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 ...
Legal education during the time of the Founders consisted of examining and understanding law from all of Europe. Montesque, Grotius, Roman law, etc. This is not new. "Consideration" does not mean the decision was BASED on other laws merely that it was examined for relevence, compatibility etc. Besides what commonality is there in the laws of Italy and Nigeria?
"Consideration" of foreign law is hardly "relying" on it.
Maybe not, but they can be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail :o)
look, pal, when they use the "consideration" of foreign trends to justify the creation of meanings for the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments - which meanings are not even hinted at in the denotation of the words of the texts of those Amendments - in order to contravene duly enacted legislation of the several States and create NEW LAW (a power delegated to the federal and state legislations, not permitted to the Judiciary) in full contempt of the articles of the separation of power in the Constitution AND in direct conflict with the original meaning of the Constitution as written by the Founders, the word "reliance" is inescapable. So is "usurpation".
where the Hell is your head, anyway?
Rehnquist's arrogance only makes me more determined to do something about this!!!
I'd rather have nine varieties of Justice Rehnquist's arrogance on the bench than what we have now.
It's usually that way.
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."
Not true. -- If a judges judicial acts show a disregard for his oath to support the Constitution, his impeachment is a duty upon other officials so sworn.
"Any other rule," he added, "would destroy judicial independence," since "judges would be concerned about inflaming any group that might be able to muster the votes in Congress to impeach and convict them."
Rehnquist is 'begging the question'. Judges should indeed be concerned that their judgment on Constitutional issues be questioned, as judges are not "independent" in such matters. They are bound by the Law of the Land, as are all officials in the USA.
In 1992, the chief justice published a book, "Grand Inquests," in which he recounted the politically driven effort to remove Justice Samuel Chase from the bench two centuries ago.
Though Chase was impeached by the House, the Senate's decision not to convict and remove him "represented a judgment that impeaching should not be used to remove a judge for conduct in the exercise of his judicial duties," Chief Justice Rehnquist said Friday.
A bold, and incorrect assumption. The Senate refused to convict on the evidence presented at the time, in the case at hand.
They made no binding political judgment on the power or reasons to impeach. Such a limitation could only be made by an Amendment to the Constitution. `
well stated.
Alexander Hamilton sure knew what was coming. Oh to have leaders with such wisdom today.
like the cop who says, "I am the law." Unfit for service. Adios.
So I'm not perfect first thing in the morning before I've had my coffee. Sue me!
It DID reflect his incredible arrogance and it DID prompt you to read it, didn't it?
If you don't like my headline then create your own thread.
A headline is just that, a concise attention-getter.
Rehnquist's entire quotation was included in my comment FOR ALL TO SEE UPON OPENINT THE THREAD, so you guys have nothing to complain about. Unless you're blind.
My head is in that land where the actual meanings of words is important. And there the difference between "reliance" and "consideration" is considerable. I consider what you say but don't rely on it.
Apparently you believe that the words "cruel" and "unusual" are precise legal terms or that nothing can be learned from other legal systems. While I don't agree with the ruling I see nothing particularly subversive about considering what those in other nations think of it's issues.
Oh really?
The Federalist No. 81It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments.
Let's see, should I take the word of someone that actually was there and helped write the Constitution or Rehnquist's???
Thanks, Flip.
Yes, the Jackson case has been cited several times. Getting the courts and governors of 19 states to ignore the SC's decision and execute anyway? Not gonna happen!
Rehnquist is of course correct. Judges have life terms during good behaviour and those terms are not contingent on having the Mob agree with their decisions. Taney was not impeachable for his terrible finding, nor was Warren nor any other judge.
You have fundamentally flawed views of the Constitution which go through all your comments on it. It this case you are willing to throw out the clear meaning of the impeachment clause. Direct democracy in judicial matters is as dangerous, if not more so, than it is in legislative ones. Fortunately the Founders understood this and guarded against it by establishing an independent judiciary which you, unfortunately, are laboring to destroy.
Chase's impeachment was much closer to what the document required in that his behaviour in his courtroom was highly unprofessional and abusive. Even though it was directed at Jeffersonians it was not appropriate.
I wonder what a liberal court might find, "Mr." Rehnquist?
No it reflects no arrogance Rehnquist merely accurately states the intent of the Founders wrt judicial independence.
You completely distorted what he meant.
I knew that he would never have said anything as stupid as your headline claims. You are free to try and distort such matters for whatever reasons but it indicates dishonesty and lack of respect for this forum to do so.
*snrk* Where are we going to find a lawyer? < /obscure lawyer joke reference>
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.