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."

[HEY4QDEMS]

You answered your own question. "It is constitutionally wrong", which is a violation of their sworn duty to defend the constitution.

The seperation of powers empowers the court to interpret the law ONLY. Creating laws is the job of the legislature.

Since the seperation of powers is outlined in the constitution, they are in breech of their oath and therefore should be removed from the bench. IMO

[itsahoot]

Impeachment of judges is a difficult matter, and one rarely used.

Even when they do the people just elect them to congress "Alcee Hasting"

[itsahoot]

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.

Even if you had 60 republicans in the senate, you wouldn't gain what you want. What you need is a leadership with gonads, we all decried Lott and then let Nickles get pushed aside for a more moderate electable Frist. Not only that we are likely to lose Nickles seat to a rat too.

I never thought I would live to see the death of our republic, but......

[SCWard]

I agree it is a shame the honorable Sen. Nickles was not elected SML;
I suspect judicial nominations and Filegate would be a whole different story.
I think [hope] Tom Coburn will win the seat, and represent OK honorably as well, but its by no means a given; he must overcome a popular RINO in primary, then whoever the rats/governmentemployees/teachers nominate. Not easy.

Even with a stronger Republican majority, i wouldn't look for any judicial impeachments.
The SCOTUS passes on reviewing most unconstitutional legislation by Congress and Administrative branches; Congress passes on checking Administrative and Judicial branches; and all branches secure more powers,
while the Constitution continues to fade into a meaningless historic symbol.

[DMZFrank]

Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.

We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful. Congress can and should impeach federal judges for blatently unconstitutional rulings that manufacture law.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.

[DMZFrank]

Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.

We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful. Congress can and should impeach federal judges for blatently unconstitutional rulings that manufacture law.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.

[zbigreddogz]

I've said this all along. The best answer, at least the one I find most in line with principle, to the gay marrage thing isn't to ammend the constitution, it isn't necessary, but to impeach each and every judge that says it is in the constitution.

That said, I'm aware it's not politically viable. I wonder what we would have to do to make it so? It would certainly take a long time, and unfortunately, longer then we have.