Rehnquist: "We're Immune from Impeachment..." (paraphrased)

Herald-Tribune ^ | 01/01/2005 | Linda Greenhouse, NYT

[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."

[Brilliant]

This Court is involved in the greatest abuse of governmental power in the history of our country. That's gotta be grounds for impeachment.

[G.Mason]

" ... why is he squaring off with the congress is my question?"

He sees Death riding towards his door and is thinking about legacy?

[grellis]

Good morning, gents! Is that coffee I smell or...?

[Publius6961]

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."

With all due deference to the octogenarian megalomaniac, perhaps not.
But indifference to his oath of office certainly qualifies!

The Constitution of the United States is not, I certainly pray, subject to foreign interpretation, and any suggestion that it is, or should be, for me constitutes as much of a high crime and misdemeanor as one could imagine: what could be worse?

As for the "treaties" issue. Unratified treaties are clearly meaningless. Ratified treaties are also meaningless if its ultimate terms can be determined by a foreign power or a collection of foreign powers.

Any argument to the contrary, in my opinion, is subject to the ultimate argument: removal from office by means of force of arms, if necessary.

[Darksheare]

Coffee Zombie:

Cooooooofffffeeeeee... *shuffle shuffle* Cofffeeeeeeeee!
/ bad joke.

Possibly.

[JMK]

"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."

Correction, Mr. Chief Justice -- a judge's judicial acts have served as the basis for impeachment. The House impeached Samuel Chase, but the Senate didn't convict. There's a precedent!

A violation of one's oath could constitute judicial misconduct if the House had the guts to force the issue.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen!

[cotton1706]

I agree completely. But a Supreme Court justice hasne't been tried since 1803 and then it was political. It would be seen the same way today. I'd like to see the impeachment charge be for exceeding their authority by using foreign law and opinions in their decisions. I would not consider their actions "good behaviour". However, many members of the House would not consider that a high crime. Not to mention the Senate. I think the answer is an amendment calling for term limits on justices or at least re-confirmation. So that they somewhat answerable to the people.

[reagandemo]

But they would need to investigate International Law before making their decision. (sarcasm off)

[fortheDeclaration]

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.)

Exactly right.

Jefferson above all feared a judical tyranny.

The concept of judical review (the Courts deciding soley what is constitutional and what is not) is extremely dangerous.

[HarleyLady27]

Dennis J. Hastert

235 Cannon HOB
Washington,DC
20515-1314

Phone: (202) 225-2976

He's the Speaker of the House, wouldn't hurt to drop him a line, get his opinion...who knows???

[ALPAPilot]

Dear Justice Renquist:

The standard is "Good Behaviour." A much lower standard than "Treason, Bribery, or other high Cimes and Misdemeanors."

[drt1]

"It is a bit unnerving that the SCOTUS believes they are accountable to no one."

It IS unnerving but NOT surprising. The SCOTUS is populated by a number of arrogant, elitist individuals who are completely divorced from the reality of the consequences of many of their decisions. SCOTUS was never intended by the Framers to be completely independent and unanswerable for their actions. Laxness on the part of the Legislative Branch has brought us to this point.

[King Prout]

someone sent us up the bomb?
move zig for great justice!

AM - price check on aisles 1 and 12, please.

[Semper Paratus]

It's been my opinion for a long time that 5 justices could do anything they want with the government and the ruling on capital punishment proves that. Impeachment today is politicaly impossible.

We are not in a good situation today.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Impeachment of judges for political reasons was not what the Founders intended. That was reserved for "high crimes and misdemeanors" such as lying in court. Judicial independence is a cornstone of American jurisprudence and we must accept a degree of unpopular decisions by the Court as a price of that independence. The last thing you want is a Court which polls the people before making a decision. For that you should just replace the Court with Gallup and forget what the Constitution put in place.

[G.Mason]

Excellent point, which leads to the question ...

At what point in our dealings with this "experiment", called the United States, do we the people decide that each and every candidate for appointed office, in any American government institution, be given a psychiatric examination to discerne that individuals sanity?

As with Dean the voters decided he was insane, and therefore disqualified him.

There is no such check on appointed judges.

[thombo]

"Ultimate power resides in the hands of the People."I agree,but obviously Judge Rehnquist isn't aware of that fact.Maybe he knows something we don't know.

[verity]

"...because the Congress did not have the guts to..."

IMHO, Congress still does not have the guts.

[justshutupandtakeit]

This headline is a LIE and does not reflect the meaning of his statement.