Klayman Calls for Impeachment of Justices for ACA Case

There are some well-known rituals that signal the beginning of something special. The first birds singing in springtime. Opening day in baseball. The tournament director saying “shuffle up and deal.” Add to that the first time each week that Larry Klayman calls for someone to be impeached. In this case, it’s the six justices in the majority in the Obamacare case.

The six U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold ObamaCare should be impeached for abandoning the rule of law, explains attorney Larry Klayman. Klayman stated Thursday morning: “These six Justices have violated their own long-established rules of interpretation for applying statutes to instead advance their own political objectives or burnish their public persona. Such personal goals corrode the role of the Court. The Justices abandoned the rule of law and have become merely a political focus group.”

As Justice Antonin Scalia makes clear in his dissent, the Justices actually rewrote the Affordable Care Act instead of interpreting it. Scalia wrote in dissent that the legacy of the Roberts Court will be “forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.” Scalia explained that the Court engaged in “somersaults of statutory interpretation” to save ObamaCare, rather than applying neutral and consistent rules to all laws equally…

To preserve the Republic in its last gasps, Congress must impeach these Justices. The U.S. Constitution provides in Article III, Section 1, that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” It does not give judges a term for life but only “during good Behavior.”

And of course, “good behavior” means never, ever disagreeing with Larry Klayman in a ruling. I’m sure that’s exactly what the founding fathers meant when they framed the Constitution. I’m sure there’s a footnote in there that says, “Good behavior shall be defined by the personal whims of a shitty crackpot attorney with a long track record of being sanctioned by courts for being thoroughly incompetent and making bizarre proclamations retrieved from his rectal cavity.”

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Markita Lynda—threadrupt

    And here I thought that judges were supposed to judge and hand down decisions appropriate to the law.

  • Al Dente

    “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” It does not give judges a term for life but only “during good Behavior.”

    This is why Larry Klayman* will never be a judge. He’s been sanctioned by two judges, reprimanded by the Florida Bar Association and censured by the District of Columbia Bar Association. Hardly a record of good behavior.

    *The worst lawyer in America not named Mat Staver.

  • blf

    Has the worst lawyer in the USA not named Mat Staver ever called for himself to be impeached? He’s clearly capable of doing so. If he were to do so, then except for himself, Staver, Orly Taitz, and most of the thug party (including everyone in the kandidate kook kar), it would not be very obvious whether or not it was an accident / mistake…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001548104064 jimatkins

    I thought a reasoned judge would look at the whole picture, review the entire bill, and not focus on ONE TYPO to get the sense of what the ORIGINAL FRAMERS of the bill intended.

  • D. C. Sessions

    This is why Larry Klayman* will never be a judge.

    I really wish you hadn’t said that. I can, unfortunately, see President Huckabee nominating him to the Federal bench, along with the entire graduating class Liberty University Law School. Because, seriously, what is more important in a judge than political reliability?

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    If I had a time machine, after killing Hitler I’d go back and show your country’s founders Larry Klayman and the results of the Second Amendment.

  • http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/ Zeno

    Easy peasy, Klayman. Just get at least 218 members of the House of Representatives to vote articles of impeachment against the “dirty half dozen” and then round up a mere 67 votes in favor of conviction in the United States Senate. Get back to us as soon as you have that squared away, buddy! Simple. (Like Klayman.)

  • John Pieret

    Actually, Larry … and I don’t assume you know this … a Justice of the Supreme Court can only be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Not agreeing with you … or not agreeing with Justice Scalia … doesn’t qualify.

  • thebookofdave

    Somebody is burnishing his private persona in public. Is that an impeachable offense?

  • Brent

    Klayman forgets the small detail involved in impeaching Supreme Court justices who don’t do what he thinks they should. Suppose he’s successful. How will those judges be replaced? Same as always, by appointment of a sitting president. In other words, President Barack Obama or President Hillary Clinton will get a chance to appoint six justices, far more than they likely would have been able to appoint in the next 8 years without impeachment. Way to think things through, Klayman!

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist
  • caseloweraz

    To preserve the Republic in its last gasps, Congress must impeach these Justices.

    So Klayman feels the USA is on life support in the ICU, and only if his wishes are carried out will it hang on a little longer before shuffling along into the dustbin of history? Thanks a lot, Larry.

  • dan4

    @6 “…I’d go back and show your country’s founders Larry Klayman…”

    Uh, why?

  • StevoR

    @D. C. Sessions :

    “This is why Larry Klayman* will never be a judge.”

    I really wish you hadn’t said that. I can, unfortunately, see President Huckabee nominating him ..

    Um, wait, you can actually see a President Huckabee getting elected as POTUS?! I can’t even see the Huckster winning the Rethuglican nomination let alone beating Hillary. I really don’t think that’ll happen.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ D’oh! Blockquote fail, sorry. Last three sentences only are mine; first sentence was written by Al Dente #2 and the second by D. C. Sessions #5.