Posted on 05/04/2016 7:53:28 AM PDT by huldah1776
A few years back I asked a number of people how long does a Supreme Court Justice serve. Almost unanimously the response was until death or resignation. No one’s response was constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a Supreme Court Justice or any other federal judge serves for life or until they resign.
Here is what the Constitution says about the term of office of a Supreme Court Justice or federal judge:
“Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” [Emphasis mine]
There is nothing that says the appointments are for life, but does say they shall hold their office during good behavior.
What does it mean ‘good behavior’? Some have argued that means moral behavior but the most generally accepted understanding refers to how they conduct themselves on the bench and adhere a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of land. First and foremost is adhering to the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitution.com ...
Ooooh....I like your way of thinking, on this.
Once down that road you would get Justices following more the political wind than the law.
A liberal Congress and Senate would remove thinkers and put operatives in.
Only our side has principles rooted in the Constitution.
Playing with fire, things would get much worse.
The courts are the easiest to corrupt. I wonder if anyone has ever bought a judge?
Anyway, “Licensed to Lie” by Sidney Powell.
Actually I think it has been done.
See this excerpt (particularly the second paragraph):
The Judiciary Act of 1801: “An Act to provide for the more convenient organization of the Courts of the United States.”
2 Stat. 89. February 13, 1801.
Within twelve years of the establishment of the federal judiciary, Congress approved a sweeping reorganization of the nation’s court system and significantly expanded federal jurisdiction.
The Judiciary Act of 1801 reduced the size of the Supreme Court from six justices to five and eliminated the justices’ circuit duties.
To replace the justices on circuit, the act created sixteen judgeships for six judicial circuits. The U.S. circuit courts over which the new judges were to preside gained jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Constitution and acts of the United States.
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/landmark_03.html
So the Judiciary Act of 2017 reduces the Supreme Court down to either 6 justices, based on seniority, matching the 1801 Act.
In that case, you are left in order of seniority:
Roberts (Chief)
Kennedy
Thomas
Ginsberg
Breyer
Alito
Kennedy, Ginsberg and Breyer will retire quickly, leaving SCOTUS firmly in conservative hands. (No you don’t have to have an odd number of justices as the 1801 Act shows).
There’s another benefit here. The 1801 Act shows that you can eliminate any judicial group you want. So if Congress wants to eliminate the entire 9th Circuit, it can. Only a matter of will.
Amazing.
5.56mm
The progressives all learned in college that when writing about an historic piece of literature that historical context must be taken into account. Easy to disregard when it has to do with our actual behaviors and the governing laws but should actually be written in the constitution itself.
The Bible does it by protecting even the punctuation.
HELLO?!??
And what do you think has been happening, increasingly egregiously for the last 20 years?
Enemies domestic and perverts have infiltrated every nook and cranny of American life and culture.
And they mean to be the masters. Permanently.
Or until they are Ceausescu'ed...
Samuel Chase, 1803
I am torn between him being appointed or staying in the senate to balance the power.
Purely academic mental exercise, and quite frankly a fantasy of unicorns f@rting skittles over the rainbow.
So, if this were tried, it would be challenged, and wind up in the supreme court. What do you think the outcome would be?
Is today stupid day or what?
Good luck with that...
With pre-born genocide being the law of land our nation will not be permitted to continue by God who does not forgive nations that allow it. The Biblical consequence of invasion and conquest can be delayed with repentance and revoking the permissive laws but the judgment is reprieved.
"The only real security of liberty, in any country, is the jealousy and circumspection of the people themselves. Let them be watchful over their rulers. Should they find a combination against their liberties, and all other methods appear insufficient to preserve them, they have, thank God, an ultimate remedy. That power which created the government can destroy it. Should the government, on trial, be found to want amendments, those amendments can be made in a regular method, in a mode prescribed by the Constitution itself [...]. We have [this] watchfulness of the people, which I hope will never be found wanting." - James Iredell, Elliot, 4:130. Iredell appointed by President Washington to First Supreme Court.On the topic of "religious liberty," Iredell wrote:From the North Carolina History web site, comes this information about him:
When the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 proposed the federal Constitution, Iredell was its foremost advocate in North Carolina. He inaugurated the first public movement in the state in favor of the document and wrote extensively in hopes of creating a new government. In particular, he responded to Virginia’s George Mason’s eleven objections to the Constitution and gained national attention in doing so. A Norfolk printer, for example, shelved other political tracts in 1788 to publish Iredell’s “Answers.” The essay preceded 49 of the 85 essays that constitute the Federalist Papers and appears to have been widely distributed.
At the first North Carolina ratification convention, Iredell was the floor leader for the Federalist forces. After the 1788 convention refused to ratify the federal Constitution, he then wielded his influential and skillful pen to fell Anti-federalist arguments and champion the Federalist cause and the benefits of the Constitution. When North Carolina finally ratified the document at its second convention (1789), Iredell was widely considered the intellectual general of the Federalists’ victory. For Iredell’s ratification efforts, President George Washington rewarded the North Carolinian with an appointment to the original U.S. Supreme Court, where he served for almost a decade. (Even before ratification, his acquaintances had speculated that his future included a federal judgeship.) During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Iredell closely dealt with Presidents Washington and John Adams and offered vigorous and partisan support for their administrations. He also chronicled important events and personalities.
"“Had Congress undertaken to guarantee religious freedom, or any particular species of it, they would then have had a pretense to interfere in a subject they have nothing to do with. Each state, so far as the clause in question does not interfere, must be left to the operation of its own principles.” - James Iredell - Debates on the Constitution, NC, 1788 (Appointed by Geo. Washington to First Supreme Court of the U. S.)
All of the people saying, “Oh, we wouldn’t want to do that. The Democrats might do it to our judges.” Are looking at this wrong.
...Yes they probably will do it to us. Good.
The court has become a tool of the political parties to do their bidding. That is not what they were supposed to be. In the future, justices will have full knowledge that ANY opinions which are not completely backed by the constitution and which appear to have ANY political influence will cost them their judgeship.
Sounds like a good outcome to me.
Ah, the watchfulness of the people has been diverted by media and their intellect diluted by those in power.
Sounds good to me, too. Hear, Hear! :)
“I am torn between him being appointed or staying in the senate to balance the power.”
Well, I wouldn’t get my panties in a wad over it, as he will end up doing neither.
Agreed, and besides that his presidential run tells us just how much he really is a constitutional conservative
and just how seriously he takes his oath of office.
Is this Demoncrat Underground? MORON
Anyone writing law from the bench should be removed and executed.
Fag marriage, Obamacare, Abortion etc.
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.