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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 301-307 next last
To: totherightofu
Federal justices are appointed for life. This means they can serve as a justice until they decide to retire. However, the Congress has the power to remove a justice from his or her job. This is called impeachment. First, the House of Representatives must impeach the justice, and then the Senate must convict him or her.

Marbury v. Madison (1803): This case established judicial review. William Marbury was a politician, and James Madison was the Secretary of State under President Thomas Jefferson. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled an act of Congress was unconstitutional. The court called this power "judicial review." It was the first time the Supreme Court had made such a determination. Marbury v. Madison became one of the most important cases in history because it gave the Supreme Court power to interpret the laws, and determine whether they were constitutional. It is interesting the Supreme Court gave itself this power!

61 posted on 03/03/2005 6:43:32 AM PST by daybreakcoming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Isn't Chertoff part of the . . . uhhh . . . globalist cabal?


62 posted on 03/03/2005 6:43:39 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]

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.

I agree with this in principle, but in this particular case, what is to be done with a court that refuses to be bound by the Constitution? If a court reaches beyond the bounds of their authority, which is the contention here, is there no recourse for the citizens?

63 posted on 03/03/2005 6:46:04 AM PST by TChris (Most people's capability for inference is severely overestimated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

Your point is well taken, but it is a matter of degree. We are well past merely momentarily unpopular decisions. What we have instead is a court which is essentially lawless, and which recognizes no restraint on its own power. They truly believe, and manifest in their actions, that they can do anything they want. Like the Red Queen, words have no meaning but those that they assign. In particular, they are entirely unconstrained by the text or history of the constitution, by any previous interpretative norms, by their oath of office, by their own precedents, by logic, facts, or anything other than the requirement to get 5 votes. They are like a bunch of teenagers in an incoherent fog of bong hits issuing pronunciamentos on such vaporous nonsense as how to realize the inherent human potential for dignity and personhood, as understood by evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society which emanate from inscrutable penumbras. The court-approved methods for doing so are cornholing, abortion, virtual child pornograpy, and nekkid dancing. Court-forbidden methods include prayer in school and many methods of criticizing candidates for federal office. It is a fact that virtual child pornography enjoys greater first amendment protection under this court's decisions than does core political speech about a candidate's qualifications for office.

But there are and must be limits on the power of the court in the text of the constitution, in the plain meaning of words, in the truth of facts and logic. The branches of government were intended to contend for power, and it is high time that the other two branches respond to the outrageous, lawless and unconstitutional conduct of this court.


64 posted on 03/03/2005 6:47:55 AM PST by Buckhead (Yes, I am mocking their delusional paranoid fantasies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu

Clearly we have a rogue court on our hands.
=======
This is SADLY VERY TRUE -- a court making decisions so that we "FIT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY" is a court operating WAY OUTSIDE OF ITS CHARTER, certainly not in the interest of the U.S. or ITS LAWS. The job of this court is TO INTERPRET U.S. LAW, NOT TO WRITE LAW, BASED ON INTERNATIONALISM.

The citizens of this country HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH HERE....


65 posted on 03/03/2005 6:48:33 AM PST by EagleUSA (na)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Thomas Jefferson wanted a 19 year term limit. (19 years being considered a generation).


66 posted on 03/03/2005 6:49:15 AM PST by stoney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reaganghost

you know who's good on this issue, even tho' he's not a lawyer and says so, is ernie brown on "america at night" on radios.

p.s. i'm not a lawyer, either! but i am tired of the democrats trying their end-runs around the people of this country by means of their judges.


67 posted on 03/03/2005 6:50:00 AM PST by ken21 ( warning: a blood bath when rehnquist, et al retire. >hang w dubya.< dems want 2 divide us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu

The supremes should be glad they are not taken care of in an "international" manner like those two judges in Iraq were the other day.

I do not want to be governed or judged by "internationl" standards.


68 posted on 03/03/2005 6:52:22 AM PST by CPOSharky (Demoncrat speak - "Bipartisan" is only used when Republicans are the majority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

you reckon tofu is kosher?


69 posted on 03/03/2005 6:52:25 AM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Maybe.
Dunno.
Something doesn't feel right here but I dunno what it is.


70 posted on 03/03/2005 6:54:06 AM PST by Darksheare (Tagline error. Expected file 'zot.class' not present. Contact site Admin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare

Eyes on, hold fire for IFF then.


71 posted on 03/03/2005 6:55:50 AM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Thier funding also comes from the Congress! Slash their budget!


72 posted on 03/03/2005 6:59:18 AM PST by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Holding pattern, waiting for LANTIRN sweep and go/ no go.


73 posted on 03/03/2005 7:01:41 AM PST by Darksheare (Tagline error. Expected file 'zot.class' not present. Contact site Admin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu

I apologize for the insensitive nature of what I am about to write.

I'd like an arm band, or a ribbon in the spirit of Lance Armstrong or Breast Cancer research.

Let's color them orange and purple and make a pledge.

I will do everything I can to support Cancer research.
I will make significant donations to help find a cure.
But I will wait until CJ Renquist's thyroid cancer impeaches him from the court.


74 posted on 03/03/2005 7:02:19 AM PST by rwilson99 (R) South Park)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu

Has any of the pool of possible presidential contenders weighed in on the USSC's lawlessness? Do we have any leadership in Congress? Do we have any state leaders who are up in arms about state laws being overturned willy-nilly on the basis of laws of more civilized nations? The silence from US political leaders is deafening. DEAFENING!


75 posted on 03/03/2005 7:03:03 AM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

You are correct, however, keep in mind that lawyers rule both houses of Congress, and they will protect their bar brothers. Period.


76 posted on 03/03/2005 7:03:25 AM PST by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has never led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu

The solution to this is to get rid of Spector as Judiciary Chairman.


77 posted on 03/03/2005 7:04:02 AM PST by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

True. But that's why they think they're immune now, Because they have failed in the past. Doesn't mean the House can't take they're shining aura down a peg or two. I want the House to keep limiting their jurisdiction. That passed last congress but the Senate never took it up. It's time now.


78 posted on 03/03/2005 7:04:09 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead; holdonnow; Congressman Billybob

We need you legal eagles to explain this alledged "impossibility to impeach" Supreme Court judges.


79 posted on 03/03/2005 7:04:28 AM PST by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: totherightofu
"a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment."




Rehnquist: We are Olympus ye heathen rabble.

80 posted on 03/03/2005 7:06:21 AM PST by TomGuy (America: Best friend or worst enemy. Choose wisely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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