[SAJ]

I suppose so, but don't really know the procedure for removing a sitting federal judge. Does a U.S. Attorney have to file a charge, or the Regress pass a resolution? Don't think it works the same way for judges as for a president.

Where's Congressman Billybob when ya need him, eh?

[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?)

* * *

Is There A Backbone In The House?

* * *

Has the Supreme Court Shown the Hand of Authoritarian Free Enterprise?

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

[Congressman Billybob]

A sitting federal judge (or Justice of the Supreme Court) can only b removed by one route, impeachment. There have been, IIRC, 11 impeachments of judges in our history. Most were for the commission of a crime; one was for drunkenness.

Look at the present, or even possible after the 2006 election, membership of the Senate. Is there a snowball's chance in Hell that the Senate will vote by a 2/3rds margin to remove any Justice merely for savaging the Constitution and violating their oath of office?

If you conclude that the Senate will not vote to convict and remove any Justice on that basis, then you agree with Thomas Jefferson who wrote that "the remedy of impeachment is a scare-crow." That the House might vote by a majority to impeach (or indict) means nothing if the Senate will not convict and remove.

Therefore, the only real remedy is to wait for the outlaw Justices to die, or resign for health and age problems, and see to it that they are replaced by Justices who have read the Constitution, understand it, and will obey it. There is no other remedy, absent armed rebellion per the Declaration of Independence.

John / Billybob