Lawmaker wants to impeach 'activist' judge

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37670 ^ | March 20, 2004 | WorldNetDaily.com

[baltimoreman]

O'Connor: U.S. must rely on foreign law
Justice says, 'The impressions we create in this world are important'






American courts need to pay more attention to international legal decisions to help create a more favorable impression abroad, said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at an awards dinner in Atlanta.


Sandra Day O'Connor

"The impressions we create in this world are important, and they can leave their mark," O'Connor said, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The 73-year-old justice and some of her high court colleagues have made similar appeals to foreign law, not only in speeches and interviews, but in some of their legal opinions. Her most recent public remarks came at a dinner Tuesday sponsored by the Atlanta-based Southern Center for International Studies.

The occasion was the center's presentation to her of its World Justice Award.

O'Connor told the audience, according to the Atlanta paper, the U.S. judicial system generally gives a favorable impression worldwide, "but when it comes to the impression created by the treatment of foreign and international law and the United States court, the jury is still out."

She cited two recent Supreme Court cases that illustrate the increased willingness of U.S. courts to take international law into account in its decisions.

In 2002, she said, the high court regarded world opinion when it ruled executing the mentally retarded to be unconstitutional.

American diplomats, O'Connor added, filed a court brief in that case about the difficulties their foreign missions faced because of U.S. death penalty practices.

More recently, the Supreme Court relied partly on European Court decisions in its decision to overturn the Texas anti-sodomy law.

"I suspect," O'Connor said, according to the Atlanta daily, "that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."

Doing so, she added, "may not only enrich our own country's decisions, I think it may create that all important good impression."

In July, O'Connor made a rare television news show appearance with Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer in which they were asked whether the U.S. Constitution, the oldest governing document in use in the world today, will continue to be relevant in an age of globalism.

Speaking with ABC News' "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos, Breyer took issue with Justice Antonin Scalia, who, in a dissent in the Texas sodomy ruling, contended the views of foreign jurists are irrelevant under the U.S. Constitution.

Breyer had held that a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that homosexuals had a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual behavior showed the Supreme Court's earlier decision to the contrary was unfounded in the Western tradition.

"We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really – it's trite but it's true – is growing together," Breyer said. "Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations."

In his dissent in the Texas case, Scalia said: "The court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans," he said quoting the 2002 Foster v. Florida case.

Scalia's scathing critique of the 6-3 sodomy ruling was unusual in its bluntness.

"Today's opinion is the product of a court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct," he wrote. Later he concluded: "This court has taken sides in the culture war."

The current court is split between Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas and Scalia, who tend to hold the traditional constitutionalist approach to rulings, and the majority of O'Connor, Breyer, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, who tend to believe in the concept of a "living Constitution" subject to changes in public opinion and interpretation.

[DefCon]

"...The Denver court gave McLeod joint custody of Clark's adopted daughter, Emma, even though McLeod had no legal relationship to the girl...."
- - -
So if I have a child and I am dating a girl, and then we break up,
the courts can grant my ex-girlfriend joint custody of my child?
How bizarre, how bizarre.

[PistolPaknMama]

American courts need to pay more attention to international legal decisions to help create a more favorable impression abroad, said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Dear Justice O'Connor:

Bite me.

Regards,
PPM

[Restorer]

"Impeachment is a last resort for cases of gross wrongdoing or clear unfitness of character," Andrews said, according to the AP. "It should not be used to settle policy differences, even something as highly charged as this case."

WRONG!

IMNTBHO, a judge who misuses his position to enforce his own personal views on those who come before him is guilty of the ultimate in "gross wrongdoing and clear unfitness of character."

If he is a thief, a pedophile or a murderer, these crimes do not necessarily make his judicial decisions wrong (although I wouldn't want such a man as a judge).

I think one of the biggest mistakes in American history has been the failure to use impeachment as the Founders intended, as the ultimate control of the legislative over the executive and judicial branches. This allows the chickens**t congresscritters to pass the buck to judges, who do the dirty work of liberalism because they are untouchable.

But they are only untouchable because Congress refuses to exercised its constitutional power.

[baltimoreman]

But they are only untouchable because Congress refuses to exercised its constitutional power.

Oh how right you are

[Squantos]

LMAO...........too funny Mama !

So this Denver District Judge John Coughlin is a faggot ? His outragous decison seems to be self preserving.

Stay safe !

[arichtaxpayer]

[visualops]

Everyone across the country should be appalled and horrified at this decision.
The liberals who are always crying over "civil liberties" and "rights" are the ones surely and not so slowly abdicating both our rights and liberties to the judicial oligarchy.

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

Republican state Rep. Greg Brophy introduced a resolution yesterday to begin impeachment proceedings against Denver District Judge John Coughlin.

The country could use a lot more politicians like Representative Brophy!

[Thebaddog]

I'm liking this impeachment concept. Can you remove a federal judge in a similar manner?

[supercat]

But they are only untouchable because Congress refuses to exercised its constitutional power.

Unfortunately, a judge who pretends that a bill that 1/3 of Congress wants is already law is basically immune from impeachment for doing so.

[writer33]

"Responding to "judicial activism," a Colorado lawmaker wants to impeach a judge who ordered a former lesbian in a child custody case not to teach her daughter homosexual behavior is wrong."


This is just getting more and more stupid. I do believe it's high time we set some examples.

[writer33]

"How bizarre, how bizarre."


Bizarre isn't the word you're looking for. Let's begin with sickening, disgusting, outrageous, immoral, etc... I've also got a few choice words that will help explain it, but I'll reserve the right to remain a gentleman.

[reformedliberal]

Only if you are a lesbian living w/another lesbian.

[Restorer]

Unfortunately, a judge who pretends that a bill that 1/3 of Congress wants is already law is basically immune from impeachment for doing so.

He has no immunity from impeachment, other than the cowardice of Congress, and their eagerness to shuffle off "divisive" issues to the courts in order to protect their own popularity.

Which, unfortunately, in today's world translates to absolute immunity.

[supercat]

He has no immunity from impeachment, other than the cowardice of Congress, and their eagerness to shuffle off "divisive" issues to the courts in order to protect their own popularity.

Well, I suppose such a judge could be impeached, since that only requires 51% of the House, but what would be the point of such exercise if over a third of the Senate would support what the judge is doing? Even if not immune to impeachment he'd still be immune to removal.

[BenLurkin]

I fear we are fast approaching the day when SCOTUS declares the Constitution to be "unconstitutional".

[freekitty]

Am I mistaken? Isn't the reason America was created was to get away from foriegn law? I would say Judge O'Conner is woefully behind the times.

[Old Sarge]

I read the thread, and the comments therein, and I conclude:

1. The judiciary is a lifetime appointment, for time and eternity;

2. When World Socialism realized they couldn't win in the ballot box, they decided the road to victory ran through the jurors' box;

3. I am becoming increasingly convinced that, barring an insurrection, there will be no change. The American people willfully close their eyes to the encroachment.