Posted on 04/14/2005 2:21:33 PM PDT by swilhelm73
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGES [Shannen Coffin] I believe the editors of NRO are far too dismissive of the importance of impeachment as a check on a runaway judiciary, where they conclude that in today's editorial that "impeachment makes no sense as a remedy for the defects of the modern judiciary." Certainly, the authors of the Constitution did not think it madness. Alexander Hamilton may have lacked the jaded foresight necessary to foresee the degree to which the modern judiciary would encroach on legislative judgments, when he wrote in Federalist No. 81 that those encroachments would "never be so extensive as to amount ot an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the order of the political system." But his extended reasoning for reaching that conclusion reinforces the validity of impeachment as an option for a runaway judiciary:
[T]he inference [that the danger of judicial encroachment was limited] is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments.
That impeachment might be a "complete security" for an out-of-control judicary suggests that legislators who refer to it as a constitutional check are not completely off-base. Naturally, the circumstances for using such a constitutional mechanism would have to be dire. But by dismissing this as a real constitutional option, my friends at NRO are exacerbating the very threat that Hamilton thought non-existent.
CONSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS [Ramesh Ponnuru] Shannen: I don’t think that the idea that judges can licitly be impeached for exceeding their constitutional authority is “madness” (and have alluded to that same Hamilton passage to make the same point). You rightly suggest that whether impeachment should be used depends on circumstances. I agree with the NRO editorial that today’s circumstances make a campaign to impeach usurpative judges distinctly unwise. There are, for one thing, too many of them. Impeaching them all is impracticable—notwithstanding the fantasies of a few hotheads who, I gather, have been talking about impeaching a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court. Singling out a few targets would look (and could to some extent be) vindictive. And there are no easy targets. The net effect of politicians’ speaking loosely about impeaching judges will be to make them (and all partisans of conservative views on the judiciary) look nuts, and nobody will be impeached. As the editorial suggested, Hamilton’s remedy makes sense when applied to a few bad apples. But that’s not the situation today, and it’s counterproductive to create the impression that it is.
Incidentally, I have always wondered about Hamilton’s alleged lack of foresight in Federalist 81. Isn’t his deeper point that judicial usurpation cannot occur without the acquiescence of the other branches? I think that’s a plausible reading of his comments—that since the courts cannot command either sword or purse, their power depends ultimately on the esteem in which they are held.
Impeach any judge, anytime, I'm for it. They all need to go, we need to get a fresh crop in there, one that understands the limits of their positions.
Want to teach? Impeach.
Once you demonstrate you do not understand our constitution or federalism.
"...once AGAIN..."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0414/p01s02-uspo.html
Conservatives near lock on US courts
"Senators will consider new judicial nominees Thursday. GOP-appointed judges already control 10 of 13 appeals courts."
That means that more appointees are not going to solve the problem UNLESS they fear being fired. Why the problem? Colleges, leftist professors. That is the deep root of the problem. Not only influencing judges, colleges also influence the elected officials. Our problem can only be solved through brute, harsh, political muscle.
FReegards....
I think we should impeach at least one Federal judge every year.
It could take two election cycles to even get one judge impeached. We will have to be in this for the long haul, and very selective, going after the worst of the worst. Sad FReegards....
"I think we should impeach at least one Federal judge every year." Or at least hold an impeachment hearing once a year, just to get the idea out there, to get people feeling more empowered, etc. Good thought. That would take an amendment.
FReegards....
Once again you demonstrate to me that you have no facts or information at your command, but you just like typing nasty things to other people.
There are just too many Federal judges anyway to suggest that at least one doesn't deserve an impeachment. But I don't believe that all judges should have lifetime appointments anyway. This isn't so bad if you are subject to scrutiny. The non-Supreme judges are usually too far under the radar not to have a fixed time appointment. I also believe that impeachment is a political remedy and should be.
I believe the threshold of impeachment is crossed when a judge advances to the level of arrogant bastard. Also when one of these nitwit Supreme Court Justices says he wants to call on foreign courts for guidance rather than the US Constitution (i.e. he or she feels it his or her job to amend the Constitution) I would say the threshold of "arrogant bastard" has been crossed.
Unfortunately, that esteem fell shortly after the judges began to function within the federal system. Samuel Chase's outright political actions weren't successfully stopped by equally partisan counter action of impeachment.
By the time another 60 years had passed, the Taney Court forever killed that supposed esteem or any claim to such and the plain political nature has been the only continuity of the branch.
Claims of scholarship, trust and independence are ridiculous, it has been and will be a political animal. Change then, to be seen as legitimate, must be through the political process and not through impeachment. Almost half of our populace sees these actions we see as "high crimes" and violations of oath as glorious democracy-in-action. With that the case a case will seldom be proved to convict upon an impeachment action.
You could care less about facts but here are some anyway.
The probability of the House impeaching ANY judge for opinions is very low, the probability of the House impeaching ALL the judges for opinions is ZERO. The probability of the Senate convicting is either case is also ZERO.
It is also not "nasty" to say that you do not understand the Constitution but just ANOTHER fact.
"But I don't believe that all judges should have lifetime appointments anyway."
Another good point. Family people want to retire. People who have no strong family ties, I think they are more prone to cling to power, which exactly opposite of what is healthy in a judge. So the 'test of wills', seeing who holds out the longest without retiring, is perverse. FReegards....
Rare is the judge who respects the Constitution. FReegards....
Well if they don't at least talk about it, they aren't likely to actually do it, are they?
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I'm way beyond caring if I "look nuts", if "looking nuts" will get something done about such a major problem of our society.
I agree. I think it madness to let R. Bader Ginsburg get away with her comment.
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.