***FYI*** H. RES. 468 Expressing disapproval IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

http://thomas.loc.gov ^ | November 21, 2003 | 108th CONGRESS Mr. GRAVES

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

HRES 468 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 468

Expressing disapproval of the consideration by Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of foreign laws and public opinion in their decisions, urging the end of this practice immediately to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, and urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 21, 2003

Mr. GRAVES submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

RESOLUTION

Expressing disapproval of the consideration by Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of foreign laws and public opinion in their decisions, urging the end of this practice immediately to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, and urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States.

Whereas each Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States takes a judicial oath, which states the following: `I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as [Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States] under the Constitution and laws of the United States.';

Whereas section 1 of article III of the Constitution states the following: `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.';

Whereas paragraph 1 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution states the following: `The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.';

Whereas paragraph 2 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution states the following: `In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.';

Whereas paragraph 3 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution states the following: `The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.';

Whereas section 1 of article I of the Constitution states the following: `All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.';

Whereas section 1 of article II of the Constitution states the following: `The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.';

Whereas Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's opinion for the Supreme Court of the United States in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2483 (2003), refers to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and other courts and states the following: `Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.';

Whereas Associate Justice John Paul Stevens's opinion for the Court in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 314, 316 (2002), refers to opinions of the national and world communities and states the following: `The practice, therefore, has become truly unusual, and it is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it.';

Whereas Associate Justice Steven G. Breyer's dissenting opinion in the denial by the Court of the petition for a writ of certiorari in Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 (1999), cites foreign sources of law, including the courts of Canada, India, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe, as well as the United Nations; and

Whereas Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in a speech to the American Constitution Society that judges `are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives.': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) reminds the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of the judicial oath they took as a precondition to assuming their responsibilities;

(2) reminds the Justices that the United States was founded for the purposes of self-government;

(3) reminds the Justices that the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government are the only branches whose officers are elected by the people of the United States;

(4) expresses its disapproval of the consideration of foreign laws and opinions in the decisions of the Court;

(5) advises the Justices not to incorporate foreign laws or opinions in future decisions of the Court;

(6) advises the Justices not to incorporate public opinion when performing their duty to uphold the Constitution; and

(7) urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States.

END

[mabelkitty]

You mean a liberal one that sided with sodomy and may side against God in the Pledge?

You could sell out shows to that show.

Nobody would blink.

[Marie]

I don't know what to say. This was a long time comming. What I'd like to know is: What'll they do to them if they DON'T comply?

[Memother]

Well now, about time.

[Federalist 78]

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FROM JUDICIAL TYRANNY^{Congress, the Court, and the Constitution}

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any FEDERAL COURT becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter, REMOVE JURISDICTION, or to abolish it, and to REinstitute FEDERALISM BY APPOINTING COMPETENT JUDGES, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that FEDERAL JUDGES long established should not be IMPEACHED ^{Topics in Judicial History} for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by IMPEACHING JUDGES ^{Law Review Article} to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute JUDICIAL Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to IMPEACH & REMOVE, and to provide new JUDGES for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these STATES; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present Federal Courts is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ^{Judicial Monopoly Over the Constitution: Jefferson's View}

[Federalist 78]

But if getting a new conservative judge confirmed for the SC is tough, just imagine what would happen if you tried to impeach a liberal one.

^{Law Review Article}

[Dog Gone]

Good article.

Nonetheless, it takes more votes in the Senate to remove a judge than it does to confirm one, and given the partisan nature of the liberal opposition, it's highly unlikely that any Supreme Court judge will be removed for ideological reasons. It would have to be for a reason which cuts across ideology, such as committing the crime of murder.

Even then, there would probably be some partisans who would refuse to convict.

[Federalist 78]

Judges are to keep their private ideologies to themselves, and should be removed when failing to do so violates the Constitution.

The present Senate will not convict on any grounds. It is very unlikely a future Senate would either, unless the House created a stir by impeaching more than one whom deserve it. (9th Circuit)

Newsletter of the Federal Courts squeals Judiciary Under Attack

GOPtoday.com - News Article

WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today joined Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) in announcing the formation of the House Working Group On Judicial Accountability. The group will work to encourage responsible federal judiciary, and identify and prevent judicial activism.

Congressman Steve King - Iowa 5th Congressional District ...

For the last couple of generations, courts have taken an increasingly activist role in legislating from the bench, which by definition requires them to either ignore or subvert the intent of the Constitution and our nation's laws. A flood of activist decisions from courts around the country, capped by the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, has swept away the very rule of law itself and caused our Founding Fathers to roll over in their graves. The work of our taskforce will allow them to, someday, rest again in peace," said King.

This House working group will ensure that judges fulfill their duties without bias and without substituting their philosophy for the law. Some of their duties include:

• Identifying bad laws that invite judicial activism and hopefully recommend legislation that will prevent it in the future;
• Involving the House in more federal court nominations because we believe America deserves a United States Senate that will seriously consider this President's mainstream and qualified nominees and allow them a vote;
• Working with the Judiciary Committee on its vigorous oversight of the federal court system;
• Rating Supreme Court decisions.

"It is an extraordinary honor for a non-lawyer to be named to this groundbreaking taskforce. Putting the cards in place to reestablish the checks of powers as designed by our Founders is the most important assignment that any Member of Congress could be asked to perform. Restraining a runaway judicial system requires significant changes in the educational programs in our universities and law schools. Providing a solution will require short-term, mid-term, and long-term strategic planning," King concluded.

[The_Eaglet]

I hope they pass this resolution. It would be a good wake-up call to warn them of the Congressional power of impeachment.

[The_Eaglet]

Judge Sets Dates for Lawsuit Against FEC-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 31

[cyn]

I don't like to waste time on mere appearances or gestures, but otoh, isn't there something to be said for opposing sc wrongheadedness in any way we can? this being a way that also puts our opposition on the record, puts them on notice (I know, I know, fwiw...).

Ok, then, how's this: if they don't shape up, I'll launch a squirrel in their general direction.