Should Impeachment Be Considered for Erring Activist Judges?

Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) ^ | 03/18/04 | John Jessup

[coffeebreak]

Since 1789, when the courts were founded, "only" 13 federal judges and one Supreme Court justice have been impeached.

CBN.com – WASHINGTON - Recent controversial court decisions are stirring the sentiment against activist judges. While some Supreme Court justices have hinted at retirement, critics are calling upon legislators to exercise their options when it comes to changing the composition of the bench in both the federal courts and the Supreme Court. You see judges in the news and on TV programs. If you are not a fan of the ones with their own shows, it is fairly easy to get rid of them, simply by pushing the off button on your remote. But in the real world, where ratings and public approval matter little, it is a different story. To get rid of a federal judge requires the ultimate and most difficult political action - impeachment.

It was not long after the establishment of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, that complaints began. And today, the complaints abound. Charges of judicial activism have some considering all the options when it comes to removing judges.

Michael Schwartz of Concerned Women for America, said, "They don't care about law. They just care about politics. It's not even politics that they're accountable for, because they're accountable to no one. The Supreme Court believes itself to be a collective nine-headed god that can make or break anything."

[coffeebreak]

My respect for judges has been in free fall over the last few years. Next time I'm in a court room I plan not to stand when the judge enters the court. If he (or someone else) doesn't like it I'll tell them my action is a constitutionally protected exercise of free speech. Maybe if I find out that they are not an 'activist judge' I might stand next time. :)

If I lived near either the gay marriage judges in Massachusetts or the judge that ruled against Roy Moore (Ten Commandments) in Alabama, I would get a group together and go to their homes and stand outside with pickets signs and protest (yell). Where do these people live?! Quite often you can find out from your local bar listings of lawyers. They make activist rulings and then go home and sit safe and quiet in their houses. Maybe we should stop by and send them a message that what they are doing has crossed the line.

[MineralMan]

Impeachment of judges is a difficult matter, and one rarely used. Even within the GOP side of the Congress, you'll find few with the inclination to initiate impeachment proceedings.

With so many SCOTUS and Federal Appeals court judges appointed by Republican Presidents, the probem becomes even more difficult.

Your suggestion of picketing judges homes is likely to end up with your arrest, and your plan to refuse to stand in court will likely end with a citation for contempt. But civil disobedience is a tried and true method, if you're willing to accept the possible consequences.

[tomball]

Clinton was impeached - and he still didn't go anywhere. They are judges. They will continue to appeal impeachment decisions with the courts at the taxpayer's expense until they retire.

[Defiant]

Of course these judges should be impeached, for illegally usurping power not given to them by the constitution. Unfortunately, the Constitution and most states require 2/3 votes of the legislature before an impeachment can be successful. I think we need some resistance by states and the Administration to rulings that are just plain unsupported by the Constitution.

[yankeedame]

Next time I'm in a court room I plan not to stand when the judge enters the court....

Grasshopper, when a judge enters the court we do not stand because the judge entered the courtroom.

We stand out of respect for what he represents -- the Majesty of the Law, whether the man himself is, in our opinion, an upholder of it or not.

Else it is like saying that when the National Anthem is played we rise to out feet b/c of the song itself, and not for what the song symbolizes.

[delapaz]

yes, and impeachments would be tried in the senate, not in the general court system. The two quacks who decided to strike God from the pledge of allegiance should be the first to go, and that impeachment should be a slam dunk in both the House and the Senate.

I think a good case could be made that those two quacks on the 9th circuit have lost all common sense and should not be presiding over any major issues.

[Defiant]

You are right. There are better methods to bring the judiciary in line with a majority vote. One is to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Another is to threaten to pack the Supreme Court, and to do so if necessary. Another is to add new district court judges, there are too few now and the backlog is horrible. Split the 9th circuit.

We will need to either get 60 votes in the Senate or use a few gonads to break the filibustering minority to get any of this. I don't think Bush has the will to push for this fight, but if he did, the time would be early 2005, before his influence fades.

[lugsoul]

Which judge that ruled against Roy Moore? The District Court judge? The three Court of Appeals judges that slam-dunked his arguments? The nine SCOTUS justices that refused to hear his case? The other Alabama Supreme Court judges who overruled his decision? The Court of the Judiciary judges who removed him from office?

Roy Moore likes to characterize his situation as one driven by a single "rogue" judge. But you should take note that 25+ judges, most of them Republican, some of the noted conservatives, have reviewed Moore's case, and not a single one of them has voted in his favor. Not even Jay Sekulow bought Moore's arguments.

[yankeedame]

Should Impeachment Be Considered for Erring Activist Judges?

The Constitution firmly declares that the only way to remove a federal officer -- in this case a judge -- is brought to trial for and found guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

Question: Is "erring" an inditable offense? IOW, is it either a "high crime" (felony) and/or a misdemeanor?

I, myself, am against it. For an action like this -- to impeach erring activists judges -- is a razor sharp shard of glass that will invariably cut the hand wields it. For who for one moment doubts that the liberals would not use it -- and use it with a vengeance -- against "erring" conservative judges?

[Iron Matron]

To get rid of a federal judge requires the ultimate and most difficult political action - impeachment.


Let's do it - beginning with the 9th circuit.

[coffeebreak]

Your suggestion of picketing judges homes is likely to end up with your arrest

Not likely as long as picketers stayed off private property.

and your plan to refuse to stand in court will likely end with a citation for contempt.

In that case you'd better stand the next time you're in court. :) I'll remain seated.

[Publius6961]

Should Impeachment Be Considered for Erring Activist Judges?

Is there an alternative?

Life tenure was adopted to shield justice from political influence. Unfortunately it is no bar to incompetence and insinuated politics.
The founders never envisioned (nor were they able to contemplate) that genuinely ignorant, stupid and political judges could ever be appointed or selected.

They were wrong.

Is there an alternative?

[MineralMan]

"We will need to either get 60 votes in the Senate or use a few gonads to break the filibustering minority to get any of this. I don't think Bush has the will to push for this fight, but if he did, the time would be early 2005, before his influence fades."

I'm afraid I must agree with you. Bush hasn't any desire to change this. If he does appoint SCOTUS justices, likely they'll be much like the ones appointed by his father.

[coffeebreak]

Grasshopper, when a judge enters the court we do not stand because the judge entered the courtroom. We stand out of respect for what he represents -- the Majesty of the Law, whether the man himself is, in our opinion, an upholder of it or not.

Don't call me Grasshopper; got it!

I am losing respect for what you call the 'Majesty of the Law' and I will remain seated next time I appear in a court room! You're free to stand if you're afraid of what might happen to you. Phony respect for judges is one of the main reasons why they think they can do anything they want.

[KC Burke]

Impeachment only works, in a divided nation, when some within the party of the receipient of the action are so disgusted by the behavior involved that they take action. Otherwise, it is seen as just political war.

Republicans are at a disadvantage here because they might see action for activism and person conduct outside of the duties as correct, Democrats think there is nothing wrong with such behavior.

We could have Republican impeach O'Connor on the use of foreign law and it wouldn't affect the climate a wit. Dems would go along to gain advantage and fail to support the same against their own.

A long term majority position will be the only thing that changes the climate.

[HEY4QDEMS]

I'm not sure this would apply to the Massachusetts Supremes.
Erring is a gray area, but these MassHoles can easily be impeached because of the wording of their decision.
They ruled that even though the ban on gay marriage does not violate the state constitution, they don't give a flying #### and said that in 180 days they will ENACT A LAW allowing it if the legislature fails to create one.

[El Gato]

Clinton was impeached - and he still didn't go anywhere.

That's because the Senate refused to look at the evidence and did not convict him. If a Judge or Justice was impeaced and the Senate did convict her, she'd be gone. Not that it's going to happen anytime soon.

That said, it should happen. Justices and judges serve "during good Behaviour" (Art III sec 1), according to the Constitution, and there nothing good about ignoring or twisting the Highest Law of the Land. The Constitution also says that all Judges, not merely federal ones, are bound by it(Art VI second paragraph).

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Yes.

[yankeedame]

They ruled that even though the ban on gay marriage does not violate the state constitution, they don't give a flying #### and said that in 180 days they will ENACT A LAW allowing it if the legislature fails to create one.

But this that a crime in and of itself? If so, what exactly is the crime? (I'm not challenging you, I'm just wondering.) Usurping legislative -- while morally and Constitutionally wrong -- is not a punishable crime like robbing a post office.