Justices Roberts and Alito perjure themselves before Congress

Not that we have Rule of Law or anything — Nixon and Ford fixed that with their corrupt deal, the one that gave the presidency to Ford in exchange for Nixon's sweeping pre-indictment now-and-forever pardon.
How's that for a quid and a quo? I'll take either side of that deal.

But perjury before Congress is against the law, an actual crime. And Supreme Court justices can be removed (I hear).

With that in mind, here's Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast (my emphasis; h/t Cliff Schecter on Majority.fm):

Count this if you must as my attempt to "intimidate" John Roberts, but I was reading back through his statements about stare decisis at his hearings. What a liar.

Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School is one of our leading legal scholars, so let me hand it over to him here for a few grafs, from a piece he wrote for HuffPo that's five years old but rings awfully true as we count down the days until the Supreme Court seems likely to hand down its most striking overturning of a law since the 1935 National Recovery Act decision.

The quote from Geoffrey Stone (again, Chicago Law School; again, my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

John Roberts assured the Senate Judiciary Committee [under oath] that judges must "be bound down by rules and precedents."

Invoking Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, he affirmed that "the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability," and "integrity in the judicial process." Although acknowledging that it is sometimes necessary for judges to reconsider precedents, he stressed that this should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, where a decision has proved clearly "unworkable" over time.

But in general, "a sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."

Similarly, Samuel Alito testified to the Senate that the doctrine of stare decisis is "a fundamental part of our legal system." This principle, he explained, "limits the power of the judiciary" and "reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions." Stare decisis, he added, it is "not an inexorable command," but there must be a strong "presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents."

It is hardly surprising that Roberts and Alito would pay such obeisance to the doctrine of stare decisis in order to get themselves confirmed. Stare decisis is, after all, the bedrock principle of the rule of law [note, there's that phrase; Alito is right].

Not only does it promote stability and encourage judges to decide cases based on principle rather than on a preference for one or another of the parties before them, but it also serves importantly to reduce the politicization of the Court. It moderates ideological swings and preserves both the appearance and the reality that the Supreme Court is truly a legal rather than a political institution.

After some discussion of the Warren court's rulings, Tomasky concludes:

Roberts--and Alito--simply lied. Balls and strikes. Right. They are politicians in robes, nothing more.

Perjury with an excuse, like a note from Jesus or something.

In right-wing minds, it's Means v Ends all the time, and Ends always comes with a note from Jesus. It's how they roll, why they need right-wing Jesus and his personal, invisible and wholly-imagined blessing.

Consider, when John Mitchell, Nixon's former Attorney General and head of his Committee to Re-elect, was asked at the Watergate hearings (my paraphrase) — You testified that re-electing Nixon was a critical national imperative. You committed all these crimes to re-elect him. Would you kill to re-elect him?

Mitchell's answer — go ahead, guess; remember, he's under oath:

(Long pause) "Senator, you ask a hard question."

The song of the hyper-moral. (And remember, Mitchell was Attorney General.)

So, can a Supreme Court justice be impeached? Here's the answer:

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses.

The answer, in other words, is yes; but only in an actual republic. Bananas are on their kleptocratic own.

By the way, when you start typing "can supreme court justices be impeached?" into the google, it prompts you with that very search after can supr is entered. Choice number one.

I must not be the only one who cares.