Congress is responsible for writing the rules of the lower courts. If they write a law that lets them subpoena, arrest, and impeach a judge for simply ruling to our dislikes, it’s their prerogative.
“issuing congressional subpoenas to federal judges to coerce them into explaining themselves before lawmakers”
I think this is kind of silly. Judges already explain themselves. It’s called an “opinion” written by the court. They may be wrong but they do clearly explain their reasoning (or lack of it) as to why they are wrong.
There are many misperceptions about the constitution, one of the greatest being the idea that members of the judiciary are given lifetime appointments and can be removed only upon impeachment and conviction for high crimes or misdemeanors. The plain language of Article III, Section 1 specifies that their term of office is limited to a period of “Good Behavior”, not “Lifetime”. This period of “Good Behavior” is a much lower threshold for impeachment than the “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” established for members of the Executive Branch who have a fixed term of office. As the branch of government holding exclusive power over impeachment, Congress can determine what level of bad behavior is impeachable or indeed what constitutes bad behavior in a judge. How they go about reaching this determination is also up to their collective judgment. Members of the House of Representatives face the voters every two years and the public has the opportunity to determine if they have engaged in bad behavior themselves. The further requirement that two thirds of the Senate members present concur for conviction is ample protection from political motivation.
What I find interesting is that Newt’s stance on this is extremely unpopular with the elitists but is very popular with the people.
And is constitutional.
Well let's just talk about this for a second. Now, to issue a subpoena simply because you don't “like” or “agree” with his ruling is not an idea I like for sure. I haven't had time to read the whole white paper either, but I will.
One the other hand, if a judge steps into the legislature's territory and legislates from the bench, in violation of the very constitution he is supposed to be upholding, then are you saying there is no recourse for Congress to stop this infringement?
Now clearly, Congress is within their constitutional rights to eliminate court districts(do you agree), but that doesn't sound so great either.(Media portrayal of eliminating judicial districts just because you don't like their rulings doesn't sound any better than subpoena).
And if the district is to be eliminated, shouldn't the Congress do a little fact finding and perhaps subpoena or at least extend an invitation to testify and thus have a discussion with those who will be impacted? Should that include the Judges involved?
I am certain that the framers of the constitution did not intend us to live under an oligarchy, nor did they intend Congress to be helpless and to just accept intrusion into their duties by the Judiciary or the President. Yet all too often that is exactly what has happened, and Congress has simply bitched about it or in some cases aided and abetted.
Meanwhile, I have watched for the last 50 years as Judges have stripped away our rights and ordained rules that could have never passed Congress. I also think that the majority of the country is getting tired of living like some 30% of the country wants, which the Judges have been part of implementing.
It is time for Congress to take on the Judiciary, but they are so impotent they can't even pass a stikin’ budget (what's it been-3 years now?). Any how, what exactly should Congress do to stop legislation from the bench? That's what I want to know.