why He’s the Insane Liberal of the Week: for whining and “investigating” the prospect of impeaching Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts because he might lose his seat to a GOP challenger next month.
Thanks to Barack Obama’s socialist policies we live in a very trying and polarizing time. Ask any Democrat politician trying to get reelected in a couple of weeks and you’ll feel the frustration of what happens when you blindly supported stuff like Obamacare or cap-n-trade and a stimulus bill that did nothing to bolster the hurting economy. Not only is the country greatly divided, but the prospects of the GOP taking over Congress Nov. 2 is getting realer with each passing day.
Enter Peter DeFazio, a longtime liberal congressman from Oregon who now faces a tough fight to get reelected against his Republican challenger Art Robinson. Energized by a combination of soft money and anti-government sentiment, the relatively unknown Robinson is making a surprisingly close race out of his bid to unseat DeFazio. And now DeFazio’s angry, really angry at . . . Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts?!?
See, according to Defazio, it was Roberts who as part of a “perverted majority” went and manipulated deliberations in the case of Citizens United v. FEC in order to create an opening for a 5-4 ruling that eliminated limits on campaign spending by corporations (conservatives can recall Barack Obama using his bully pulpit to embarrass SCOTUS over the same ruling at his State of the Union speech earlier this year). Defazio, whose established a well-deserved rep for fighting Wall Street corruption over the years, feels that hedge fund managers have conspired and banded together to meddle in his reelection race, contributing loot to Robinson’s campaign and targeting him with vicious ads and now he’s fighting back against the Roberts court for allowing it to happen: ‘They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign. They’ve opened the floodgates, and personally, I’m investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts for perjuring during his Senate hearings, where he said he wouldn’t be a judicial activist, and he wouldn’t overturn precedents.’
But in targeting a Supreme Court justice for impeachment, does DeFazio look to be panicking or like Obama, is he just in denial about the fact that on both sides of the political aisle many hedge-fund managers, bankers and CEO’s meddle in elections, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the results they want? Consider too the virtual impossibility of actually getting a Supreme Court justice impeached (esp. after Nov. 2) and what you’re left with is our Insane Liberal of the Week.
But in targeting a Supreme Court justice for impeachment, does DeFazio look to be panicking or like Obama, is he just in denial about the fact that on both sides of the political aisle many hedge-fund managers, bankers and CEO’s meddle in elections, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the results they want?
Uh-huh:
If you go down to the charts at that link, and pay attention to the four year cycle, you get a grasp on just how much political spending is growing.
The reason is simple – investing in buying politicians gives the best returns.
America isn’t a republic – it’s an oligarchy.
[retrieved from moderation - pH]
Oh, and by the way, it’s not “hundreds of millions of dollars”.
It’s 4.2 billion on advertising alone. Don’t ask about other expenses.
I’ll second the nomination albeit reluctantly, competition in the Insane Liberal category is fierce. If Peckerwood DeFazio is looking for perjurers to investigate, how about the guy who promised that if his Stimulus Bill was approved that unemployment wouldn’t go above 8%? Or, what about the guy who told us that adding millions of people to the healthcare system wouldn’t increase costs?
Or, what about the guy who put his hand on the bible (and later on the Koran) and swore to uphold the Constitution and to defend the nation against all enemies both foreign and domestic?
Shouldn’t that guy rate at least make the shout list?
Or, what about the guy who put his hand on the bible (and later on the Koran) and swore to uphold the Constitution and to defend the nation against all enemies both foreign and domestic?
This is, of course, crap.
Ellison also did not swear on the Koran or the Bible – incoming Congressmen don’t swear on either.
Ropelight, once again, is shown to be spreading lies in an attempt to paint Obama as a scary sacry
si-Muslim.For more information on this chain email, and the sort of crap that gets spread around by liars like ropelight, see here.
Let me repeat that – ropelight is a liar.
The Phoenician tries to use a technicality:
The link you gave us noted that Members of Congress are technically sworn in in the big group assembly, no holy books in use. But it also showed us a picture of Speaker Nancy Pelosi giving Keith bin Ellison a post-swearing-in mock ceremony using a Q’ran. Such clearly expresses Mr bin Ellison’s preference, if not technically the official ceremony.
As for Mr Ghost’s original, what does Representative DeFazio hope to accomplish here? There is virtually no chance that the lame duck session of the Congress would approve articles of impeachment against the Chief Justice, and no chance at all that the next Congress, under Speaker John Boehner — from my keyboard to God’s monitor screen! — would do so. And even if such were to occur, it would require 67 senators voting to convict the Chief Justice to actually remove him from office.
Our republic is very fortunate to have a solid constitutionalist like John Roberts as our Chief Justice.
Who gives a shit about swearing in using a holy book? Personally I think any religious text should be banned from government buildings, including the capital. Religion has no place in the government. Besides that, it’s offensive to every atheist in the country that a “holy” text is used for any official government function. Someone should use ‘the cat in the hat’ for swearing in…it holds the same relevance.
The link you gave us noted that Members of Congress are technically sworn in in the big group assembly, no holy books in use.
That is, they are not sworn in on any holy book. Period.
. But it also showed us a picture of Speaker Nancy Pelosi giving Keith bin Ellison a post-swearing-in mock ceremony using a Q’ran.
I don’t care what he did after the swearing in – whether he posed with a Koran, a Bible, or Harvey the Giant Bunny.
Such clearly expresses Mr bin Ellison’s preference, if not technically the official ceremony.
that’s not surprising, given the Ellison is a Muslim.
Just like Obama is a Christian, and ropelight is spreading deceitful wingnut crap about him. Again.
Dana said:
I supported John Roberts’ confirmation, because I liked his stated philosophy that his role on the SCOTUS would be like an umpire.
An umpire John Roberts has turned out not to be. Instead, he is an activist for Conservative causes, namely in the Citizens’ United case, in which he was willing to overturn a century of precedence, thus in favor of treating special interest groups just like they were an individual, with regard to the right to free speech.
Moreover, the political impact of this ruling is having a profoundly negative impact on this upcoming election, and all elections in the future. Now we are seeing hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the campaign from unknown sources, probably even foreign sources. This is not a good thing for America.
Thus Chief Justice John Roberts turns out to be a major disappoint to me.
When Barack Obama botched the oath of office in his swearing-in ceremony in front of a worldwide audience of millions, and later repeated the ceremony in private away from public view, people noticed and wondered why. Although the establishment media showed no curiosity at all and simply accepted anything the former community organizer and part-time Senator said as revealed truth, less entranced observers waited to hear a rational explanation.
None came, yet the accusation surfaced that Obama had sabotaged his public oath which was taken on the Lincoln Bible in order to privately take his oath on the Koran. The woman who made the accusation refused to reveal her identity for fear of her life. She is said to be well-known and in a position to know the facts, however her allegations remain unproved.
Obama’s defenders have argued that the circumstances of his swearing-in have been confused with those of Congressman Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota, an openly acknowledged Muslim who was sworn-in on a Koran. (Incidently, the Koran Ellison used once belonged to Thomas Jefferson and was borrowed from the Library of Congress for the ceremony.)
It has not been proved that Obama took his oath on a Koran. All we know for sure is that Obama botched his oath of office, and rather than repeat the ceremony in the presence of the American people, and in front of a worldwide audience, he chose to take the oath in private. To date there is no satisfactory explanation. However, the next time I’m in DC I intend to check the library’s records to see if Jefferson’s Koran was borrowed around the 3rd week of January 2008.
Since corporations have been “treated like individuals” for well over 100 years, this is hardly an overturning of precedence. In fact, it is an affirmation of more freedom, not less.
Just another typical botched comment by Prune Juice.
F*ck the atheists. There’s no right in this country not to be offended.
Good point. Of course, even before this case was decided, fat cats like George Soros had been pouring millions into efforts to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans, so I don’t see what Perry et al are whining about.
They’re whining about anything and everything to change the subject from the complete failure of the Democrat Party’s legislative record. Obama and Congressional Democrats arrograntly refused to represent the American people who elected them and instead strong-armed an anti-Amenican socialist inspired agenda through Congress in spite of clear and overwhelmingly expressed opposition.
Not only that, but Democrats demonized the citizen voters who openly expressed their opposition to dirty politics, backroom deals, and reckless spending. Now it’s time to face the consequences, and true to form Democrats are ducking, dodging, making excuses, and looking for convenient scapegoats.
ropelight whines, then prevaricates:
This is pure BS, ropelight, and you know it, or at least you should!
The fact is that Repubs absolutely refused to work across the aisle even though Obama and the Dems started out trying to include them in the legislative process. And this, after the economic mess they produced, as existed in January 2009 when Obama took office.
The “Obama’s Waterloo” comment at the outset of Obama’s term the stage for the Repub approach, which was to vote NO on everything.
You are not in touch with reality, ropelight!
Eric said:
First of all, Soros is not a corporation. Second, as far as I know his contributions are known.
I am whining about treating corporations as though they were a person, and I am whining about the lack of transparency.
Hube claimed:
You are not correct, Hube.
So please, let’s not hear anything more from the Right on judicial activism, since this is exactly what this Citizens’ United decision is all about, not to mention the damage it is doing to our democratic processes.
Eric:
Real smooth there Eric! Impressive too! You ought to be congratulated!
And by the way, there was no comment about a right “not to be offended”, now was there?
Nevertheless, you just had to get your hatred out there, didn’t you? Good witness, Eric!!!
Perry peddles hogwash. Republicans didn’t refuse to work with Democrats, Democrats locked the doors and wouldn’t let Republicans into the meeting rooms. Barack Obama was in the White House, Nancy Pelosi had an overwhelming majority in the House, and Harry Reid had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
Democrats didn’t need even one GOP vote to pass any legislation they wanted. If Democrats were for it, it passed no matter if every single Republican in Congress voted against it.
Yet, here you are Perry, crying crocodile tears and pretending the mess Democrats are in isn’t the inevitable result of their own arrogrance and misbehavior. Democrats turned their backs on the voters who put them in office and now Democrats are trying to avoid the wages of sin. Well, fat chance, and Democrats can’t claim they weren’t warned, every step of the way. They just ignored all the warnings and all signs that the American people were increasingly disgusted with the insufferable insolence of Democrat demagogues.
The good book teaches that you reap what you sow, and there’s a big bright harverst moon shining down on all of us right now to light the way while we separate the wheat from the chaff.
It has not been proved that Obama took his oath on a Koran. All we know for sure is that Obama botched his oath of office, and rather than repeat the ceremony in the presence of the American people, and in front of a worldwide audience, he chose to take the oath in private
Oh, for fuck’s sake:
First of all, John Roberts flubbed it. Secondly, if he ran through the exact words later as a technical precaution, good for him – it was the public ceremony which people registered as important.
And lastly, what the fuck is this paranoid wingnut shit involving the Koran? Do you really believe that there was a vast conspiracy where he concealed his religion from the time he was a small child in order to become President, only to spoil it at the last minute by swearing on a Koran, laughing maniacally and twirling his moustache while a stalwart band of wingnut patriots desperately tries to warn people?
You do realise that Scooby Doo wasn’t real, right?
The good book teaches that you reap what you sow
Given that you sow lies, bigotry and hatred, ropelight, I’d be worried about this if I were you.
Oh, and by the way, ropelight, Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur also retook their oaths. Were they Muslims too, or is there something different about Obama that… colours… your view of him?
ropelight makes more stuff up:
What is it about some of you righties who are so detached from reality that you are left with making stuff up to fit your ideology. I am amazed at this phenomenon.
The healthcare debate is one good example of Obama extending his to Repubs for their input. Moreover, there was significant input by Repubs in the final bill!
And there were many other examples.
Yet not one Senate Republican voted for the bill, not a one.
Moreover, there were bills sponsored by Repubs which, when they came up for a vote, were voted down by these very same Repubs.
Honestly speaking, ropelight, you just are not telling the truth! And, you are making stuff up. That’s obvious.
Is that so, Prune Juice?
Seems to me that the precedent for granting corporations many of the same rights as individuals is well established.
Hube claims:
In Citizens’ United, the issue is the First Amendment and speech, not the Fourteenth and contracts.
I go back to Robert’s own words, as quoted in my previous post.
Robert’s whole argument here is about why precedent should be overturned in this case.
Now do you agree with old fogie Prune Juice here?
You missed my point. Soros is a classic example of the super-rich trying to influence politics, which you claim to be opposed to on principle. Also, he gives his money to shadow groups rather than directly under his own name. How many know that Mediamatters, MoveOn.org, and others are financed by Soros behind the scenes?
Right. Except that you previously said there was no precedent for Citizens United, and I showed where it has been established that corporations and individuals are akin to one another under the law. Hence, it should not come as a surprise that corporations can exercise free speech/expression rights just like individuals can.