Questions About Judicial Impeachment

If you have any questions about the impeachment of a federal judge, post it on this forum. By the way, so far, the best petition I've ever seen is this one. It doesn't just say I'm mad (which I am), it shows the legal reasons for the impeachement of the judges in a way that a non-lawyer like myself can understand.

******************************************************************************************************************

Impeachment on the 9th Circuit? June 26th, 2002 | Sabertooth

Posted on 6/26/02 7:53 PM Pacific by Sabertooth

Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. I submit that that Judge Alfred T. Goodwin and Judge Stephen Reinhardt have not exhibited "good behaviour" in their decision to declare that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Further, I contend that they have exceeded the scope of their Judicial powers, in that they have attempted to shape the Constitution to fit their own predilections, rather than seeking to understand what the Constitution meant with regards to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as the Founders intended, and base their decision accordingly.

In so attempting to modify the U.S. Constitution, Judge Goodwin and Judge Reinhardt have violated Article V, which states:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. "

In so violating the Amendment Process of the US Constitution, and exceeding the vested Judicial Powers of the US Constitution, I contend that Judges Goodwin and Reinhardt of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," and are therefore subject to Impeachment by the US House of Representatives, and removal by the US Senate.

Therefore, I hereby call upon the House and the Senate to perform their duly appointed Constitutional Functions and Impeach Judge Alfred T. Goodwin and Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and remove them from office.

the two Judges of the 9th Circuit who used the "Founding Fathers wanted the US to be an athiest nation" myth, to stop school children from exercise their freedoms of speech and religion.

You could try understanding the issues properly first.

pulaski put it quite well. atheism was not expected to be the official government religion.

If the Founding Fathers had not wanted prayer in school, no ten commandments in school, no public display of religion whatsoever, as the atheist claim, they would have done away with it themselves.

The Bill of Rights in dealing with religion, was designed to insure that we wouldn't burn Buddist at the stake, or force women to wear full-length dresses, or give command of the 101st airborne to the Pope. It was not designed to keep a 6 year old from praying before he ate his mystery meat, green peas, and peach cobbler during a school lunch.

If the Founding Fathers had not wanted prayer in school, no ten commandments in school, no public display of religion whatsoever, as the atheist claim, they would have done away with it themselves.

There it is. Very well said, Pulaskibush.

The twisting of the wording of our Constitution and DOI is the fundimental basis of the socialists.

It is "freedom OF religion," not "freedom from religion!"

You must put yourself into the time of the 1770s and understand what made America. From 1640 on, a significant number of immigrants came with a desire for religious freedom. It would be an honest statement to say that we allowed in a large number of European cults. While those who settled in the Carolinas were mostly from the a neutral point of religion....the rest were not. The Puritans were extremely pointed on their view and did not want a mixing of religions in the Boston region. Penn became the melting pot of different religions because the Quakers were simply willing to accept all...even Indians. As we progressed into the 1740s, religion became a major topic in the northern half of the American colonies. Bill Graham type ministers ran around the countryside and got everyone stired up on the topic. So as they met to draw the constitution, the southerners did not have a big eye toward writing religion into the consititution. Those from Penn and Virginia did. This was to protect people from Puritan values. Thats how the whole thing became a written rule in the Consitution. Obviously, it still stirs up people today. The founding fathers simply wanted to establish the fact that there was no national religion, nor would the government be governed by religion, nor would religion be monitored by the government. It was simple, at least in those times.

Bump

The founding fathers simply wanted to establish the fact that there was no national religion, nor would the government be governed by religion, nor would religion be monitored by the government. It was simple, at least in those times.

I agree with all but this; "nor would the government be monitored by religion" in the fact that there would be no national religion.

fyi

Answers, to the best of my knowledge:

1. First of all, I should clarify that there are two separate actions we're dealing with here: impeachment and conviction. Impeachment is basically the political equivalent of a grand-jury indictment. The House of Representatives impeaches an officer (simple majority vote), and then the Senate tries the impeached party, which requires a 2/3 vote to convict.

2. As I understand it, with the exception of the presidency, no one actually takes over a federal office automatically on vacancy, although some other officer(s) might temporarily take over its function until someone new is selected through the normal selection process that applies to that office.

3. Assuming you mean a convicted judge (see #1), as I said in #2, it depends on the process for appointing the judge in the first place, which Congress has determined beforehand for each particular office. Some officers are appointed through the joint action of the President and Senate (certainly all dept. heads and supreme court justices, as the Constitution requires), while others can be appointed directly, say, by judges who are superior to the judge impeached. In the case of the 9th Circuit court, I'm pretty sure it's a President/Senate thing, but I don't know for sure.

4. That depends on the terms of his conviction. Typically, the punishment for an impeachment conviction is "removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."

5. I know that when the president is impeached, the Constitution requires that the chief justice preside over the senate trial, but it doesn't require it in any other circumstance, so I would assume that the President of the Senate (i.e., the Vice President of the U.S.) would preside, but I'm not sure of how that would work in practice.

6. Damn good question. I don't see any reason why not.

7. That I don't know. But I'm virtually certain that no judge has ever been impeached simply for making a bad ruling. The prevailing legal opinion is that judges can only be impeached for doing something criminal, such as engaging in bribery. There's tremendous controversy over whether or not he could be properly impeached purely for his application (or mis-) of the law. I was recently of the opinion that it is not constitutional to do so, but I'm coming around to seeing that it probably is.

Only 13 federal judges have been impeached in the history of the United States, and of those, only 7 were convicted:

Thanks for the answers.