CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IS ALL WRONG ON IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGES

Chief Justice Roberts not only rebuked President Trump, but he also rebuked the foundation of our Republic, which in my opinion is a basis for Chief Justice Robert's impeachment.

There is no legal principle more important to me than the basis for a free people to throw off a government when it is no longer responsive to the people.  My view has remained the same since college.  I am proud of the fact the first federal court of appeals to find the Declaration of Independence to be of no legal consequence was made based on my argument.  The other court of appeals followed.

The opinions should have been subjected to major legal discourse, but the point was missed because it is not taught in law school or the university generally.

The following is the most important part of the Declaration of Independence.

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

WHEN SHOULD A JUDGE BE SUBJECTED TO IMPEACHMENT BASED ON A RULING?

As is always the case with me, it is about process.  A mere opinion by a judge should never be a basis for impeachment.  But if it can be shown the opinion is based on an intentional obstruction of justice, the judge most certainly should be subjected to impeachment.  If the opinion shows it is part of a repeated injury to the people and not based in law, the judge should most certainly be subjected to impeachment.

Where Chief Justice Roberts cannot reconcile his opinion with the law, is the fact judges can be criminally prosecuted for actions as a judge.  No one challenges the idea a sitting Judge can be criminally charged for actions as a judge. 

So, if the judge's opinion is based on a $10,000.00 bribe to the judge, the opinion is certainly a basis for impeachment.   If the judge's opinion is a clear affront to the Republic such as, the government cannot be held accountable for violating the constitution, such an opinion should be subject to impeachment. 

The decision to give Trump absolute immunity was a clear affront to the Republic and should have been met with a call for the impeachment of the Justices who created the doctrine.  It is a clear affront to the legal doctrine upon which or independence was found.

I challenge anyone to explain to me how putting a judge in prison for actions taken as a judge does not influence how they will rule, but allowing someone to sue the judge for the same opinion which landed them in prison will somehow influence how he/she rules.  It makes no sense.

The very concept of immunity of any sort is an afront to our Declaration of Independence.  Again, this is about process.  The Justices have struggled with this since the Supreme Court reversed its first decision on immunity wherein, they found immunity did not exist. 

It is no different than basic negligence.  A judge should not be held accountable civilly, criminally, or professionally for a ruling within their authority.  But you cannot say a ruling which is based on a criminal act is within their authority.  But the Supreme Court does not decern the difference between a criminal and noncriminal opinion so long as they are made while acting as a judge.  

This is the problem.  As a matter of law an opinion which is based on criminal intent, cannot have been made within the authority of the judge. Any opinion clearly outside the authority of the judge must be subject to impeachment, otherwise lifelong judges have no meaningful check on their authority.