Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nero Germanicus
And that used to be feasible, but not so much anymore. Judges have to be particularly egregious for impeachment to even be mentioned.

Doing their job by lying about what the law is, has long ago ceased to be an acceptable reason to toss them out.

This does not mean we should simply blindly accept what they say. When they are wrong, we should denounce and ridicule their rulings, and point out what is the correct interpretation of the law.

75 posted on 08/23/2019 2:47:46 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no oither sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

That’s why 2 out of 3 appellate court judges can overturn a ruling that is wrong on the law or 5 out of 9 judges if an appeal gets to the Supreme Court.
But there never has been a time and there won’t ever be a time when the approach to constitutional interpretation is controlled by only one judicial ideology on all court decisions.
We just have to deal with the fact that Bill Clinton appointed 378 Article III federal judges and Barack Obama appointed another 329 federal judges. Those justices and judges usually will reflect the philosophy of the president who appointed them.


76 posted on 08/24/2019 11:12:21 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson