FR Appeal for Help: Can the 9th Circuit Judges be Impeached or Removed in any way?

BlueBay | 6-24-02 | VANNROX

[vannrox]

Please excuse this "vanity" post. I am wondering if it is legally possible to impeach or punish or censor the 9th Circuit Judges who ruled on this massively unpopular decision. Can Congress or the Senate do anything? What about the Judicial Branch? What about the Supreme Court? What about the White House?


I'm searching for ideas here. Te end result will be an action plan presented to key Conservative Venues.

[bluecollarman]

Good Auction for protest...HERE

[TaxPayer2000]

the descision was made by a three judge panel of the court.

[meyer]

ONe could certainly collect a large group and run around their homes changing the pledge of allegiance at all hours of the night.

[meyer]

I suspect that you do NOT speak for the American atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, heathens, pagans and the rest.

Well, I think the Jews tend to trust in God as well. Muslims, as far as I can tell, are motivated to kill non-muslims so their opinion on religous matters isn't valid. Don't know much about the rest.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

We have all heard the theory about how some levels of the judiciary "need to be isolated from the whims of public pressure, so they'll make the right- rather than the popular- decisions."

The problem with isolation is judges can become isolated from reality and their own fellow citizens. Rulings can then eventually undermine faith in the entire judicial system.

In this Pledge of Allegiance case, the beliefs of the vast majority of the citizens are being mocked by two of a panel of three judges. The result is massive and justified contempt of court.

[Eagle Eye]

I've not read the decision, but it seems that the only way the pledge could be 'unconstitutional' is if it were mandated by Congress, and even then it is still an odd ruling. The court cannot prevent anyone from reciting it, neither can Congress.

So the bed-wetting atheist in california won't have to make his daughter recite it. So what? Other than make fools of themselves, what is the practical implication of this decision?

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

There are plenty of nations founded without reference to or reliance upon God. This isn't one of them. Those of us who honor God do not appreciate a small minority mocking Him by denying our true American history or denying the trust in God relied upon by our founders.

[rwfromkansas]

When judges stop interpreting the Constitution, but making up their own law, there has to be a way to control the damn bastards.

[backhoe]

You'll get no argument from me. I do think there needs to be a more elegant way to remove judges who are abusive, too activist, corrupt, or otherwise unfit than impeachment.

I'll give you a personal example.
An old and dear friend & neighbor of mine was a Federal Judge here in Brunswick for many years... and in his younger days was a fine lawyer and a very considerate, thoughtful judge. But in his last years he was senile ( we didn't even know about Alzheimer's disease back then ) and the tales I heard of his abuses of lawyers, clients, and others were hair-raising. He really did not belong on the bench those last 5 or so years he lived, but no-one could figure out how to get him off the bench short of impeachment-- which no-one had the heart to suggest.

There just needs to be a better way.

[keithtoo]

The phrase "under God" DOES NOT cater to an individual religion and is fully compatible with any belief system, except atheism. Why, on the other hand, should the 95+% of us who believe in God cater to the thick-headed among us who don't? Or more accurately, why should we cater to the childishness of those who don't like the God they do believe in, but wont admit it because they are dissatisfied with the world He put them in?

Atheists think they think, but I dont think they do.

[oldtimer]

Exactly: Looing about impeachment, no way.

rats and some rinos own the Senate and expecting a proceeding like taking the new-age ultraleftists is like expecting the hildabeast to become a born again Christian.

ELECT CONSERVATIVE MC's and SENATORS. GO HOUSE TO HOUSE TO GET RID OF THE rats and rinos.

[Dog Gone]

The phrase "under God" DOES NOT cater to an individual religion and is fully compatible with any belief system, except atheism.

No, it's not compatible with polytheism, either. There are a bunch of people who believe in many gods, especially in California.

This decision is not terribly surprising from a purely legal analysis. But it's wrong, simply because the Pledge doesn't establish a religion in violation of the First Amendment. The courts have been moving to a definition which has changed from "no establishment of religion" to "no mention of religion."

This decision was predictable, but wrong. It's going to be overturned, and this is actually going to turn out to be a very good thing in the long run.

[Xenalyte]

Oh, my Lord, you are SOOO wrong, it's hard to know where to start.

Regarding the person who commented that we shouldn't have the phrase "Under God", our great country was founded "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence".

And where in the Constitution is THAT?

It's in the Declaration of Independence. Gophack didn't say it was in the Constitution.

Take Him off our money?

Clearly... YES.

Any reason for this conclusion, or is it your answer just because it's your opinion? Explain why you say "clearly" when there's clearly a question about the clarity of the issue.

We are "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" and we should stay that way.

No, we are not, nor have we ever been. But at times in out history certain politicians have thought that it would make them look really good to ramrod Christian verbage into areas where it does not belong.

Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? You are aware of our country's Christian heritage, are you not? (Further, I suspect you of having an anti-Christian bug up your nose.)

In God we Trust ...

Speak for yourself. I suspect that you do NOT speak for the American atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, heathens, pagans and the rest.

Jeez, Lex, cut Gophack a break. He may be using the Royal We. Or he may be speaking for everyone he knows, who may well feel that way. Or - get this - he may have read some bios of the Founding Fathers, and done some thinking about their personal and political philosophies.

Quite a concept. You oughta give it a shot sometime.

[twntaipan]

Illbay--you have outdone yourself! I hope you are not a prophet.

[twntaipan]

Libraries are jam-packed with the writings of the Founding Fathers. It is abundantly clear that they would NOT have been big fans of the modern drive to insert the Christians God into everythign government does

Would they have been in favor of the rabid desire by fundamentalist atheists to remove all references to religion or religious expression from public discourse? NO

[twntaipan]

For that matter, atheistic states were responsible for more deaths in the 20th century than any other state. How could that be? I thought atheism was a "non-religion of peace."