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?

[agincourt1415]

I take it the Liberal Judges are going to hang on till 2008, and not retire.

[yankeedame]

But he was impeached while he WAS a supreme, so the question of whether or not a precedent was ever set regarding the impeachment of a sitting Supreme Court Judge is still yes.

Correction: He was not impeached. He was tried "merely" for impeachment. A big difference -- like the difference between a lightening bug and a lightening bolt.

[AnOldCowhand]

I'm all for looking at foreign customs to decide US law. In fact let's start with the Muslim world (there are, after all, 1 billion of them), then let's look at Hindu traditions (especially those regarding the treatment of women) and the customs of various aboriginal tribes around the world should also be considered.< /sarcasm>

Of all the stupid a$$ ideas.....What, exactly, in Hell are you thinking?

[Spiff]

I don't think there is anyone who could legitimately argue that deliberately violating the oath of office constitutes "good Behaviour". Even if an impeachment attempt were to fail, a very powerful message would be sent. Congress has both the duty and the obligation to protect the constitution, and impeachment is a legitimate means to that end.

Hell, I'm all for it! I'm just being realistic about it.

[Dog Gone]

Maybe a process outside our Constitution can be used to remove Supreme Court justices.

Unless you're advocating assassination, I don't know what you're suggesting.

[sure_fine]

They should be stood against a wall, and ...

nah, too good for them, they should just have to hit the streets for a job like everyone else, with a record of employment like they have..raped a whole nation,,put THAT in their resumes

[YOUGOTIT]

Yes. The impeachment of a judge can be done because the Constitution says they serve during good behavior. If the Senate believes their behavior is not good they can be removed. Since they have decided they support foreign law more that the Constitution they should be removed by the Senate. It is my humble opinion that they are not on their good behavior.

[AnOldCowhand]

Unfortunately, that is probably the only way.

[HarleyLady27]

If we are that serious about impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, then I say lets bomb our Reps with emails in our States and put alot of pressure on them....Emails should be sent to Rush and Sean Hannity, to see if they would help us get the project started, and then hopefully, the bias media will pick up on it and have a blurp on it, just enough to get the rest of the people knowing what is going on, and just maybe, cross your fingers, maybe this would work....we can only give it a try....

[yankeedame]

The question then is, is "...citing international law and custom and not our Constitution" either a high Crime or Misdemeanor?

It is if you have sworn to protect and defend our constitution, and then seek other sources to undermine the same constitution, and then declaring that constitution to be unconstitutional.

============

Where in the Constitution, or even civil/state law, does it say that?

In the late middle ages England had the statue mandating the supremacy of the British Law and made it a felony/treason to appeal the case in question to Rome. (The name of the actual law escapes me right now' obviously it was related to religious matters, but in the Middle Ages sooner or later just about everything eventually touched on religion.)

We don't have and never have had that kind of law here in the USA.

[BigEdLB]

There are only 4 acceptable sources for case decision:

In Order -

1) Constitution

2) Past cases which DO NOT refer to foreign sources

3) Federalist Papers

4) Declaration of Independence

Nothing else should get within smelling distance of any decision by the SCOTUS. It's time to tighten up.

[TheHound]

I have been coming to a different kind of resolution. As the red States keep growing in number, conservatives Legislatures could reach the magic number of three-quarters, then they could envoke:

Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

And tell the SCOTUS how they must interpret the Constitution, and maybe fix a few other things - it has never been done ... but.

[SeaBiscuit]

"..justice(s) citing international law and custom and not our Constitution.."

This Nation became a, and then, 'the' World leader by following our own noses AND The Constitution by leaders who stuck to those principles, and NOT international law or customs. Is America a follower or a Leader.. I say we are the leaders of the free world and maybe if the international community sees fit, let them follow our lead. That's their choice. But not the other way around.

We need to stick to uncompromisable principles (Bedrock of our Foundation) that don't waiver under pressure, sentiment, can be bought, or looks to see which way the wind is blowing. The Constitution is 'that' set of principles (Laws). Any Judge that cites 'other' laws, outside the Constitution for making decisions is impeachable, IMO.

[yankeedame]

Maybe a process outside our Constitution can be used to remove Supreme Court justices.

Then, my friend, you are entering some very dark waters indeed. If "a process outside our Constitution" can be used to go after SC justices, what's to stop it from coming after anyone else?

"Is error of opinion to be dreaded where enquiry is free?" -- Nathaniel Macon, 1802

[Dog Gone]

A constitutional convention would scare the living daylights out of me. For one thing, we'd end up with a document the length of the EU constitution, and instead of a Bill of Rights, we'd end up with a Bill of Wrongs.

[Thud]

The majority ruling in Rasul v. Bush last year indicated that the Supreme Court was going off the rails. This was confirmed when a Supreme Court criminal sentencing ruling later in the year (Blakely) caused all the judges on a federal circuit court of appeal to sign a letter asking them to clarify it because the circuit court judges couldn't understand it. That had never happened in the 200+ years since we had a Supreme Court. We are looking at a judicial competence issue.

It is not merely a question of politics or them being wrong. The Supremes have lost it. It was clear then that it was time to get those bozos out of there.

A friend who chaired the Marin County, California ACLU chapter for six years tole me this death penalty ruling sucks, so there is little disagreement on judicial competence here, and competence is not a partisan issue. The circuit court judges' group letter was legally devastating. The Supremes have lost the respect of the legal profession and their fellow judges.

This recent death decision is IMO more a matter of "Those that the gods would destroy, they first make mad."

Then California Assembly Speaker told then California Supreme Court chief justice Rose Bird, a year before she was removed from office for trying to abolish the death penalty by judicial fiat, "Rose baby, some people really should meet their maker sooner rather than later." She didn't take the hint. Two other California supreme court justices went down with her.

The only real question is how much more damage these bozos do before they leave, or are removed from, office.

[Non-Sequitur]

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?

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

[StonyBurk]

Do believe the Constitution says something about they "Hold their office during good behavior. . . " One could -and I suspect rightly should insist "good Behavior " is interpreted as conducting their official acts as a reflection of their solmn Oath and according to the clear
language and intent of the US Constitution and laws pursuant to it(Foreign precedents and ideas NOT included)

[Thud]

Doesn't have to be only red states. We have something in California called an initative. We can pass one limiting the legislature to one term in office and eliminating all their pay & benefits. To expire when they pass a resolution for a constitutional convention.

Trust me, even our brainless wonders could figure that one out.

[StonyBurk]

And until there is 2/3 of the mere politicans who are NOT
Liberal Democrats -or RINO Republicrats the chances of
Impeachment are as sene inth ehistory of our system slim
to not a chance given a snowball in the firey pit.