Posted on 06/28/2005 11:31:22 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
"I suppose so, but don't really know the procedure for removing a sitting federal judge."
===============================
In this case it is the majority of the United States Supreme Court - the oligarchy - we are concerned with.
Impeaching the majority of the U.S.S.C. would cause the legal branch of our government to come to a screeching halt.
This crisis does however prove one thing though - the oligarchy is in definite and unquestionable control of both of the other bodies of United States government.
(Do we detect an imbalance here somewhere?)
oligarchy
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
sovereignty
Variant(s): also sovranty /-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
(Is it still worth the paper it's printed on?)
Is that an accurate paraphrase?
"Somebody's gonna file suit, whatever the legislation says."
============================
Somebody aleady has - see #5
(Pandora's CLOSET just got opened - the U.S.S.C. saw to that . .)
Then he can rename the street to "Liberty Lane"
I'm wondering if even Congress can decipher the gibberish coming out of this epileptic U.S.S.C.
There was talk on the other thread of a "Just Desserts Cafe".
Some of the Founding Fathers in 1787 thought it likely an oligarcy would arise, and there is no reason to believe we are not well on the way.
"Complaints against federal judges filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002, Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364, which replaced the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C § 372(c) effective November 2, 2002."
=======================================
Who wrote that - the U.S.S.C.?
BBbbbwwaaahHHHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Yes, there is vast confusion. A local talkshow today was kind of humorously discussing whether their wilderness homesteads had been taken yet for Disneyland North.
However none of this has stopped the government from taking your private property and redistributing it to other private citizens in the form of welfare and other socialist schemes. I'm equally outraged by these violations of our 4th and 5th Amendment protections--have been for many years.
It's broken.
http://www.usconstitution/net/const.html
The "liberal" justices are responsible for this decision that allows developers to take the homes of people who work for a living, but the kool-aid drinkers will continue their drum-beat that conservatives are grinding their heels into the faces of the working class, blah blah blah.
Also, you'll hear a lot about how the states should pass legislation protecting homeowners. . . won't work. All a grifting developer has to do is appeal, invoke Kelo (stare decisis) and the 14th amendment. (Then write some more checks.)
Next time a "liberal" pulls that "We're the party of the People!" bull on you, two word response: eminent domain.
practice makes perfect
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Wasn't this the basis for one of Thomas' complaints, namely, that the security of your possessions WITHIN your house is protected, but the house itself is not anymore?
-PJ
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.