A serious claim requiring serious consideration. Christopher Armitage – “The Federalist Society spent forty years building a captured federal judiciary, and we are now living inside the result. The doctrine they built it around has a name, unitary executive theory, and the doctrine has a method. The method is to read every Democratic exercise of power narrowly and every Republican exercise of power broadly, until the Constitution comes to mean whatever the conservative legal movement requires it to mean on any given Tuesday. This piece does three things. It explains what unitary executive theory actually claims and where the doctrine came from. It shows how the same justices who built the doctrine apply it selectively along partisan lines, using the student loan ruling and the presidential immunity ruling as the central exhibits. And it makes the case that membership in the Federalist Society or endorsement of unitary executive theory should disqualify a judge from federal office, with impeachment and removal as the constitutional mechanism the framers built for exactly this situation…”

• See also Judges Get Removed From The Bench For Doing What John Roberts and His Wife Have Been Doing For 16 Years by Christopher Armitage: “I’ll put this in plain English, because the people who profit from the arrangement would rather you got lost in the legalese. Federal judges have been removed from the bench for doing what John Roberts has been doing for sixteen years. None of what follows is secret, and I did not personally uncover any of it. It sits in the public record. Whistleblower filings sent to Congress, sworn testimony, internal company spreadsheets, federal disclosure forms, and reporting by mainstream outlets going back years. I did not find anything new. I read what was already there, put the facts in order, and asked why the Chief Justice of the United States is held to a lower standard than any other federal judge. In 2007, two years after her husband became Chief Justice of the United States, Jane Roberts left the practice of law and became a legal recruiter. She turned out to be an extraordinary one. Internal company spreadsheets, filed with Congress by a whistleblower and first reported by Business Insider, show that over a seven year period she earned $10,323,842.70 in commissions on $13.3 million in attributed firm revenue. A partner at her firm, Major, Lindsey and Africa, described her under oath as the highest earning recruiter in the entire company by a wide margin. Not the best that year. Not near the top. The highest of anyone, by a wide margin, in a firm full of professional recruiters who did nothing but place lawyers all day. From the start, she out-earned people who had done the job for decades. She out-earned people with bigger networks and longer track records. So ask the plain question. Why would one recruiter be paid so much more than every colleague doing the exact same work? The one thing she had that none of them had was a husband who is the Chief Justice of the United States…”
• See also via Lisa Graves – “As Abraham Lincoln warned in his first Inaugural Address: “If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” Until we strip the Roberts Court of the power to restrict our voting rights and to unleash the scourge of billionaire dark money in our elections, we will not be able to secure our freedoms–or our destiny as a thriving democracy grounded on liberty and justice for all.”