Constitution Party Wants Supreme Court Justices Impeached

CNSNews.com ^ | 7/07/03 | Jeff Johnson

[kattracks]

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - 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."

E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

[weegee]

Impeachment won't happen but there is nothing concrete about the Supreme Court ruling. After all, the Supreme Court (including several sitting justices) reversed an earlier SC decision to come to this ruling.

Why couldn't a future Supreme Court could rule otherwise? Is the Supreme Court "infallible" like the Pope?

[OXENinFLA]

It would be a nice start for a monday.



Now if we could just get rid of some lawyers.

[gunnedah]

There is not a court or lawyer in this country that cannot be bought!

[Noachian]

The main point that sticks out in this post is the inability to remove sitting justices from their benches.

Impeachment, in reality, is not an option. Even Jefferson found that out. And, Congress is too wimpy to use its Article III authority.

The fact is that sitting judges, in spite of laws made for their removal or chastisement, cannot be removed from their office no matter how bad a job they may be doing. Once appointed they can't be UNappointed.

This is legislation without representation.

Direct election of judges is the ONLY means by which The People can regain control of the Judiciary.

The Constitution must be amended to insure that Justices are directly elected by The People. Such an amendment is the only way The People can rid themselves of activist judges.

[Aquinasfan]

The Constitution Party is looking better all the time.

[LuceLu]

What is the Constitution Party? I have never heard of it.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

It is a political party for really pissed off middle aged anglo-saxon guys who aren't real fond of blacks, Latinos, southern European, eastern European, Asian, Pacific Island or any other racial minorities. In terms of values, their preferred polity would set forth into law every bit of dogma preached by extremely aggressive evangelical fundamentalist Christianity. They're not real fond of self-determination for women either.

This seems to be what they see as the most important goals for a government.

For them, defense and foreign policy appears to rely upon resting behind two oceans, and letting free trade expire and the rest of the world go to hell. If a nuclear war started, they'd wait to convene Congress for a declaration of same.

They're a bunch of luddites who never seem to understand that the Articles of Confederation were superceded by the Constitution, and that forgot that the Confederacy was defeated on the field of battle (not to mention that few people want to live under the political standards of the Confederacy). In the end, it is a bad 18th century political movement in a 21st century world.

[BlueLancer]

America Firsters ... and the ability of two oceans to protect us from the rest of the world ...

"He did not see the conflict as basically a war for democracy or morality. He was skeptical of the ideology and moral righteousness of the British and French. He conceived of morality in international affairs as relative to time, place, circumstances, and power. His approach was, in effect, more understanding of the Germans (without approving of what they did) and more skeptical of the Allies than the conventional view in the United States. Lindbergh saw a divided responsibility for the origins of the European war, rather than an assignment of the total blame to Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the Axis states. He did not view Germany, Britian, and France as implacable foes with irreconcilable differences that could be resolved only by war; he saw them all as parts of Western civilization. And he conceived of the European war as a fratricdal struggle (like the wars between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece) that could destroy Western civilization. Conceptions of race were conspicuous in his analyses, as were his concerns about the challenge of Asiatic hordes to the survival of Western civilization. Like later American "realists," Colonel Lindbergh attached great weight to the role of power in international relations and in prevailing definitions of morality."

[LuceLu]

Yikees.

[tdadams]

I wonder how long the knee-jerk bellicosity over this decision is going to last. You've got to be a complete idiot if you seriously advocate impeaching a USSC judge for issuing an opinion in the course of his duty with which you disagree.

If Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, or Roe v. Wade didn't prompt impeachments, this certainly will not.

[Wolfie]

That's the way it works though. Clap your hands with glee when the Court dumps all over the tenth amendment by ruling that Federal law trumps State law in a medical marijuana case, but get all hot and bothered when it does the same for gay sex. Go figure.

[aardvark1]

Is the Supreme Court "infallible" like the Pope?

EXACTLY like the Pope!!!!!!

[Gee Wally]

Here's what their platform says:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/ustp-99p1.html

[mabelkitty]

Impeachment can happen. If Congress refuses to perform duties as outlined by the Constitution (and their oath), then the Constitution can recall these people, as well.

Or, perhaps we should all vote "Independent" this coming election - no Democrats, no Republicans, no Greens - pure Independents.

[jwalsh07]

Why couldn't a future Supreme Court could rule otherwise? Is the Supreme Court "infallible" like the Pope?

A cursory examination of the history since Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton would seem to indicate two things. The first is that the ruling will become more expansive and the second is that there can exist majorities on the SCOTUS who think they are a couple of steps senior to the Pope.

[mabelkitty]

All those decisions should have prompted impeachment.

[stainlessbanner]

!