tar and feather
- 1. To punish (a person) by covering with tar and feathers.
- 2. To criticize severely and devastatingly; excoriate.
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 ...
Hamilton was second only to Washington in importance to the early Nation. His genius was staggering and he is one of the greatest men of history. Far too many believe the caricatures of his beliefs which have persisted to this day and which totally distort his life, a life devoted to the establishment of a free and powerful nation.
Nice try, but no sale.
We are are all aware of the roots of the Founding Fathers.
Your continual excuse that decisions today (note the key word?) "does not mean the decision was based on other laws merely that it was examined for relevence" is growing old.
Justice Antonin Scalia criticized this use of foreign precedents. He even went so far as to read his dissent from the bench.
I think Justice Scalia stated it best when he said ...
"The court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is . . . meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court . . . should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans."
You, of course, like myself, have the right to believe whatever you like.
Should you wish to ask the Europians (you know, those unwashed from Europa) permission on how to live your life, you go right ahead.
I do not live my life by others codes. I am vehemently (as were our Founding Fathers) against European interference in our affairs. And I am a strict nationalist.
Globalistst be damned!
your head is clearly submerged in a bucket of activist "living document" Kool Aid.
The Founders' intent and the meaning of words when they wrote the Constitution trumps modern opinion polls and modern foreign trends.
"Cruel" to them meant infliction of excessive pain in the execution of a sentence, "unusual" meant sentencing disproportionate to the crime.
According to the Founders, a 17 year old was mature enough to be called up for military service as part of the militia.
According to the standards of their day, a 14 year old could be sentenced to death.
According to the standards of their day, flogging was not cruel.
Yes, today's standards have changed.
Yes, the Constitution can be changed to reflect modernity.
There are EXACTLY TWO ways to do so: Amendment, and a Constitutional Convention.
Judicial activism is NOT constitutionally authorized - it is NOT part of the enumerated powers delegated to the Judiciary.
CASE CLOSED on your third-way living-document horsepuckey.
As to reliance:
1. As there is no denotative hint of support for this ruling in the text of the Constitution
2. and as there is evidently insufficient support among the federal and state legislatures for the ethos this ruling purports to define for there to be any practical hope for either an amendment to the constitution OR a convention to be called on this topic
3. CLEARLY the only points of law to which this ruling can turn for support are foreign trends.
that is a textbook example of reliance upon foreign law in contravention of the supremacy of the Constitution.
This is against the law, a breach of their oath of office, bad behavior, and an impeachable offence.
FIRE THE BASTARDS.
well stated!
I wound think he should clarify as "A judge's legitimate judicial acts".... a judge can not make any arbitrary ruling with no basis in the law the judge is required to function under and claim it is a legitimate judicial acts and therefor there immune from impeachment based on that illegitimate judicial acts
The SCOUS serves under the authority of the US Constitution...any ruling outside that authority is beyond that authority,is illegitimate, and is grounds for impeachment
Actually he is correct,,,technically.
Thus it is incumbant upon the impeachment process to show the act was EXTRAjudicial.
For example, is a judge, who by act of fiat, acting extrajudicial by imposing an international treaty?
Has the judge exceeded his authority and oath? If a judge comits an act of treason by giving aid and comfort to the enemy then that act is extrajudicial. We are not talking about "rights" we are talking about a judge who is opposed to the war on terror supplanting his/her personal opinion in place of the law.
For example, the reliance on UNRATIFIED treaties is EXTRAjudicial.
Thank you, and thank you for reading it.
Florida has mandatory retirement for judges. (70)
It obviously does no good.
Retired judges are also brought back to deal with long term complex special cases. (ie one case that will occupy all any other judges case load)
Also, no Justices of the Supreme Court have ever been impeached.
"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!"
Perhaps, but why not? What Jackson did was MUCH worse. In addition, you pick your battles. For example, a ruling holding that terrorist have the constitutional right to counsel can be ignored. It has to START somewhere and sometime or else we truly are no longer a republic.
The best and easiest way to restrict the power of the federal courts is to limit their jurisdiction. That approach is far easier than attempting to impeach and convict rogue judges.
It is I who owe you the compliment.
Excellent!
It appears when one reads posts from the last, upwards to the first, one is always late in replying
I love your exaggerations and derivations of meaning which are not mine.
Someone forgot to tell president Lincoln that. Well, maybe he did get the word since he just put them in jail and threw any the key.
Rehnquist's statement is totally consistent with the Constitution and the Founders' views of judicial independence. If you don't like it you either must change the constituion or do violence to the document. But to do either will be far more destructive of the Law than these decisions.
tar and feather
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.