Posted on 03/03/2005 5:34:47 AM PST by totherightofu
Chief Justice Rehnquist said in his report on Friday that it had been clear since early in the country's history that "a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment."
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldtribune.com ...
Clearly we have a rogue court on our hands. Rehnquist's comments are interesting.
The Congress is the sole judge of impeachment; and a judgment of impeachment CANNNOT be reversed by any court.
End of discussion.
The people decide who gets into Congress, and if they think a Congress has acted inappropriately, they can remove that Congress at the next election.
Conclusion: ultimate power in this country is supposed to reside in the hands of the people, and nobody (not even nine guys in black robes) dictates to them with impunity.
But the term of their service can be changed.
I would love to see a real life case over this balance of power argument.
And hopefully the congress would have some backbone.
Mr. Rehnquist sounds a bit too 'supreme'.
Yes it can...and should be. What gives five unelected (elderly, sickly) people the right to completely dismiss the Legislative and Executive branches and decades upon decades of the legislative process? And what gives foreign law precedence over state law? It is a bit unnerving that the SCOTUS believes they are accountable to no one. (What Congress giveth, Congress may taketh away.)
What would it take to limit their terms? Would it be an ammendment to the Const (which I gather is very difficult to do)? I would be ever so interested in them having a limited term. I don't believe in an Oligarcy.
sundero
Well aren't we the snob nosed one...you know people, those who THINK they are high and mighty are the one's that fall off their perch FIRST and I foresee a fall coming very shortly...how about you?
If they wanted to, Congress tomorrow could limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hearing parking ticket appeals from Bergen County, New Jersey. In my opinion, it's worth a try.
As a practical matter, he is correct. Impeachments of Supreme Court justices have failed in the past. Lower court judges have been impeached and removed successfully. However, I would still like to see the process go through the motions of debate. It would be a very nice rebuke from the house.
I'm with you there, Harley Lady! heh heh
Hey, All, I didn't say I was BUYING this junk, I merely supplied the quote and the source.
Rehnquist's arrogance only makes me more determined to do something about this!!!
Immune from impeachment in Rehnquist's case just means that he'll die before he get's sacked. If it came to that...why is he squaring off with the congress is my question?
If they failed it was because the Congress did not have the guts to find the justice guilty. The Congress has the power to impeach any federal appointed official. There is no appeal if the House finds and the Senate finds guilty. There is no part of the federal government that is above the Constitution, unless the Court has decided that it is the supreme power in the land and has no oversight or that no one or no organization can question its dictatorial decisions. I believe in the Constitution unlike the Supreme Court who believes in the EU.
The soon to be ex SCOTUS wouldn't want to bet his black robe on that one.
That is why I want the House to slap em silly, and then start on the Senate....go Danny go!!!!!
We're ain't gonna be impeaching any justices over their rulings if we can't even manage to remove a President who screws around and then lies to the nation about it.
Worst. Paraphrase. Ever.
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.