Impeachment of judges for political reasons was not what the Founders intended. That was reserved for "high crimes and misdemeanors" such as lying in court. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
When you fail to uphold your oath of office, and cite foreign ruling when you should be citing the contitution you need to be impeached.