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

To: totherightofu; All
Reading the comments here are hysterical. Please -- everyone or anyone tell me what each of you believe this quote to mean.

"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."

It seems most of our posters have gone off half-cocked. BTW -- have we any lawyers here -- and what do you think Rehnquist was saying?

168 posted on 03/03/2005 11:44:12 AM PST by Iron Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Iron Eagle
" ... everyone or anyone tell me what each of you believe this quote to mean."

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

It means that should Rehnquist actually believe the above statement to be true, he needs to be removed simply because he is delusional.

It is a rather uncomplicated statement, and there is absolutely no reason to consider it otherwise.

"A judges judicial acts" ... ie: Actions taken by a judge in the performance of his duties. (to hell with gender, to you obsessive p/c addicts)

"may not serve as a basis for impeachment" ... Now forget the may meaning may, or may not. That's bogus.

It means a justice can not be impeached for anything he does in the performance of his duties. Period ... end of story.

The man is delusional!

170 posted on 03/03/2005 12:00:41 PM 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 168 | View Replies ]

To: Iron Eagle
I'm not an attorney, but I did stay in a motel last night.

The old chief justice is merely replying to comments about irritation over the decision by citing history.

When early attempts were made to impeach a SC judge for the "political" unpopularity of a decision the judge made that was clearly political, the attempts failed as he was acting within the confines of his duties.

In that age, thought crimes, promoted by rationalists today, didn't exist. You were judged on your actions.

What the Chief Justice doesn't say is what he would think the likelyhood of an impeachment effort failing if the issue was not the popularity of the decision, but instead, the violation of the oath of office to defend the Constitution.

As US law and the Constitution wasn't the basis of the action as stated in the Majority opinion, an arguement can be made that members joining the opinion acted outside their oath and duty, certainly a high crime to me.

I think his statement is correct in an historical context alone. I also think that he doesn't understand the opinion the conservatives have of the action in general.

172 posted on 03/03/2005 12:09:41 PM PST by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]

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