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 ...
Thanks for the ping. I can visualize a new definition for the term "hangin' judge".
At this point, there has to be an end to these yokels....
...65, 70....but get out!
Maybe I was wrong. I thought that the ballot box was supposed to decide these type of things. Yes, I know, states rights (10th Amendment) are not considered anymore by scotus (lower case on purpose). Living constitution or some such rot.
I hope and pray that the cartridge box doesn't ever figure into the picture.
5.56mm
Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.
We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.
I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny. The nebulous references to "growing national consensus" and citations of "international law" are just too much to countenance. What does it take to make 5 of these justices cognizant of the fact that their authority to preside originates in the US CONSTITUTION?
When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?
To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.
Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful. Congress can and should impeach federal judges for blatently unconstitutional rulings that manufacture law.
Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.
It seems the entire brunt of the force of all America's enemies are bearing down upon this land all at once.
Great line. Wish I could figure out a way to work it into a SCOTUS brief without getting disbarred....
RE: your 175: It is the Court, not its critics, that supports its decisions to invalidate laws in many states of the US by reference to foreign law. It has done so repeatedly. If foreign law doesn't support and influence their decision, why do they cite it? They do it to support a decision that cannot otherwise be supported sufficiently within American law. We the people have no influence whatsoever over foreign law, and it is being cited by unelected lifetime appointees to invalidate laws enacted by our legislatures.
The Federalist papers quoted above make plain that the power to impeach judges is intended as check on their abuse of their power. Article 5 clearly makes judicial decisions subject to the limits of the constitution. They take an oath to uphold the constitution. While judicial review confers the authority to interpret the constitution, it is not a warrant to rewrite, ignore or destroy it. Judicial immunity does not repeal the constitutional limitations on their power or their duties under their oath of office. If the power of judicial impeachment is not meant as a check on runaway or rogue judicial acts, then what the heck is it for? To enforce the law on loitering? Your argument would reduce the power to impeach judges, which is in there for a reason, to mere surplusage, contrary to the rules of construction.
If it was a constitutional crisis for Nixon to defy a subpoena, why is it any less a constitutional crisis for a Court to give force to treaties which were not ratified in the manner prescribed by the Constitution? Do 5 judges really have the power under judicial review to give force to treaties rejected by the executive and the legislative branches under their grants of authority over foreign policy under Articles II and I? Of course they don't. But they did it anyway, because the traditional normative constraints on their power, such as the plain text of the constitution, have been crushed beneath their blind ambition, arrogance and pride.
Using their methodology, they could impose the Kyoto protocols upon us as a matter of judicial fiat even though the Senate rejected it 97-0. Don't laugh. It could happen.
My main point is this: there is a line. In a system of laws there has to be a line. I hope we can agree at least on this. You may disagree on whether they have crossed it, but I for one feel strongly they have.
Regards,
Trying to define words properly may be "condesending" to some who like to change their meanings for ideological purposes but I don't particularly care. The fact is you cannot make words mean what you WANT them to mean.
And you are wildly exaggerating, if not spreading outright falsehoods, in claiming any Court admission that it "based" its decision on "Europian" law or Ethiopian or European law for that matter.
If you can post ANY comment by ANY Justice stating ANY one's decision was "based" on such I will publically apologize.
Nope, no lawyer but I do try to pin down meanings and examine logic and history.
The fact remains that "good behavior" did not include only good judgment or even proper judgment or exclude halfassed judgment.
It meant specially not violating the standards of the Founders' day for conduct. This is a great example of how the words don't have the same meaning now that they did then and why we have to be very careful with them.
Then one could kill a man in a duel, as did Justice Livingston, and not be proscribed from the Court. Now, no way. Then one could own slaves now one cannot even hire an illegal nanny. Then being a fag would have meant no nomination now it would be trumpeted by the RATmedia. Transexuals would not be prevented from the bench now but then they would have been, rightly, in an insane asylum. Then an abortion advocate would have been run out of the state. Now our oldest political party refuses to support any who are not abortion advocates. Staggering.
The House could ignore the meaning of the term "good behavior" and impeach a Justice for political reasons. And the Senate could convict for political reasons. They have that power since there is no institution which could overrule them not even the Court. But they cannot honestly claim that this would be in direct contradiction with the idea of an independent judiciary as described within the Federalist.
While the Federalist is not law it is the first writing examined by Justices when looking for Original Intent among the Founders. Marshall consulted it regularly.
While you can pretend that "good behavior" means "unpopular in some circles decisions" that is not what the Founders had in mind.
I don't believe I disagree with any on this thread wrt the malignity of the decisions of the Court but I do not agree that it has BASED any of those decisions on Foreign law which is, as I mentioned earlier, completely inconsistent within itself and nothing real. Nor have I seen any decisions based upon treaties which have not been properly ratified. If you could point me towards some I would appreciate it.
As I understand the Seperation of Powers arguments used to justify ratification the Judicial branch was to be completely independent of both the executive and the legislative branches. It was intended to be ABOVE politics and thus above political criticism hence the life time appointment during "good behavior." And to be a check on prospective Executive and Legislative tyranny.
Now since it has become obvious that this is also a highly political branch but surreptitously so there is a good argument that it face political consequences for its decisions. But this is a very dangerous prospect and entry into it must be very carefully thought out. I don't see that here but rather a lot of exaggeration and distortion. ( I am not saying that of you.)
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.
-- Rehnquist is wrong on this issue, as proved by the Constitution itself.
The House could ignore the meaning of the term "good behavior" and impeach a Justice for political reasons. And the Senate could convict for political reasons.
Of course they could, but then they in turn would have to pay the political price. We have a system of checks & balances, remember?
They have that power since there is no institution which could overrule them not even the Court. But they cannot honestly claim that this would be in direct contradiction with the idea of an independent judiciary as described within the Federalist. While the Federalist is not law it is the first writing examined by Justices when looking for Original Intent among the Founders. Marshall consulted it regularly. While you can pretend that "good behavior" means "unpopular in some circles decisions" that is not what the Founders had in mind.
I'm pretending nothing. You're only imagining that I am..
Rehnquist is simply wrong in his effort to make it appear that impeachment can "not be used to remove a judge for conduct in the exercise of his judicial duties"... --- And he & his supporters will pay the political price.
That is clearly what you are calling for. You believe any decision the Court has made which you disagree with is unconstitutional and violation of their oath. But you don't have the tools requisite for such a judgment.
The real enemies of our freedom are home grown socialists and live predominantly in the Democratic Party. When you adopt the wrong course and invariablly do things backwards, events are destined to go against you until you get back on the correct path. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.
Not sure what "conclusion" you disagree with.
Term limits for the Court and for Congress are essential if we are to recover our lost freedom and restore our Constitutional republic. You seemed to imply that amending the Constitution to impose Term Limits would be a mistake, or did I misunderstand your comment?
"the meaning of the constitution has changed"
by these words, Kennedy et alia are self-convicted of breach of their oaths of office, an impeachable offense of BAD behaviour (as you brought up duelling: breaking an oath was sufficiently bad behaviour to act as grounds for duelling at the time of the Founders).
I don't have time to go into it in detail, so, notes:
1. the only way the meaning of the Constitution may change is if the wording thereof is altered
2. there are only three ways for the wording to be altered: addition, subtraction, complete revision
3. there are only two Constitutionally authorized mechanisms by which such changes can be made: amendment and convention
4. neither mechanism has been enacted on this issue
5. thus, it is an ineluctable fact that Kennedy et alia have usurped the power delegated to the legislatures and attempted/accomplished subversion/perversion of the constitution via judicial fiat
6. this is a violation of their oaths of office
7. this constitutes the worst possible form of breach of judicial "good behaviour"
8. consequently, the terms of these judges by all rights SHOULD come before the Senate for judgement and termination.
the consultation of/reliance on foreign trends for the basis of the ruling is mere icing, though it serves to damn them further.
deal with it, bucko.
I am done with you.
I'm pretending nothing.
Rehnquist is simply wrong in his effort to make it appear that impeachment can "not be used to remove a judge for conduct in the exercise of his judicial duties"... --- And he & his supporters will pay the political consequences, just as you admitted to Buckhead.
That is clearly what you are calling for.
You can't post your 'proof', can you? Clearly, your imagination is out of control.
You believe any decision the Court has made which you disagree with is unconstitutional and violation of their oath.
Again... Your imagination is out of control. You are reduced to denying the facts of what I've written on this thread.
But you don't have the tools requisite for such a judgment.
How childish. Get some new lines.
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.