Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rehnquist: "We're Immune from Impeachment..." (paraphrased)
Herald-Tribune ^ | 01/01/2005 | Linda Greenhouse, NYT

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chiefjustice; foreignlaw; immunity; impeachment; rehnquist; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-307 next last
To: Jeff Head

Only by changing the Constitution which is more difficult than obtaining an impeachment.


41 posted on 03/03/2005 6:17:41 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu

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.


42 posted on 03/03/2005 6:18:56 AM PST by alchemist54 ((for those who fight for it freedom has a taste the protected will never know))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
From Mark Levin's MEN IN BLACK, Chapter 2:

"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."

43 posted on 03/03/2005 6:21:27 AM PST by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock; Jeff Head
I would love to see a real life case over this balance of power argument. And hopefully the congress would have some backbone

Congress and the States have surrendered their power over domestic relations to the USSC gladly, and they don't want it back.

44 posted on 03/03/2005 6:22:32 AM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"... 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."

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.

45 posted on 03/03/2005 6:22:33 AM PST by G.Mason ("If you are broken It is because you are brittle" ... K.Hepburn, The Lion In Winter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu
In a republic, no government official should EVER be this sure of his seat. Even the most cruel tyrannt in history always had to worry that someone else would come along and unseat him, or that the people would rise up. This forced them to temper their actions in most cases. Without such a threat, leaders are prone to do whatever they darn well please--and the various courts have shown themselves to have just that mind set over the past 40-odd years.

This sort of governmental hubris DEMANDS a response. We need to start impeaching judges post haste.
46 posted on 03/03/2005 6:23:32 AM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu

Rogueness, I believe, is in the eye of the beholder...


47 posted on 03/03/2005 6:23:37 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus

Unless, of course, they all voted the way we wanted...


48 posted on 03/03/2005 6:25:51 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu; CondorFlight; Jeff Head
There is a doable solution for the problems being discussed on this thread. It is outlined in the series of articles archived here. The key is found in The Great Debate. The means to exercise the political power necessary are found in these three articles: Creating Political Power, Creating the Voting Block, and Leading the Voting Block. This is the way to manage Congress and the Court.

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

49 posted on 03/03/2005 6:29:26 AM PST by Reaganghost (Reagan could see the Renaissance coming, but it will be up to you to make it happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

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.


50 posted on 03/03/2005 6:29:56 AM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Tofu has started a new thread rather than respond in this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1355004/posts


51 posted on 03/03/2005 6:31:01 AM PST by Darksheare (Tagline error. Expected file 'zot.class' not present. Contact site Admin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
Gerald Ford's Remarks on the Impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, April 15, 1970

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.

52 posted on 03/03/2005 6:31:37 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
I would still like to see the process go through the motions of debate. It would be a very nice rebuke from the house.

I'm not so sure. The more bullets you dodge, the more bulletproof you imagine yourself.
Another failed impeachment might give them strength.

53 posted on 03/03/2005 6:31:45 AM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock
And hopefully the congress would have some backbone.

Have you seen any evidence, any evidence at all, that that is the case?

54 posted on 03/03/2005 6:33:01 AM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

Typical. The judges are now trying to tell Congress what they can or cannot be impeached for.


55 posted on 03/03/2005 6:33:05 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (God is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

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.


56 posted on 03/03/2005 6:34:28 AM PST by Bushforlife (I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: John Robertson; Jack Bull; scouse; M Kehoe; Always Right; syriacus; Fzob; el_texicano; Moomah; ...
Ping!

57 posted on 03/03/2005 6:35:15 AM PST by Reaganghost (Reagan could see the Renaissance coming, but it will be up to you to make it happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

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.


58 posted on 03/03/2005 6:42:12 AM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reaganghost

BTT!!!!


59 posted on 03/03/2005 6:42:41 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Excellent point.


60 posted on 03/03/2005 6:42:44 AM PST by Quix (HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-307 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson