Posted on 03/03/2005 5:34:47 AM PST by totherightofu
Only by changing the Constitution which is more difficult than obtaining an impeachment.
Our founding fathers wrote about lifetime appointments in the federalist papers.I quote from Alexander Hamilton in fedralist#78:
That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.
There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that the government can have no great option between fit character; and that a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity. In the present circumstances of this country, and in those in which it is likely to be for a long time to come, the disadvantages on this score would be greater than they may at first sight appear; but it must be confessed, that they are far inferior to those which present themselves under the other aspects of the subject.
And from federalist #79 on removing Judges:
The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for malconduct by the House of Representatives, and tried by the Senate; and, if convicted, may be dismissed from office, and disqualified for holding any other. This is the only provision on the point which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character, and is the only one which we find in our own Constitution in respect to our own judges.
The want of a provision for removing the judges on account of inability has been a subject of complaint. But all considerate men will be sensible that such a provision would either not be practiced upon or would be more liable to abuse than calculated to answer any good purpose. The mensuration of the faculties of the mind has, I believe, no place in the catalogue of known arts. An attempt to fix the boundary between the regions of ability and inability, would much oftener give scope to personal and party attachments and enmities than advance the interests of justice or the public good. The result, except in the case of insanity, must for the most part be arbitrary; and insanity, without any formal or express provision, may be safely pronounced to be a virtual disqualification.
The constitution of New York, to avoid investigations that must forever be vague and dangerous, has taken a particular age as the criterion of inability. No man can be a judge beyond sixty. I believe there are few at present who do not disapprove of this provision. There is no station, in relation to which it is less proper than to that of a judge. The deliberating and comparing faculties generally preserve their strength much beyond that period in men who survive it; and when, in addition to this circumstance, we consider how few there are who outlive the season of intellectual vigor, and how improbable it is that any considerable portion of the bench, whether more or less numerous, should be in such a situation at the same time, we shall be ready to conclude that limitations of this sort have little to recommend them. In a republic, where fortunes are not affluent, and pensions not expedient, the dismission of men from stations in which they have served their country long and usefully, on which they depend for subsistence, and from which it will be too late to resort to any other occupation for a livelihood, ought to have some better apology to humanity than is to be found in the imaginary danger of a superannuated bench.
"Neither the history of our founding nor the establishment of our government supports the current arrangement in which the judiciary rules supreme. Indeed, Marshall's ruling in Marbury was nothing short of a counter-revolution. For 200 years, the elected branches have largely acquiesced to the judiciary's tyranny."
Congress and the States have surrendered their power over domestic relations to the USSC gladly, and they don't want it back.
To what degree? At the cost of our nation?
" ... 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."
And I would remind you that the present Supreme Court has members which do exactly that.
ie: Making decisions based on what foreign nations belive is right.
Rogueness, I believe, is in the eye of the beholder...
Unless, of course, they all voted the way we wanted...
Freepers interested in restoring the Constitution and our personal freedoms will find the answers to their needs in these articles. These articles are not for Freepers interested in news or chat. But if you are interested in cutting government down to the size required under the Constitution, this is one way to get the job done, maybe the best, simplest and quickest way to get it done.
Marching on the Supreme Court makes a statement, but of wamt to not only be heard but also have a lasting impact, this might be a simpler and better way:
For the convenience of those willing to help:
Email to Rush: Click here
I believe completely ignoring the basic denotative meaning of the plain language of the Constitution falls outside of the acceptable "degree" of judicial activism.
I believe this latest ruling falls under the above description.
Congress can, and should, snap these usurpers' garters.
They won't, but they can and should.
Tofu has started a new thread rather than respond in this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355004/posts
A very interesting read...I'd post the text here, but it is a scanned document that won't allow cut and paste of text. On pages 2 (last para) and 3, he cites Article III of the first section of the Constitution to illustrate that SCOTUS Judges are NOT appointed for life.
I'm not so sure. The more bullets you dodge, the more bulletproof you imagine yourself.
Another failed impeachment might give them strength.
Have you seen any evidence, any evidence at all, that that is the case?
Typical. The judges are now trying to tell Congress what they can or cannot be impeached for.
In agree. His meaning CLEARLY is that disagreement with a SCOTUS legal opinion is not a basis for impeachment. Just as a Senator would not be subject to impeachment for voting for or against a particular bill.
All the serious powerful threads of our representative republican democracy have been shredded by the globalist power mongers decades ago. That became painfully and shockingly obvious in the last election.
The Senate doesn't bat an eyelash without the shadow government's sanction. The Supreme Court is wholesale riddled with them. I even wonder if a single Supreme Court justice is out of their control/philosophical clique.
The State Dept has LONG been under their firm control. The military is riddled with them as Billdo and Shrillery's reign demonstrated.
. . . As the song goes . . . GOD ALONE . . . is our refuge and hope. Our government sold us down the river a long time ago.
We must work as though we still have hope of changing the system. But it won't change significantly until Christ returns to set up His Kingdom of Peace. Thankfully, many alive will live to see it.
It's the blood-shed between now and then that's more than a little sobering to contemplate.
I'd guesstimate that we'd have to toss out 80% of the Senate and 50-70% of the House to get back to truly patriotic government.
Then we'd have to clean house on the bureaucracy as well as the media and the Federal courts.
God alone can remove that much evil. The sheeple are clueless as well as thereby powerless.
And the church is about as clueless and far too prayerless.
BTT!!!!
Excellent point.
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.