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."

[cotton1706]

You're right. They serve on "good behaviour". They can be removed (not likely) or pressure can be brought to bear to force resignation, a la Abe Fortas.

[kittymyrib]

However, a Senator can be voted out of office at the next election. We have no way of getting rid of these power-mad justices except death, and it seems that takes forever. I can't imagine our founders would have approved of 5 unelected judges running our country.

[Danae]

I think it is time that Judges and the courts got real clear where the power lies. WITH US the people. With rogue courts running amok and Judges legislating from the bench, it is clearly time for the people rise up and DEMAND justice. Namely your TITLES oh high and mighty Justices. Don't think we can do it? Got one word for ya. UKRAINE.

[El Gato]

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.

The difference being that there is no other way to remove a SC Justice, while a Senator can be removed at the next election, perhaps even in her own party's primary. Impeachment is the "nuclear option" with regards to rogue judges and justices. There is no other check on their power, once they are appointed. The Constitution provides that they serve "during good behavior", so it would seem that "bad behavior", whether in court or outside of it, can form the basis for impeachment.

[rudypoot]

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

I wonder which foreign law he had to look to make this statement.

[FlipWilson]

Whatever. . .honestly, whatever the Court says and wants to do is fine. The answer is not in impeachment. The answer is in legitimacy. Without Congress and the Executive Branch, and mostly the Executive Branch, what power do the Courts have. Andrew Jackson said, "fine, then let the Supreme Cour enforce its ruling" when they ruled against him regarding the relocation of the Cherokee Nation. Jackson went ahead with his plans anyway.

More of that needs to happen now. The Executive and Congress need to say, "sorry Court X, we don't recognize the legitimacy of that decision. If you can enforce it yourself, fine and dandy, but we aren't doing it for you." Fairly soon the Judiciary's power will decline and it will get the message, LOUD AND CLEAR!!! Congress also needs to exercise its ability to regulate the makeup of the courts, i.e. how many judicial districts, appelate courts, how many Supreme Court justices, etc. etc.

[sine_nomine]

As we all know, Congress has impeached sitting judges. There is no reason why Supremes should not be impeached. The GOP needs to get serious about its attitude toward appeasing the Democrats. The long-term effects of installing bad judges like Kennedy are appalling.

A few Supremes and the Ninth Circuit have done more damage to America than the 9/11 attacks.

[justshutupandtakeit]

A Court subject to mob rule is far more of a threat than unpopular decisions. We have survived bad decisions in the past and will continue to do so.

No one on this Court consults polls before making their decisions. Tea leaves maybe.

[fooman]

THat sounds wonderful, but does it mean anything? This amendment will go about as far as gay marriage.


Congress needs to pass a resolution limiting appellate jurisdiction to us law. That is doable.

Then try impeachment. At what point are we willing to stop the court? The court could:

1--Require income redistribution and mandated health care as a 'right' (already does this with screwls)
2--Ban marriage as state endorsement of religion
3--Proclaim that driving over 55 miles per hour places an undue risk on other citizens
4--Require reparations
5--Allow the government to seize land not used (africa)
6--Require female circumcision (africa)



At point would you have had enough?

I cna go on

[justshutupandtakeit]

Constitutional grounds for impeachment do not include poor decisions or unpopular decisions but not continuing "good behavior" rather than my prior statement of "high crimes and misdemeanors" This wording was chosen for specific reasons.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Actually Senators are NOT subject to impeachment. Each House has the ability to try and expell a member.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Amendment is the only sure remedy. I believe the "Exceptions Clause" empowers the Congress but that is arguable. Five four rulings are always subject to future Court overrides as well. Poor rulings are nothing new and the nation has survived them all. I have every confidence it will continue to do so.

[Congressman Billybob]

The few impeachments of federal judges in our history have been either for drunkenness, or for commission of crimes such as tax evasion or taking bribes. No federal judge has ever been impeached purely for his/her political views as expressed in opinions.

Also, no Justices of the Supreme Court have ever been impeached. In both cases, the basic reason is not that none of them ever deserved such treatment. It is that the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict. It is sorry, sorry judge/Justice who cannot cobble together 34 supporters in the US Senate.

You do the math. Justices are not "immune." The possibility remains in effect. But it won't happen in the real world. Other cures for the run-away court will have to be pursued.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "By Dawn's Early Light"

[cotton1706]

I've already had enough. The power to change this rests with Congress. And once these things get to the Senate, they die. And Specter in charge of Judiciary doesn't help. He'll work to water anything down.

[null and void]

Rehnquist: "We're Immune from Impeachment, we're bullet proof, and we can fly_yyyyyyyy

[G.Mason]

" ... We have survived bad decisions in the past and will continue to do so ... "

I do not share your optimism.

" ... No one on this Court consults polls before making their decisions ... "

You cannot possibly know this to be fact. Perhaps not polls, but what other factors?

And though technically you may be correct, when the courts decide an issue because of influences outside our society, I take issue, as do, apparently, many Americans.

[traviskicks]

"judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment."
---

FDR didn't hesitate to try to unconstitutionally pack the court - a bit like Chavez is doing now down in Venzuela, I might add.

[null and void]

Mr. Rehnquist sounds a bit too 'supreme'.

Or delusional. Senile dementia?

[Happy2BMe]

* * *

"These judges who legislate instead of adjudicate, do it without being responsible to one single solitary voter for their actions. Among the signers of the Declaration of Independence was a brilliant young physician from Pennsylvania named Benjamin Rush.

* * *

The next step in denying God's sovereignty over the United States will go to these nine people . .

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2004 - The Oligarchy*

(All Your Sovereignty Are Belong To Us!)

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬_______________________________________________________________

[justshutupandtakeit]

Given the fact that there are major institutions within the society which aid and abet these decisions mustering an effective opposition is particularly daunting.

First we have the RATS in Congress able to cripple reform through the extra-Constitutional means of the filabuster.

The we have the lyin' RATmedia which obscures even the most egregious atrocities and heaps morality under a mountain of scorn and ridicule. Both work closely with an educational establishment that is devoted to perversity and anti-Americanism as exemplified by Churchill.

The Courts are not even close to being our biggest problem.