[Revolting cat!]

“Dude, Welcome to Wal-Mart. Far out, man!”

[Paine in the Neck]

'Judges who rely on flawed precedent or their own "judgment" instead of the Constitution to justify their rulings can say "yes" to anything. This is precisely how liberal judges have rubber-stamped tyrannical actions by the government in the past and how they will do it in the future.'

This ought to be sufficient reason to impeach and remove them for mal- or mis-feasance in office.

[EagleUSA]

Her answers indicated her judicial philosophy is not grounded in the Constitution, and she would grant too much deference to precedent.

:::::::::::

This we have known and he confirms. Now, the serious question is what will the Republicans to do stop the literal destruction of the Constitution as the core of our law allowing liberal tyrants to literally rule our country? Anyone can state facts, but only actions will stop these anti-Constitution tyrants.

[RummyChick]

These words mean nothing to me unless he tries to do something to stop it.

[GraceG]

“In the case of The United States vs. The British Government (1787) is sets the precendent that all citizens have the right to free speech...”

The consitution translated for liberal precedent minded fools.

Don’t the Liberals ever understand that sometimes there can be set a bad precedent?

[jazusamo]

DeMint Ping!

[Repeal The 17th]

Some info I came across that I might as well post here...
-
Although the mechanism for doing so exists,
NO supreme court justice has EVER been removed from office.

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” “The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” encompasses.

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

In 1957, at the height of McCarthyism, the Georgia General Assembly passed a joint resolution calling for “The Impeachment of Certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices” believed to be enabling Communism with their decisions. The resolution targeted Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom Campbell Clark, Felix Frankfurter, and Stanley Forman Reed (as well as several unnamed deceased Justices) for usurping the congressional power to make law in violation of Article I, Sections I and 8, and violated Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment and nullified the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Abe Fortas, who served on the Supreme Court from 1965-1969, was almost impeached due to a tax and financial scandal involving Wall Street financier, Louis Wolfson. Fortas was a Lyndon Johnson appointment. When the new President, Richard Nixon, learned of the scandal, he reportedly said Fortas should be “off of there,” referring to the Supreme Court. The House of Representatives had already taken preliminary steps toward impeachment. Chief Justice Earl Warren urged Justice Fortas to resign, to save the reputation of the Court. Fortas resisted at first, but eventually told other members of the Court he was stepping down to avoid damaging his wife’s legal career. Later, he admitted another reason for leaving the Court was to save his friend, William O. Douglas, who was also under investigation for judicial impropriety. The House of Representatives finally concluded Douglas had committed no impeachable offenses and dropped the investigation.

[broken_arrow1]

Thanks for the post!

[skimbell]

"...if the legislative and executive branches overstep their boundaries, the judicial branch can stop then..."

Not with our new democrat party.

See tagline

[Myrddin]

That's why it's called a system of checks and balances. The lefties in Congress and the Pres_ent have both excoriated the SCOTUS for rulings which which they disagree. Both have opted to write more unconstitutional laws in hopes of dragging out the policies long enough to benefit in the next election...before the SCOTUS can slap them down again.

[phockthis]

sfl

[the invisib1e hand]

The Constitution is the precedent

As 7th grade social studies teacher Mr. Creedon used to repeatedly (and unprovoked) thunder to his class, "It's the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND."

[highlander_UW]

The only recourse Americans have is to slowly remove and replace members of Congress and the president through the election process.

Actually, the Constitution allows for a second method as well, although it must remain the avenue of last resort.