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 ...
Let me see if I get this right, you place great significance on the legally vague concepts "cruel" and "unusual" but feel free to ignore the plain meaning of the term "good behavior" and replace it with "issuing rulings I don't like." OoooK. Carry on.
I think they are guidance. What the court do sometimes is telegraph what must be done to achieve a desired result. Thus Renquist is telegraphing how any impeachment proceeding must be shaped in order to sustain an impeachemnt.
This is why the clintonistas said it is only about sex, and the charges were it was about lying under oath. Mr. Scotish law fumbled that one, but clinton was still booted out of the legal bars for the same reasons.
lordy, you sure love to dance.
first you say I believe cruel and unusual are too specific, then you say the meanings I derive from the Founders is too vague.
Then you mischaracterize my beef with the SCOTUS as a belief that "rulings I do not like" constitutes a breach of "good behaviour", while utterly failing to address the multiple iterations of explanations of how the SCOTUS is usurping power and exercising authority in a clearly unconstitutional and extraconstitutional manner.
you MUST be a lawyer.
I'd love to see a non-lawyer nominated for several reasons:
Explain to me what your statement ...
"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?"
Post #121
... means.
Are you naive enough to believe there are those on the Supreme Court who are not making decisions on Europian laws and morays?
"Consideration does not mean"?
Exaggerations? Derivations?
I don't think so.
I am completely aware of your willingness to excuse the obvious.
Agreed.
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.
` 127 P_A_I
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.
Silly "Mob" hype.. Judges are subject to impeachment if they dishonor their oath of office.
Taney was not impeachable for his terrible finding, nor was Warren nor any other judge.
That's up to Congress, not you.
You have fundamentally flawed views of the Constitution which go through all your comments on it.
You've been make that attack without basis for quite awhile now. My comments speak for themselves, unless coherently challenged. All you do is opine.
It this case you are willing to throw out the clear meaning of the impeachment clause.
Total fabrication. I say enforce it as written.
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.
More fabrication. My arguments here speak for themselves unless coherently challenged. All you do is offer irrational personal opinions.
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.
As I said just above, 'The Senate refused to convict on the evidence presented at the time, in the case at hand'. -- What's your point?
"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."
It seems most of our posters have gone off half-cocked. BTW -- have we any lawyers here -- and what do you think Rehnquist was saying?
I agree with this. The states should simply disregard the ruling about the death penalty for teens and keep their laws intact, telling the Supreme Court that they do not recognize the legitimacy of the decision.
This is also an out for Jeb Bush in Florida regarding the Terri case if he wishes to use it.
"a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment."
It means that should Rehnquist actually believe the above statement to be true, he needs to be removed simply because he is delusional.
It is a rather uncomplicated statement, and there is absolutely no reason to consider it otherwise.
"A judges judicial acts" ... ie: Actions taken by a judge in the performance of his duties. (to hell with gender, to you obsessive p/c addicts)
"may not serve as a basis for impeachment" ... Now forget the may meaning may, or may not. That's bogus.
It means a justice can not be impeached for anything he does in the performance of his duties. Period ... end of story.
The man is delusional!
bttt
The old chief justice is merely replying to comments about irritation over the decision by citing history.
When early attempts were made to impeach a SC judge for the "political" unpopularity of a decision the judge made that was clearly political, the attempts failed as he was acting within the confines of his duties.
In that age, thought crimes, promoted by rationalists today, didn't exist. You were judged on your actions.
What the Chief Justice doesn't say is what he would think the likelyhood of an impeachment effort failing if the issue was not the popularity of the decision, but instead, the violation of the oath of office to defend the Constitution.
As US law and the Constitution wasn't the basis of the action as stated in the Majority opinion, an arguement can be made that members joining the opinion acted outside their oath and duty, certainly a high crime to me.
I think his statement is correct in an historical context alone. I also think that he doesn't understand the opinion the conservatives have of the action in general.
LET'S TRY IT ANYWAY. :)
Hhhmmmm...reserving judgement on this...would like to hear the context.
Perhaps some definitions would help you understand. "Consider" means "examine or to study to take into account or to think carefully" "base" means "foundation, the fundamental ingredient, premise, basis, ground" Has it escaped you that these definitions are NOT the same?
And NO I do not believe any on the Court is basing decisions on European law or Nigerian either. There is no need for them to do so. In the Death Penalty issue there are states within the USA which do not allow underage killers to be put to death. Why would a Justice need to support their agreement on any law from across the pond?
To claim these decisions are based upon other countries laws is a wild exaggeration.
All you have are opinions: that the SC is wrong; that the Constitution really doesn't mean "good behaviour" when that is the only standard given for impeachment of judges; that the Founders did not mean to ensure an independent judiciary and that the Court should only make popular rulings or face the wrath of the mob. Nothing could be further from their intentions which are clearly explained in the Federalist which says nothing pertaining to "dishonoring their oath of office" (according to some vague standard or the other.)
Rehnquist's statement did not consider only the Chase impeachment but also that of another Federal judge who was both insane and an alcoholic. If there was ever a case for impeachment for that was it but it never happened.
My you are a condesending sort, aren't you?
You may mince words and protest until you are blue in the face.
The fact remains there are Supreme Court Justices that are making decisions based on Europian thought, and they have stated as much, publicly.
The fact remains that there are Supreme Court Justices that realize this fact, and have stated such, publicly.
I, for one, are tired of you, and your excuse making and shall not entertain you any longer, on this issue.
Now mince this!
Amen! That is what they did use foreign law and not the Constitution. They have violated their oath of office.
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.
` 127 P_A_I
All you have are opinions:
My words are backed up by the Constitution, as cited, which you ignore.
that the SC is wrong; that the Constitution really doesn't mean "good behaviour" when that is the only standard given for impeachment of judges; that the Founders did not mean to ensure an independent judiciary and that the Court should only make popular rulings or face the wrath of the mob.
You're imagining those things as being my opinions. I've never taken those positions.
Nothing could be further from their intentions which are clearly explained in the Federalist which says nothing pertaining to "dishonoring their oath of office" (according to some vague standard or the other.)
Article VI requires all officials in the USA to support the US Constitution. It is not vague.. Obviously, if an official dishonors this oath, he could be impeached on that as a 'bad behavior'.
Rehnquist's statement did not consider only the Chase impeachment but also that of another Federal judge who was both insane and an alcoholic. If there was ever a case for impeachment for that was it but it never happened.
Thats a pointless comment. It does not change the fact that the Senate refused to convict on the evidence presented at the time, in the case at hand.
The Senators 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.
-- Rehnquist is wrong on this issue, as proved by the Constitution itself.
And Presidents are free to nullify SCOTUS decisions if they deem them invalid...let's not forget that. If, as I expect they will, Sandra Dee and the Party of Five render the Ten commandments illegal, it will be in direct violation of the 10th Amendment. Bush is free to announce that it is an unconstitutional ruling and that the Executive branch will not enforce it. The SCOTUS is not the final word. We have 3, CO-EQUAL branches of government. The American people (and Bush) need to remember that.
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.