We need to flood Chief John Roberts' office with calls....

[Upthevibe]

I'm watching a clip of Chuck Schumer on Rachel and he has asked for Roberts' intervention since dt's now directing Barr to interfere with the Roger Stone sentencing. Schumer said that in the past Justice Roberts has spoken out in defense of the independence of the Judicial Branch.

If I can, I'll try to get through to The Stephanie Miller Show in the morning with a number for people to call....

Do any of you have what you think the best number to call would be?

[blm]

1. Yes. Call reps and senators.

Last edited Fri Feb 14, 2020, 10:17 AM - Edit history (1)

[Upthevibe]

4. Okay...Here we go:

I have the number but it needs to be called during business hours.

I just now called (7:30 p.m. here in California so 10:30 p.m. there in D.C.) and a lady actually picked up the phone and said "Supreme Court." I asked if this is where I could leave a message for Chief Justice Roberts. She said they don't have a comment line and I'd need to call back during business hours.

Let's do this tomorrow!

202-479-3000.

I'd say anytime after 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.

[blm]

5. ✔️

[elleng]

3. Inundating the Supreme Court phone operators is NOT the way to go, imo,

and will get you nothing.

Put something in writing if you want, and encourage your Senators and Reps to adopt the issue.

[Upthevibe]

7. Really!!!!!?????? "Put something in writing"....

Encourage my Senators to adopt the issue. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My Senators are Feinstein and Harris and my Representative is Ted Lieu.

I'm kind of thinking that inundating the Supreme Court phone operators may get someone's attention.

[elleng]

10. Will get the operators' attention, and the ire, if anything, of the Supremes.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. Yes, it will make the regular jobs of ordinary federal employees more difficult

and will accomplish nothing at all.

[elleng]

38. Zacly.

Thanks, Ocelot

[struggle4progress]

18. +

[SCantiGOP]

6. Waste of time

I assume SCOTUS judges don’t want to know public opinion.
There’s a reason they are appointed for life.

I am, however, outraged and very angry at the lack of courage and patriotism on the part of Roberts and 4 of his cohorts for not publicly calling out the head of the US justice system.

[Frasier Balzov]

8. Judge Jackson has got this.

Asking the Chief Justice of SCOTUS to get involved in Roger Stone's case isn't really necessary or appropriate.

What we need is for the American People to elect a Democratic President and Democratic Senators.

[WheelWalker]

16. I agree completely with your assessment.

Welcome to DU!

[Blues Heron]

9. Roberts is a puke all the way

I'm not even sure he's a judge - what kind of judge presides over a trial with no witnesses or evidence? He's a fraud eight ways to sunday.

[onenote]

12. The kind of judge whose role isn't that of a judge?

He was no more a judge in the impeachment proceeding than the VP would be a judge in any non-presidential impeachment proceeding.

[Blues Heron]

13. wrong - he's still allegedly a judge - the top in the land

Presiding over an alleged trial, and he's not even going to open his yap about no witnesses? I'm not OK with that.

Doesn't he have any self respect? I think not.

[onenote]

14. Wrong.His role is that of the presiding officer. Not a judge.

In all other impeachments,the presiding officer is the Vice President or the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The Senate rules don't distinguish between the powers of the presiding officer when its a presidential impeachment presided over by the CJ or any other impeachment.

The reason the CJ has the role of presiding officer in a presidential impeachment is because it was the view of the framers of the Constitution that having the VP in that role would be inappropriate, not because they were looking for someone to act as a 'judge."

The judge in an impeachment is the Senate itself. They can call witnesses. The presiding officer doesn't have that power.

[Blues Heron]

15. Yes I know - we all heard that spiel a million times during the "trial"

I disagree with it. My point still stands - Roberts was a cowardly "judge" - who presided over a "trial" with no witnesses. Major blight on his lifetime record. He'll never live this down, in fact it will probably be all he's remembered for - the judge with no witnesses.

[onenote]

17. You disagree with it? is that supposed to be convincing?

[Blues Heron]

20. read my post again

The point stands - Roberts is no judge. He's a sham. They blocked witnesses and he just sat there like a bump on a log. Total abdication of his judicial mind. Presiding over a sham is tantamount to being a sham because he could have said something along the lines of fairness, but chose not to.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

21. Please point to Article and Section of the Constitution which supports this.

[Blues Heron]

24. It says the chief Justice will preside

(preside over)
be in charge of (a place or situation).
"he presided over a period of great budgetary recklessness"
synonyms:
be in charge of · be responsible for · be accountable for


Like a lot of our constitution, the document is silent on specifics. One thing it doesn't say is "sit there and let them hold a trial with no witnesses"

It doesn't say the role is ceremonial.

It doesn't say toss out your judicial ethics upon entering the senate chamber.

Please show me where in the constitution it says that.

That would have been laughed out of the room back in the day. We're in a new regime though now, anything goes.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

27. Article I, Section 3

Article I, Section 3

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

[Bold added]

Note that it does not give the Chief Justice the power to override anything the Senate decides to do while trying an impeachment. The Chief Justice does not share the power of the Senate. The Senate still decides how they will try all impeachments and that includes what powers the presiding officer will have.

[Blues Heron]

28. again - it's silent on specifics

Preside means preside. They didn't say "observe" which is what you're saying his role is. If they meant observe, they would have said it. They knew what the word preside means.

Just because the VP's role has become ceremonial over time doesn't mean we apply that to impeachment trials.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

30. No, it is very specific. The Senate shall have the sole power [...]

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Chief Justice or anyone else the power to override the Senate's sole power to try all impeachments.

The Senate voted to have no additional witnesses or documents. They have that power. The Chief Justice has no power to override the Senate.

[onenote]

23. You got one thing right: as the presiding officer at the impeachment

Roberts was "no judge." Of course, he wasn't supposed to be. He was filling a different role, like it or not.

[Blues Heron]

25. so you think it was ceremonial - where does the constitution say that?

I think your wrong.

[onenote]

32. So you think Mike Pence should exercise the powers of a judge

if the House impeaches Kavanaugh. That he should decide what evidence comes in or not. That he can dismiss the case outright, just like a judge?

[Blues Heron]

36. I expect hime to preside fairly over the trial- that means speaking up if the pukes

try to pull any sleazy moves like holding a trial without witnesses. That doesn't even pass the smell test. If you think what's going on is how it's supposed to work that's wonderful. Others believe in fairness - that's what the Framers were all about.

[4139]

11. No! why harass the government workers who answer the phone ?

Do you think John Roberts answers the phone? Do you think they write messages on little pink note pads and give them to him?

[Nature Man]

19. I thought the legislative branch of government was accountable to the people

not the judicial branch? maybe I'm wrong?

[ehrnst]

33. That is correct. SCOTUS is meant to be free from pressure from public opinion

in order to keep their jobs, hence the lifetime appointment.

[DeminPennswoods]

22. Um, no

A very bad idea.

[handmade34]

26. no

we organize ourselves... we educate ourselves, we talk to every friend, neighbor, family member and help them... we call, write, message our congress people...

we GOTV, we help others, we protest, we do civil disobedience, we stand up and speak out... but I don't think the Supreme Court is going to take millions of calls

[Blues Heron]

29. Do it

let them hear from the people.

[ehrnst]

31. Call your Reps, that's their job. The reason that SCOTUS justices are not elected is so they would

theoretically be free of fear of losing their jobs if they didn't rule in a way that pleased the public.

For better or for worse, they should not be influenced by a letter writing/phone call campaign. If they were, we would not have gotten Brown v. Board of Education.

Any "petition" to SCOTUS that you are asked to sign by an advocacy org is just email harvesting, because it's pointless to petition SCOTUS.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

35. The Supreme Court will not involve itself in a case that might come before them.

Please don't advise people to badger their staff; it's a lousy idea.

[blm]

37. Kick