Posted on 03/02/2005 2:55:26 PM PST by Road Warrior ‘04
Not sure if this question should be posted as vanity, but here it is:
Constitutional scholars and lawyers: If Supreme Court Justices cite International Law to come to a decision, as they did in the death penalty for minors case, can the justice(s) citing international law and custom and not our Constitution be impeached and removed from the high court for delving outside of our Constituion?
This may be a crazy question, but I'd like to know!
Yeah they should, but don't hold your breath.
There are SCOTUS justices more deserving of impeachment than Clinton ever was, but I doubt it'll ever happen.
They should be deported, that's what should happen!
"The tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots."---Thomas Jefferson
Bump!
If I am wrong then their oath is meaningless.
IMPEACHMENT NOW!
Our democracy has 100 million voters,
and should not have its laws made by 9!!
Article II Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Dear Bushbacker1,
Technically, a judge of any federal court can be impeached on whatever charge a simple majority of the House of Representatives will vote, and can be convicted and removed on whatever charge a 2/3 majority of the Senate will vote.
sitetest
I dislike the practice of looking at foreign law to decide cases.
However, it seems like it is reasonable to look at global customs to decide what should be considered cruel or unusual punishment.
"All federal judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution have lifetime tenure.
They hold office, as the Constitution states, “during good Behaviour” or until they choose to step down.
The only way to remove them from the bench is through impeachment and conviction, a two-step process by which federal judges (and also the President, Vice President, “and all civil Officers of the United States”) can be removed from office for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Impeachment is comparable to an indictment, and is done by the U.S. House of Representatives.
If the House votes for impeachment, the Senate holds a trial, with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding, to determine whether the person shall be convicted and removed from office.
Two-thirds of the members present must vote to convict.
Former President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House but was not convicted by the Senate.
http://www.constitutionproject.org/ci/newsroom_guide/29.htm
It would hard to impeach any Sup. judge. But if there are enough Rep. in Senant there may be laws that can be passed limiting their power, but that would be assuming the senators had back bones and that is a streach too.
All federal judges appointed under the provisions of Article III of the Constitution hold office "during good Behavior," which means in effect for life or until they choose to step down. The only way they can be removed from the bench is by impeachment (indictment by the House of Representatives) and conviction by the Senate. In accordance with constitutional requirements (for Supreme Court justices) and legislative standards (for appeals and trial court judges), impeachment may occur for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." An impeached jurist would face trial in the Senate, which could convict by a vote of two-thirds of the members present.
Since 1789 the House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings against only 13 jurists -- although about an equal number of judges resigned just before formal action was taken against them. Of these 13 cases, only seven resulted in a conviction, which removed them from office.
Although outright acts of criminality by those on the bench are few, a gray area of misconduct may put offending judges somewhere between acceptable and impeachable behavior. What to do with the federal jurist who hears a case despite an obvious conflict of interest, who consistently demonstrates biased behavior in the courtroom, whose personal habits negatively affect his or her performance in court? Historically, little has been done in such cases other than issuance of a mild reprimand by colleagues. In recent decades, however, actions have been taken to discipline judges.
On October 1, 1980, a new statute of Congress took effect. Titled the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, the law has two distinct parts. The first part authorizes the Judicial Council in each circuit, composed of both appeals and trial court judges and presided over by the chief judge of the circuit, to "make all necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice within its circuit." The second part of the act establishes a statutory complaint procedure against judges. Briefly, it permits an aggrieved party to file a written complaint with the clerk of the appellate court. The chief judge then reviews the charge and may dismiss it if it appears frivolous, or for a variety of other reasons. If the complaint seems valid, the chief judge must appoint an investigating committee consisting of himself or herself and an equal number of trial and circuit court judges. After an inquiry the committee reports to the council, which has several options: the judge may be exonerated; if the offender is a bankruptcy judge or magistrate, he or she may be removed; and an Article III judge may be subject to private or public reprimand or censure, certification of disability, request for voluntary resignation, or prohibition against further case assignments. However, removal of an Article III judge is not permitted; impeachment is still the only recourse. If the council determines that the conduct might constitute grounds for impeachment, it will notify the Judicial Conference, which in turn may transmit the case to the U.S. House of Representatives for consideration.
Any judge citing foreign law as a basis for making a decision which affects the legal status of any American is acting in an un-Constitutional manner, the decision has no legal standing, and should be ignored. Furthermore, the judge SHOULD be impeached.
But that would require a Senate with a.) guts b.) a spine and c.) leadership.
In other words, what the USSC has done will be upheld as 'the law of the land'.
A dark day for our Republic. What's left of it anyway.
Impeachment only requires a majority vote in the House. Conviction requires a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. If we had that many senate votes, we wouldn't have any trouble gettin our judges voted on on the floor of the Senate.
global customs
Like the Naploeonic Code of France?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.