Impeachment Of Supreme Court Justice(s)?

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Not sure if this question should be posted as vanity, but here it is:

Constitutional scholars and lawyers: If Supreme Court Justices cite International Law to come to a decision, as they did in the death penalty for minors case, can the justice(s) citing international law and custom and not our Constitution be impeached and removed from the high court for delving outside of our Constituion?

[Thud]

I doubt it. Furthermore it would be dead on arrival in the state legislatures, and there is no way 3/4 would agree on it.

I trust the People here. There'd be individual amendments, not a rewrite, and the amendments would be voted on one by one by the state legislatures. Only those approved by 38 of the 50 state legislatures would be adopted.

Have you overlooked the ratification requirement?

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Yes. But first they need to be something to be impeached for. And this ain't it.

Disagree vehemently! The court is sworn to uphold and make decisions based on "OUR" Constitution and not international law or sentiment!

[Non-Sequitur]

The court is sworn to uphold and make decisions based on "OUR" Constitution and not international law or sentiment!

They are sworn to exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party. They are also sworn to exercise appellate jurisdiction in all other cases and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. International law and sentiment aren't mentioned.

[RightWhale]

This decision uses the 'cruel and unusual' wording. It is a stretch, but it is the way the actual words of the Constitution are often stretched to cover a situation that was just about obviously not the intent of the Constitution.

[Dog Gone]

I suppose we could call a constitutional convention and nothing coming out of it would ever take effect. But the notion of putting the Constitution on the table and saying, "Have at it, guys and gals" would open up such a can of worms that it would paralyze the entire domestic political discussion for at least two years.

Even if we went into such a convention with 38 red states, the political bruising, media campaigns, and who knows what else might leave us with 38 blue states.

I'd prefer to deal with issues individually, and the Constitution already provides for that.

[Cicero]

As a practical matter, we don't have enough senators.

In order to successfully impeach a Supreme Court justice--and certainly several of them deserve to be impeached--you would need two things: widespread popular support among the voting public, and a 2/3 majority in the Senate.

At the moment we have neither, and with the news media 95% liberal it may be hard to get the requisite popular support.

[Thud]

So tell me how Congress will enact a line-item veto. The House is locked into incumbent protection with gerrymandering - it doesn't matter if 3/4 of the voters want a particular constitutional amendment if less than 3/4 of the Congressmen do, and they can't be removed from office in general elections.

The only way we'll see constitutional amendments given Congressional gerrymandering is via the state legislatures.

[cajun-jack]

From what I have read, what these guys did to their victims was pretty darned cruel and unusual, too, BUT where is the descision that says they aren't really dead and disfigured any more?

[bootless]

As Michael Medved said today - this is country of laws, not men. I wholeheartedly agree.

[bootless]

>>Like the Naploeonic Code of France?<<

Well, Stanley Kowalski thought a lot of the Napoleanic Code! /tongue out of cheek.

[TheHound]

I sort of expected that response. It has been programmed into us, mainly through the education system and the MSLM - oh the special interests and oh this and oh that. I suspect that State Legislators would see the awesome responsibility and act accordingly, besides it would take 3/4th agreement. The vague-ness in much of the Constitution has been the means by which Liberals and their appointed judges have controlled things for many years now. One impeachment here and there will not stop them.

Some basic Constitutional Covenants need to spelled out. What the Right to bear arms means- What is Life and Liberty - to name a couple. This slow progression toward Socialism must be stopped - if a convention results in abrupt Socialism - then let the revolution begin.

[DianeDePoitiers]

"However, it seems like it is reasonable to look at global customs to decide what should be considered cruel or unusual punishment."

The question is - who should decide what is cruel and unusual punishment? The Constitution says that any powers not spelled out in the Constitution for the Federal government should be left to the states. It doesn't say anything about leaving the definition of cruel and unusual punishment to the Supreme Court.

If you believe in the Republic and the Constitution, then this decision should be left to the people in each state, not to five unelected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If the people in a state decide that they want to consider customs in other countries, then that is up to them.

[Dog Gone]

We got this way because of the last 70 years of Supreme Court rulings. We can get out of it the same way. President Bush might well have the opportunity to shape the Supreme Court for the next 35 years. Justice Stevens is even older than Rehnquist. O'Conner can't be long for the court. Ginsberg is no spring chicken.

Of the liberals, only Souter and Breyer are almost certainly going to be on the bench in 2008.

[Still Thinking]

You don't count Kennedy among the liberals?

[The Other Harry]

I dislike the practice of looking at foreign law to decide cases.

However, it seems like it is reasonable to look at global customs to decide what should be considered cruel or unusual punishment.

I'm pretty much with you on this.

I personally agree more with the two dissents than with the majority opinion, but -- if I recall correctly -- there is nothing in the Constitution that binds the Supreme Court to only base its decisions on the hard wording of the Constitution or to the standards which prevailed at the time.

Even if there were, "cruel and unusual punishment" is in there. And that requires a reference to what is meant by that phrase, which is something which changes with time. In that context, I think the majority's decision is defensible.

Another point which I don't think has been brought up in this thread is that even the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the Constitution in the first place is open to question. I believe it took that on in Marbury v. Madison.

We take that for granted anymore, but I think the framers left a whole lot of gray area for good reason. Anthony Kennedy drove a cart through that gray area yesterday, but he was well within his authority to do so.

All that said, I think if we have capital punishment for anyone, my opinion is more in line with Sandra Day O'Connor's and Anton Scalia's. To whom it applies should be left to the states.

I have mixed feelings about capital punishment myself, but Malvo and that other punk who killed the girl? Why warehouse them for the next 60 years?

[Thud]

Kennedy is moving towards Stevens - unpredictable, off the wall, etc. Stephens is a space cadet and Kennedy is getting there.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Justices and judges serve subject to good behavior. Not quite as high a standard as impeachment of a president or other executive official, which is high crimes and misdeamenors.

Ain't no way these justices would get kicked out simply for relying on foreign law.

[Dog Gone]

You don't count Kennedy among the liberals?

Not really. Despite this enormously disappointing vote and opinion from him, he normally votes with the conservatives and is more of a swing vote like O'Connor. It's possible that he's shifting as he ages to more liberal views, but his historical track record hasn't been bad.

[truth_seeker]

"I am neither a scholar nor a lawyer but common sense tells me that when one takes an oath to uphold the US Constitution and then uses foriegn laws, customs and practices as a SOURCE for any decision rather than the US Constitution, and customs laws and practices of THIS nation, they are open for Impeachment."

I guess since you are neither a scholar nor a lawyer, you couldn't be expected to know that US law is based on English Common Law; England being a foreign country.

Further, the case in question involves minors. It may tie into the idea of an individual not having legal "capacity" when young, or it may tie into the concept of "cruel and unusual punishment."

Find the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the constitution. But since it isn't there, it falls back to interpretation. Same for capacity.

That interpretation is the job of the SC.

FYI I personally believe in the death penalty. I believe it should be used more. I'm not sure using it more on minors is the more I am most comfortable with.

[jwalsh07]

I personally agree more with the two dissents than with the majority opinion, but -- if I recall correctly -- there is nothing in the Constitution that binds the Supreme Court to only base its decisions on the hard wording of the Constitution or to the standards which prevailed at the time.

The oath of office:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Article VI of the Constitution is pretty clear:

"..This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."