Constitution Party Wants Supreme Court Justices Impeached

Constitution Party Wants Supreme Court Justices Impeached The nation's self-proclaimed third largest political party Thursday called for the impeachment of the six Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn a Texas law banning homosexual sodomy. One legal expert responded that the prospect of impeaching justices for political decisions was settled nearly 200 years ago.

James Clymer, chairman of the Constitution Party National Committee, called the court's decision "an affront to the very foundation" of the U.S. Constitution.

"It also shows blatant disregard for the people of various states and the laws their representatives have lawfully enacted," Clymer continued.

"Those members of the court who have so brazenly exercised illicit judicial authority should have to face the consequences of their actions which are violations of the Constitution, something they took an oath to uphold," he said.

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens voted to strike down the Texas law and, Clymer said, should be removed from the court as a result.

The Constitution Party, which claims it is America's third largest political party in terms of actual voter registration, embraces the view that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights mean precisely what they say and that only their application, not meaning, should be subject to interpretation by the courts.

The group believes the decision is an unconstitutional encroachment upon powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment, which states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States..."

"In other words," Clymer explained, "if a state is exercising a power reserved to it - like defining, establishing and applying its own laws pertaining to criminal justice - then the federal courts are supposed to maintain a hands-off attitude and uphold the state's right to do so."

He points to Article III Section 1 of the Constitution, which established the "supreme Court," as giving the grounds for impeachment.

"Contrary to popular belief, the justices of the Supreme Court do not have life tenure," Clymer argued. "Instead, the Constitution states that they are to serve 'during good behavior,' and this ruling is a prime example of what truly bad judicial behavior is."

He believes the intent of the "good behavior" clause was to ensure that judges would "maintain fidelity to the Constitution, the law and the highest of ethical standards during the conduct of their work.

"Their failure to do so is supposed to disqualify them from continued service on the bench, and Congress has the duty to see that this requirement is enforced, if those principles are seriously violated, through the mechanism of impeachment," Clymer concluded.

While Clymer's contentions may hold up in theory, Beau Baez, a professor of law with Concord School of Law in Los Angeles, told CNSNews.com that there is "practically zero chance" of a politically motivated impeachment succeeding.

"Thomas Jefferson tried it back in 1805 with another associate justice at the time - his name was Samuel Chase - primarily over a political squabble," Baez noted.

President George Washington appointed Chase, who was from Maryland, in 1796. At Jefferson's urging, the U.S. House of Representatives impeached Chase, but the Senate refused to convict him.

"Ever since," Baez explained, "impeaching justices for unpopular opinions has pretty much been dead."

For a Supreme Court justice to actually face removal by the Senate, Baez added, would take much more than even a universally unpopular decision.

"It would probably take being convicted of a criminal act - like murder, fraud, theft - and then the justice refusing to resign," he said. "But I think if it's [an action] within their 'jurisdiction,' writing a legal opinion, expounding on the Constitution, it really becomes a political question."

At that point, Baez said, the political party in power would have to decide whether or not it wanted to risk retaliation from the current minority party in the future.

"One party may be in power today and may be able to boot a justice from the other party," he said. "But then, of course, four years or eight years later, it may be reversed.

"It's a dangerous game," Baez concluded, "because what goes around comes around."

Disabilities Act faces Supreme Court test
The decision on whether the law requires buildings to be handicap-accessible will affect Iowa's older buildings.
By LYNN OKAMOTO
Register Staff Writer
07/04/2003

Iowa courthouses, bus lines, parks and other government services all stand to be affected by an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether states can be sued for failing to make accommodations for people with disabilities.

"The implications of the case far exceed courtrooms," said Peter Blanck, director of the University of Iowa Law, Health Policy and Disability Center. "It goes to accessibility to many government services."

The Supreme Court agreed last month to hear Tennessee vs. Lane, a case that stemmed from a paraplegic man who crawled up two flights of steps to reach a hearing in a courthouse that lacked an elevator. A decision in the case will come next year.

Iowa, which has many century-old buildings, has had its own struggle with making public buildings accessible to the disabled as required by the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dan Hoffman, 57, of Fairfield remembers the embarrassment he felt in 1990 when he had to crawl up 23 steps of a county office building in Keosauqua to attend meetings of the Van Buren County supervisors. Hoffman has muscular dystrophy.

The county's adjacent 1840 courtroom, the oldest still being used in Iowa, is on the second floor and remains inaccessible.

"That particular building, with it being so old, it wasn't advisable to put an elevator in it," said Van Buren County Auditor Jon Finney. "It would destroy the interior or exterior in historical significance."

Finney said the county plans to make its court services accessible to people with disabilities this fall by renovating a ground-floor building addition into a courtroom.

But Hoffman said officials usually don't make changes unless someone forces the issue. He knows. His complaints over the years have led to ramps or elevators being installed at a county office building, a post office and a high school.

"I feel like I've done some good in some of these areas," he said. "We've still got a long ways to go."

Iowa advocates for the disabled are hailing the Supreme Court's decision to hear the Tennessee case as a major step that could have broad implications in Iowa.

"If we put some real teeth in the law and really enforce it, it will probably get better over time," Hoffman said.

Sylvia Piper, director of Iowa Protection and Advocacy, said the right to sue the state and collect damages is a matter of equity.

"Certainly, what is right for employers in the private sector should also apply to employers in the public sector," Piper said.

At issue is the scope of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, which celebrates the 13th anniversary of its signing July 26.

Until now, enforcement of the law has been based on complaints filed and the main enforcement agency has been the U.S. Department of Justice.

States have argued that lawsuits should not be filed against them because the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives them sovereign immunity, meaning no state can be sued in federal court without its consent.

In 2000, the Supreme Court sided with the state in Alabama vs. Garrett. It said Congress exceeded its authority with the Americans with Disabilities Act as it applies to states, and violated the Constitution. The ruling had the effect of denying people with disabilities the right to sue state agencies and collect damages.

But Blanck said the case currently before the Supreme Court has a different hook because it's based on due process, not on equal protection rights, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

That brings new hope to people like U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who was the chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"Senator Harkin believes that we had an extensive record of discrimination against people with disabilities when we wrote the ADA," said Allison Dobson, a Harkin spokeswoman. "Senator Harkin believes the Garrett decision got it wrong and certainly hopes they can get it right this time around."

Impeachment is a political process not a legal process.

Just another thing that Clinton did in his attempt to destroy America.

Seems to me that a judgment totally contrary to the Constitution is grounds for impeachment. This judgement was not based on the constitution at all. Homosexuality was illegal in every state in America for over a hundread years. It is obvious constitutional to make it illegal. The signers were alive when these lawa exasted and none made any attempt to end them. Every society that has embrased homosexuality has never lasted move than another 60 years before serious decay most no longer existed after 60 years. The downfal fo the Roman empire started with making this legal. Besides the bioble teaches against it and we are a christian nation. So does nearly every other relegion.

They should be impeached as far as I am concerned as well.

I think I will change my registration just to make a point.

Judge Quits, Calls Judicial System Unjust

Wednesday June 25, 2003 12:59 AM

By LARRY NEUMEISTER

Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge said Tuesday he is quitting what he called an unjust criminal justice system, fed up with Congress' quest to boost prison sentences and prevent judges from deciding how long someone is imprisoned.

``Congress is mandating things simply because they want to show how tough they are on crime with no sense of whether this makes sense or is meaningful,'' U.S. District Judge John S. Martin said in an interview with The Associated Press.

The result, he said, is a slew of lengthy prison sentences for low-level drug dealers ``who society failed at every step.''

``Sentences should be just. We shouldn't be putting everybody in jail for the rest of their life,'' Martin said.

While many judges have criticized sentencing guidelines, it is unusual for a judge to publicly cite the frustrations of the job in stepping down.

Martin, 68, conceded he also wants to make more money after serving for 13 years in a judgeship that pays less than second-year associates make at many law firms. Federal judges earn $154,700 a year.

But he said the prime motivation came April 30, when President Bush signed a bill forcing federal judges to strictly follow sentencing guidelines.

Martin said he supports guidelines for the purpose of ensuring uniform sentencing nationwide, but added that Congress was going beyond that and forcing judges to impose harsh sentences on defendants who don't deserve them.

``While I might have stayed on despite the inadequate pay, I no longer want to be part of our unjust criminal justice system,'' he wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday in The New York Times.

A one-time federal prosecutor, Martin said he plans to complete his caseload by summer's end and re-enter private practice. He said he is considering organizing former federal judges and top prosecutors to lobby Congress to make guidelines more sensible.

Martin has earned a reputation as a judge capable of stern sentences: In sentencing one violent gang member to life, Martin ordered the man held in solitary confinement and said he would have imposed death if he could.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.