Posted on 03/02/2005 2:55:26 PM PST by 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?
No foreign decision, statute or precedent of any sort may be cited in any way, shape or form in rulings pertaining to the Constitutionality of any criminal statute or practice of the United States or any state. Violation of this statute by a judicial officer of the United States shall constitute an impeachable offense.
It has to be limited to criminal statutes because foreign precedents have been cited as authority in civil cases for as long as the United States has existed, particularly in commercial cases and admiralty/maritime law. I recommend the specific reference to impeachable offense to remove any doubt about the potential penalty.
Such a new law would have major separation of powers problems, but the Supreme Court doesn't hesitate to usurp the powers of the legislative and executive branches so tough. Impeach judges for violating it and they'll get the idea.
If he is allwoed to source foriegn laws customs and practices then MAYBE someday it WILL be an impeachable offense.......see my post no. 46.
The danger in any republican form of government is that you must trust your leaders to be moral people. The federal courts have increasingly become mere political tools, and it appears the edifice of the High Court itself may be cracked. In fact, judging by the Berger and Warren courts, there's little doubt.
Maybe a process outside our Constitution can be used to remove Supreme Court justices.
If a white man rapes a woman, it is yet one more example of subjugation of females by evil white men of European extraction.
If a black man rapes a woman, it's unfortunate, but after all, he's a victim of his skin color and he DID help expand the reach of government by creating another welfare recipient.
Gay rape shall be considered a pub[l]ic duty.
< /liberal think >
Great news if it passes!
You forgot the syrup.
I wonder if Justice Kennedy will look to the international communtiy when determining if displays of the 10 commandments are unconstitutional?
Was that Dewars?
"However, it seems like it is reasonable to look at global customs to decide what should be considered cruel or unusual punishment."
...as opposed to the Bible's clear requirements for punishments for murderers, rapists and child molesters?
You're too tolerant here, of the wrong things. The UN does not accept the Bible as a source document while America does...did............
Thud, you are wise beyond your years! However many that may be!
bump
- Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, 1805: Chase was charged with eight articles of impeachment
==================
Whoa, let's not play too fast and loose with this. Chase was found not guilty on every one of the eight articles of impeachment b/c when push came to shove the members of the Senate realized that being a loud mouthed, irritating, opinionated S.O.B. was neither a high Crime nor a Misdemeanor.
Yes, they can. Will they? Hah!
Congress could, if it so chose, to replace the entire Supreme Court, or reduce the number of judges to three, consisting of Scalia, Thomas, and Rhenquist. It can restrict the jurisdiction of the court from certain subject matters.
In practice, we've allowed the US Supreme Court to be the highest and final authority in all things. But if you look at the Constitution, Congress has the power to take the Supreme Court down to a toothless tiger if it wants.
I'm for impeachment.
Do you have a source for that?
SCALIA joined by THOMAS and CJ RENQUIST
Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.
and the 1/2: O'CONNOR (who ignores the Foreign aspect and focuses on the rights of State Legislatures to do what they want)Without a clearer showing that a genuine national consensus forbids the execution of such offenders, this Court should not substitute its own “inevitably subjective judgment” on how best to resolve this difficult moral question for the judgments of the Nation’s democratically elected legislatures. - (spoken like a true ex-State Senator-which she was)
ANTONIN SCALIA FOR CHIEF JUSTICE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.