A flap over foreign matter at the Supreme Court (Impeachment for SCOTUS?)

MSNBC ^ | 20040311 | Tom Curry

[steplock]

A flap over foreign matter at the Supreme Court
MSNBC
Tom Curry

House members protest use of non-U.S. rulings in big cases

Stepping into a battle between the liberal and conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican House members are protesting the court’s increasing use of foreign legal precedents in interpreting the Constitution.

Republican House members Tom Feeney of Florida and Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, joined by more than 50 co-sponsors, will propose a non-binding resolution next week that would express the sense of Congress that judicial decisions should not be based on foreign laws or court decisions.

While Feeney and Goodlatte, who are members of the House Judiciary Committee, can’t summon the justices before them to defend their use of foreign precedents, they hope to fire a rhetorical shot across the bow of jurists who increasingly look to foreign legal trends, especially in death penalty and gay rights cases.

Feeney even used the “I” word, IMPEACHMENT, in an interview with MSNBC.com in his House office Wednesday.

[Siobhan]

SCOTUS flag....

[mabelkitty]

Bottom line - it is illegal, and the first such precedent should have caused the immediate removal of said loser who cited it - that would be RBG.

[Unicorn]

BTTT

[festus]

I seem to recall they are appointed for life and cannot be recalled. But their opinions can always be ignored. That was one of the checks-n-balances.

The president can say "Thats nice SCOTUS now run along and play". As long as the congress is in agreement with that decision and will not impeach him for it there is nothing the court can do. They can scream and yell but thats it.

This was how we were to avoid judical tyranny.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - JUDICIAL TYRANNY ALERT - and a call for the impeachment of those who institute an oligarchy in Supreme Court

[zip]

ping

[steplock]

SCOTUS can be impeached

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC; That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the Untied States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. - SO HELP ME GOD.

THIS was the oath I swore when I went out to DESTROY the enemies of the United States of America. Many of them died - I survived.

.

[DonQ]

A Congressional resolution trying to control the decision-making methodology of the Supreme Court would be a snub to the separation of powers ... and without any effect.

In the first few decades of its work, the Supreme Court made extensive use of British court precedents.

The recent Supreme Court decisions hardly ever mention foreign decisions - and then almost invariably with regard to how treaties to which the US is a party are interpreted by other parties. Even then, the court is not "following" these foreign decisions, but merely using them as examples of legal analysis and interpretation of provisions that are the same in both countries.

[Condor51]

With all due respect I must ask, did you read the article? If you did you wouldn't have said, "The recent Supreme Court decisions hardly ever mention foreign decisions" - as the article gives example after example of these 'supreme' beings looking elsewhere when making their decisions and ignoring OUR constitution and OUR Laws.

FYI, MOST of the recent SCOTUS decisions as in Lawrence v. Texas were BASED on european law, to wit; "Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, referred approvingly to the British Parliament decriminalizing sodomy in 1967, the European Convention on Human Rights, and a 1981 European Court of Human Rights case."

'justice' (small 'j' intentional) Ginsburg recently gave a speech at some leftist lawyers guild where she also mentioned european law and court decisions as her reference for some of HER decisions. This is reprehensible and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

And as to the separation of powers, I suggest you read the Constitution (of the US). The House of Representatives has the sole authority to IMPEACH judges - ALL federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court. And in case you forgot there's supposed to be three co-equal branches of government. The judicial branch is not above the rest and they are NOT supposed to make law, only interpret it, and our those would be our laws - not Gambia's or Lichtenstein's.

---

Anyway, it's about time someone in the US House has woken up and said the "I" word. I've been calling for these oligarch's impeachment fro some time now.

[Condor51]

I agree, Arlene Spectre is a dope and a major RINO to boot. And do you remember when Chucky Schumer (Marxist-Hades) and fat Teddy (D-Cutty Sark) suggested to Bush that HE be nominated to fill the next SCOTUS vacancy and that he'd be approved without a problem! That alone says that ole Arlene is unfit to serve ANYWHERE. It's amazing that he keeps getting re-elected.

That being said, let's not be so harsh on the senate republicans for caving on the impeachment trial. If Willard would have been found guilty, we would have had a President Gore! He would have been the incumbent in 2000 and I doubt Dubya could have beat him then.

[inquest]

Pest-control bump

[DonQ]

You shifted the meaning of my words; acts of the British Parliament or of the European Union legislature are not foreign court decisions. They were not treated as leading legal authorities but only as evidence of changing attitudes of the civilized world.

A congressional resolution over what the Supreme Court can and cannot read in doing its legal analysis would be nothing but political posturing without any legal weight whatever.

Seems like attitudes about the Supreme Court have done an about-face in the three years since they made Boy George the Prez.

[Celtman]

I seem to recall they are appointed for life and cannot be recalled.

Constitution of the United States
Article III
Section 1
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, ...

[DLfromthedesert]

Impeach O'Connor, Kennedy and Buzzi Ginsburg.

[xm177e2]

This bill, or something like it, is sorely needed. There is ONE supreme law of this land, and that is the Constitution of the United States of America. Not the Bible, not the Quran, not resolutions from the Dictators' Club United Nations...

[inquest]

They were not treated as leading legal authorities but only as evidence of changing attitudes of the civilized world.

Which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what the Constitution says. It's up to us as a sovereign nation to decide whether we want to go along with the attitudes of the "civilized" world.

A congressional resolution over what the Supreme Court can and cannot read in doing its legal analysis would be nothing but political posturing without any legal weight whatever.

It would carry some weight, in that it would deprive activist judges of a defense at their impeachment trials.

[Celtman]

In fact 12 federal judges have been impeached: Impeachments of Federal Officials
Seven were convicted and removed from office; one resigned; and three were acquitted.