Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congress Can Remove Ginsberg and Kagan from the Supreme Court!
Constitution ^ | March 5, 2016 | Dave Jolly

Posted on 05/04/2016 7:53:28 AM PDT by huldah1776

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
Has this been defined and refined anywhere?
1 posted on 05/04/2016 7:53:28 AM PDT by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

Get rid of Roberts first....


2 posted on 05/04/2016 7:55:35 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Live Free or Die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

It would require the proper showings under the impeachment process. Several lesser court judges have faced such discipline. Cox for one.

It should be a very formal process and guarded by rule. Lest ye’ be hoisted on your own pike at a later date and time.


3 posted on 05/04/2016 7:57:02 AM PDT by Coffee... Black... No Sugar (I'm gonna' BICKER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Ding. Ding.


4 posted on 05/04/2016 7:57:25 AM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (Get Ready)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

They could, but it’s a major disgrace to the justice to be impeached. To get congress to go along, you have to have a substantial case. And you’re talking about political battle that will have the press up in arms.

Trump should tap Gingrich to start putting together impeachment cases against lower federal judges. Gingrich has suggested we impeach judges. And it’s a target rich environment. We need experience before we take on SCOTUS with impeachments.


5 posted on 05/04/2016 7:58:17 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coffee... Black... No Sugar

That’s where you need a psycho pitbull on the Supreme Court who will stop at nothing. Ted Cruz.

We don’t need judical temperment, we need pitbull temperment.


6 posted on 05/04/2016 7:59:00 AM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

You give sage advice there.


7 posted on 05/04/2016 8:00:34 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo
Red State wants the GOP to confirm Merrick Garland because they don't Trust Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions.

Poor Sore Loser Eric, what Conservative nominee have you supported? Mitt Romney or John Mc Cain? I see a Chapter 11 in your future

8 posted on 05/04/2016 8:01:30 AM PDT by scooby321 (o even lower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776
 
 
Congress Can Remove Ginsberg and Kagan from the Supreme Court!
 
LoL - does anybody really believe that they would even want to? Nope, they approve of who is there - the court's purpose is to certify and therefore legitimize their tyranny. They've got who they want in place.
 
 

9 posted on 05/04/2016 8:01:46 AM PDT by lapsus calami (What's that stink? Code Pink ! ! And their buddy Murtha, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Thank You


10 posted on 05/04/2016 8:02:39 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

Congress has to be careful about setting precedent.

If one Congress starts removing SC justices, future Congresses will do the same. That would make SC justices susceptible to presidential elections.


11 posted on 05/04/2016 8:03:49 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Gingrich had a better plan when running. Repeat what Thomas Jefferson did:

“Upon ascending to the presidency, Jefferson then did something remarkable — he and his congressional allies passed the Judicial Act of 1803 that simply abolished the newly-created judgeships and the courts they presided over. He reminded the deposed judges that they had no cases to hear, no building in which to hear them, and no funding for their salaries. The former judges took their case to the Supreme Court, demanding that their positions be restored. Under the plain terms of the Constitution, however, they didn’t have a leg to stand on, and President Jefferson emerged victorious.

Today we face a similar issue: those whose policies are unable to win at the ballot box are seeking to build a stronghold of government power in the courts, without needing to garner a single vote. Just as it did in 1803, the Executive and Legislative branches could take action today and ”reorganize” the Ninth Circuit Court right out of existence!”

Now, you couldn’t do this with the supreme court, but you could with every other federal court.


12 posted on 05/04/2016 8:04:01 AM PDT by Brookhaven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

The tenure of Supreme Court Justices is for life under Federal law (pursuant to Art III powers vested in Congress). Removal of a Justice requires impeachment unless the law is changed.


13 posted on 05/04/2016 8:05:35 AM PDT by NRx (Self Censored)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie
That’s where you need a psycho pitbull on the Supreme Court who will stop at nothing. Ted Cruz. We don’t need judical temperment, we need pitbull temperment.

After Cruz's cozying to the establishment, I can't get behind Cruz.

14 posted on 05/04/2016 8:07:02 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Trump is great. Just great. He's going to do great things and America will be great and spectacular.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776
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.

Wishful thinking. That is NOT the "most generally accepted understanding" at all.

But if a standard could be defined -- which it can't, by the way -- then it would seem Congress has the power to remove a Justice without impeachment.

I say a standard cannot be defined because there are at least two schools of thought regarding Constitutional adherence: the Strict Constructionsists like the late and grievously missed Antonin Scalia, and the revisionists/progressives/claptrappists like Ginsburg and Breyer.

You'll never get the legal community to agree on what constitutes "good behavior" in the Constitutional sense.

15 posted on 05/04/2016 8:07:19 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

The president nominates supreme court justices, who have to be confirmed by the Senate. The idea of removing any Justices, without controlling the replacements is asinine.

The next president will replace Scalia and may also replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer (all of whom will be 80+ during that term). If a democrat is elected or if Trump does not pick reliable conservative justices, abortion on demand will be the law until 2050.


16 posted on 05/04/2016 8:09:09 AM PDT by Kaisersrsic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

my first thought.


17 posted on 05/04/2016 8:10:06 AM PDT by huldah1776 ( Vote Pro-life! Allow God to bless America before He avenges the death of the innocent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Gingrich has also suggested over the years that Congress use its power to realign the lower courts. Let's gerrymander the districts and break up the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, for one. Disband some courts and form new ones.

That will certainly shake things up.

-PJ

18 posted on 05/04/2016 8:11:12 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

Yes they can, but they won’t.


19 posted on 05/04/2016 8:11:13 AM PDT by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776
Cruz is a young-man version of a curmudgeon, has no friends, is socially awkward, and is highly opinionated - which are all apt descriptions of successful jurists on the Supreme Court.

The Senate Republicans would love to see him leave (GTFOOH), and Presidential Candidate Trump could gain brownie points for supporting this highly qualified Conservative, constitutional scholar, and douche bag on the Supreme Court.

I say it is a win-win-win-win for Cruz, the Senate, the country, and Trump.

Time to be pragmatic!

20 posted on 05/04/2016 8:11:51 AM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson