[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

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

Yes.

[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.