Impeachment articles filed against John Roberts

[kan...@aol.com]

http://cohen.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-cohen-introduces-six-articles-impeachment-against-supreme

Pretty sure this won't go very far; but it has merit. JR seems to have profited to the tune of about $20 million from law firms that had business before SCOTUS. 

That's one. 

How about Clarence the Clown? He's clearly profited from his association with various ultra-wealthy men. 

[David Fairchild]

Maybe we should consider a Constitutional amendment that SCOTUS justices and other federal  judges be appointed by popular election. Just a thought. Kansans will consider this very question for our state Aug 4.

[B Keg]

What a terrible idea

Be nice, even when you don't want to!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Kansas City Diversity Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kansas-city-diversity...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/80b40481-3f51-4921-b07c-0c21f9d0533en%40googlegroups.com.

[David Fairchild]

Do explain. I take it you are voting no on 4 in Kansas?

[Brian Kegerreis]

Well yes. 

I don't really want judges to be politicians. I kind of like they way it was where we voted to retain judges as opposed to elect them. We don't pick them but we can easily kick them out.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/aab7498a-cdd8-4856-8cd9-f411c1536c74n%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

Tricky business, this is. If judges are selected, that can be considered political as well. I think whether selected or elected, politics plays into it. I mean, selection just means that WTP gave the decision over to someone they elected. Kind of a wash. 

If the electorate were more reliably educated, I think that elected judges would tend to be less extreme than those selected by either party. Just sayin'. 

As for the "vote to retain", it works okay; but I think that few people pay much attention to this voting line. It's always at the bottom of the ballot. 

[kan...@aol.com]

As for the Roberts situation and SCOTUS in general, term limits are clearly called for. Over time, SCOTUS will end up fairly balanced politically. With this particularly corrupt and biased court, I'd vote to add members. Democrats want to add four seats; but I'd go for three. An even number would demand at least a two vote majority to make a judgement. So no more "swing voter". Every POTUS gets to appoint 2 members, 4 if re-elected. I think the arithmetic with 12 works out to 18 year terms. All neat and balanced. 

[Brian Kegerreis]

Maybe but it gives us an option to get rid of a really bad judge. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/e7a801cd-9e9f-461c-b21c-dc04be468085n%40googlegroups.com.

[Brian Kegerreis]

I am fairly confident you would not be bringing this up if Trump lost. 

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026, 17:13 'kan...@aol.com' via Kansas City Diversity Coalition <kansas-city-div...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/e7a801cd-9e9f-461c-b21c-dc04be468085n%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

If Trump had lost we wouldn't have 2-3 more unqualified members of the SC.

I was going to give Gorsuch a pass; but it turns out he made a corrupt deal too. Here are the facts:

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sold a Colorado property to Brian Duffy, the CEO of the major law firm Greenberg Traurig, in May 2017 just days after Gorsuch's confirmation. The sale drew scrutiny because Gorsuch left the buyer's name blank on his financial disclosure forms, and the law firm regularly has business before the Supreme Court. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Property Sale Details

The Property: A 40-acre tract of land with a 3,000-square-foot home in Granby, Colorado, co-owned by Gorsuch and two business partners through an LLC named the Walden Group.
The Sale Price: $1.825 million total, finalized on May 12, 2017, after the property sat on the market for nearly two years.
Gorsuch's Share: Gorsuch reported earning between $250,001 and $500,000 from the transaction on his federal disclosure forms.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
So Gorsuch can't sell this property for two years; but moments after being sworn in it sells to a lawyer with business before the court. I'd call that  plainly corrupt 
And then there's Kavanaugh, say no more. 
And even Amy Barrett isn't beyond reproach. She worked to gut voting rights for minorities. So? Well, she's adopted two Black children. Maybe not corrupt, but hypocritic or clueless. 
So IMO Trump is 0.5/3.0 in appointments. And yes, I wouldn't be commenting if he hadn't made these less than competent choices. 


And SCOTUS has shown its true colors with multiple BAD rulings that have gone against stare decisis and even against their own previous rulings. Their rulings are clearly corrupt and heavily influenced by partisan politics. And Alito is just plain stupid and corrupt. He had to look at rulings dealing with witches in order to overturn Roe. And his opinions on recent rulings were made on FALSE data. Stupid. And Clarence the Clown; don't even get started.......................
I'm sure some low knowledge people might see things differently; but the reality speaks for itself. You have 6 justices, appointed by Republicans, all with suspicious dealing of varying sorts. And 3 justices that seem to be on anyone's radar for anything. 
Yes; I'd put 3 more people on the bench. Balance out the shit. 

[Brian Kegerreis]

No we would have a different 3 or 4 unqualified Justices who would rule the way you want ok abortion and guns and you'd be fine with that.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/d8a3f1a4-c499-4c5d-aa70-07f8ef798106n%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

Not if the court had an EVEN number of justices. Then they'd have to hash out difficult issues, make compromises, and most importantly, follow the LAW, rather than their political whims. 

Can you name any unqualified justices from the last 20-30 years, other than those I mentioned? Ones that are clearly corrupt, or clearly motivated by serious political or financial biases? I've never spoken about Scalia, even though I pretty much disagree with most of his rulings. He was at least qualified to make bad rulings. That means that they have to abided, bad taste and all. For your consideration:

Roberts has benefited by millions as a justice, a lot through his wife. She also benefitted by her relations with lawyers who spoke before SCOTUS. 

Clarence the Clown? Untold free vacations, real estate deals, etc

Kavanaugh, drunk rapist

Gorsuch, shady real estate deal 5 minutes after being sworn in. 

Alito: expensive trip paid for by a person with business before the court. Multiple financial holdings with companies that appear before SCOTUS. 

You get the picture. Now you can balance it out by pointing similar irregularities involving previous SCOTUS members. And I'll even let you name prior CONSERVATIVE justices. Just show us how crooked others have been in the past. I won't even accuse you of what-about-ism. The whole point is to compare these clowns with prior members of SCOTUS. 

[B Keg]

Again you only arr proposing a change because Trump won. If he hadn't you wouldn't want change. 

Be nice, even when you don't want to!

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/5e41354e-d79c-4050-8062-614fed00dc3dn%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

You misunderstand in the usual MAGA rabbit hole way. If Trump hadn't won no change would be required. Justices of this low quality wouldn't have been approved by a Senate that wasn't part of the POTUS cult. Kavanaugh almost didn't make it; but Senate Republicans couldn't be counted on to do what was clearly right. And all of Trump's appointees LIED when questioned by the Senate. But that's expected from Trump choices. He found people to overturn Roe, no matter how wrong their reasoning was. No more, no less. And he's gotten the added bonus of being handed an unlimited stack of "get out of jail free" cards. Probably didn't know that would occurs; but it's a pretty clear quid pro quo for being appointed. 

You're welcome to name other justices from any recent SCOTUS who repaid their POTUS so overtly. 

I wasn't born hating Trump. He wasn't born being hated. It's come to this by way of HIS actions, his craziness, his evilness. He's earned his opprobrium. 

[B Keg]

So you would not be advocating any cha ges of Trump lost. Thsts what I said.

Be nice, even when you don't want to!

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/kansas-city-diversity-coalition/fbf66af0-a1e9-4931-bb1b-72f67529c87cn%40googlegroups.com.

[kan...@aol.com]

No, I'd get rid of Clarence the Clown and Alito based on their double dealing. Roberts probably too. All three have engaged in various corrupt acts. 

Thomas was a sexual predator, one of whose victims testified before Congress. Bad day for Biden and others who chose not to believe her. (See, I can criticize a Democrat. Too bad you can't come clean about Trump's perfidy). 

But you continue to play dodgeball. I ask if there are ANY recent SCOTI who can be tarred with the same brush, Dem or Rep appointee. The purpose of looking into this is to know if corruption has been an issue at SCOTUS for years/decades, or if these few appointees are indicative of a new norm. 

But I explained myself clearly to you. It's not Trump perse; it's his ACTIONS, including the unqualified people that he has installed all over the gov't. He's earned every negative comment made about him (at least by me, but actually by almost everyone). And he continues to earn them today. Too bad you're too deep in the bubble to see any of this. 

What's the difference between Jim Jones and Donald Trump? Both will get you to drink the Kool-aid; but only Trump will charge you for it. 

[kan...@aol.com]

https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2025/01/corruption-compliance-and-conscience-a-glimpse-into-supreme-court-ethics-scandals/

I found this article about ethics issues dating back about 70 years. Abe Fortas resigned from the Court for behavior not even close to what our current clowns have done. His "crime" was being too close to POTUS, and counselling him on certain issues. Wow!, serious moral lapse. Some might suggest that Fortas' real crime was being Jewish. William O. Douglas had impeachment charges filed. They went nowhere. His crime? Bad behavior, like having affairs and the like. Gerald Ford thought he just didn't behave "morally" enough,. 

So that's about it for the last 70 years. And the jury is back; the current crop is WAY more corrupt than what (who) has gone before. 

The push for this is likely due to right wing money and influence trying to overturn Roe, along with exerting increased influence in favor of big industry (like oil). Same cabal that runs the Republican party/MAGA. The Federalist Society. The 2025 Report. 

There it is. Not all about Trump at all. He was just handed the ball and ran with it. 

Expecting plenty of whining pushback from low knowledge rabbit hole dwellers. THAT is Trump's doing.