IMPEACH THOSE BLACK-ROBED RENEGADE JUDGES

NewsWithViews.com ^ | July 21, 2003 | Lon Mabon

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Lot of unwarranted talk about the impeaching Bush... very little about doing same with judges, which is warranted and long overdue.

Reining In the Court has the information and justification. The conservative portion of the electorate hasn't the will.

Second Amendment Showdown with Judge Stephen Reinhardt 69 pages of anti-gun propaganda masquerading as a constitutional decision in which the oft-overturned judge opined that "[t]he historical record makes it … plain that the [Second] Amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."

Under God - Help Save America

Dear Congressman/Congresswoman:

I request that you begin an Impeachment Investigation to Remove Federal Judges Alfred T. Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt for ABUSE of Our Laws and Our Society, Our Constitution, Our 1st Amendment granting Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, our 10th Amendment granting States Rights, Our Rights of Intellectual Freedom to Recite our Pledge of Allegiance and for Overextending the Role of the Judiciary into the Role of our Legislature, for Judicial Usurpation of our Laws and the Censoring of Our History.

Impeach SCOTUS - WorldNetDaily.com, Farah, 3 July 03 It's time to challenge the authority of the majority with an impeachment movement.

Will it happen overnight? Absolutely not. No great movements ever do. But it will only happen if Americans stand up and demand it. Even if the movement fails to achieve its objectives, it will set a different tone for the appointment of future justices who will know there is a political price to pay for undermining the Constitution. WorldNetDaily: Impeach the 'Sodomy 6' SIGN UP http://mail.worldnetdaily.com/cgi-bin/subunsub.pl?list=impeach

[tdadams]

OK, it's been about five weeks now since the Lawrence decision. I thought just about every C-list freelance pundit had had their say about the matter, but I guess not.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Are you part of the SHUT UP AND TAKE IT crowd?

[tdadams]

I don't know about shut up and take it, but just shut up already, yes.

How many times and how many pundits do we really need rehashing the same old arguments?

Commentary on this decision reached a point of diminishing returns about four weeks ago. The laughable call for impeachment of USSC justices reached that point even sooner.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Unfortunately, only Congress and impeach and remove a federal judge. And BOTH parties have agreed that the Supreme Court is the final arbitor of ALL legal matters.

There is no way in hell that they will impeach a sitting SC judge. All this noise in no more than a fart in a tornado to Congress.

Sorry, but that is the reality of it in today's political climate.

[familyofman]

"Article III, Section 1, second sentence of the Constitution of the United States of America says, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behavior." "

What are your grounds for impeachment within the above definition? What behavior warrants their impeachment - and rulings you don't like don't meet the test. The charges neecd to be specific. The Framers wanted an independent SC for a reason.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Does the info and links in post #1 need to be simplified and reformatted to fit your brain?

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

today's political climate

Change the climate.

[wimpycat]

Is this going to be your M.O. on Free Republic? Jump on anyone who isn't as zealous as you are about your particular pet subject and doesn't agree with you 100%?

[Blood of Tyrants]

Good idea. All we need is 67 senators and 290 representatives who would FAITHFULLY uphold the Constitution of the United States. They haven't tried to uphold the Constitution since before the War of Northern Agression and they aren't about to now.

[familyofman]

"Does the info and links in post #1 need to be simplified and reformatted to fit your brain?"

No, but it would be nice if it really supported impeachment - which it doesn't. Is that clear enough for you, or should I bring it down to your level.

Impeach Earl Warren - ring any bells?

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

You screen name indicates that you are a climate changer. And the fact that: They haven't tried to uphold the Constitution since before the War of Northern Agression and they aren't about to now hasn’t deterred you from insisting they do.

[OPS4]

U.S. Citizens can Amend the law on how Justices can or cannot be impeached. A voters referendum can be circulated so as to get the issue on a ballot and the people can vote for an amendment to the current judicial impeachment laws
and then congress can allow the people to have a recall or
impeachment voice.

The Constitutional laws allow for such amendments.

Ops4 God BLess America!

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Then you haven't read the info, or are incapable of comprehending it.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Truthfully, I believe that the climate is changing. Slowly, but it is changing. It first showed up when the left tipped their hand with hitlery care and the AW ban in '94. The people responded with ousting over 50 Rat representatives and 10 Rat senators.

As the true face of the Rat party is revealed to more and more people, those people are revolted at what they see.

The Rats reaction is typical of the control freaks they are; they respond with ever MORE radical proposals than ever in hopes that they can FORCE the people to see the wisdom of homosexual marriages, 12 year olds who get abortions without their parent's consent, bigger government, higher taxes, the Kyoto Treaty, ad nauseum.

That being said, I don't believe that the Republicans are our saviors. They have shown a complete lack of will to do the right thing, follow the edicts of the platform on which they were elected, or to even show a bit of courage.

However, they will do until the Rats splinter into a dozen special interest group with little real power. At that point, I want a party with Bob Smith's principles to freedom and the Constitution and will gladly kick the Republicans out the door.

The above statement has just made me realize something. The Republicans DON'T want to destroy the Rats because then their power base would splinter - unless they decided to be that mythical party that I mentioned above. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Truthfully, I believe that the climate is changing. Slowly, but it is changing.

Your comments remind me of:

From Article Published 05. 23. 03 at 8:24 Sierra Times

An Interview With Ron Paul Part 2

Sir, on May 6th, on the floor of the house you asked the question: "Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic." How would you answer that question, Sir?

A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time.

I don't believe that the Republicans are our saviors.

RINOs may set us up for democide (seeRJ Rummel) that a demoncrat regime would initiate.

…I want a party with Bob Smith's principles to freedom and the Constitution and will gladly kick the Republicans out the door.

May we live to see it.

[Modernman]

U.S. Citizens can Amend the law on how Justices can or cannot be impeached

Sure, but what you seem to be proposing, and please correct me if I'm mis-stating your position, is that we should change the impeachment laws to allow judges to be impeached for making bad decisions or decisions that the majority disagrees with. If that's the case, there's no point in having an independent judiciary becuase every legal decison will be based on public opinion, rather than the law.

[Gargantua]

Those Justices, Supreme Court and otherwise, who prove with their actions that they are either incapable or disparaging of upholding their Oaths and performing their duties within the constraints placed upon them by the Constitution which created them should be first disbarred and then tried for Criminal Treason against the United States which they are appointed to serve.

For so long as they remain all but untouchable, they will remain badly out of touch and uncaring in their decisions.

Real accountability-with-teeth is the only deterrent to Judicial Tyranny. We currently have none.

[Gargantua]

"...but what you seem to be proposing, and please correct me if I'm mis-stating your position, is that we should change the impeachment laws to allow judges to be impeached for making bad decisions or decisions that the majority disagrees with."

No, what he seems to be proposing is making it easier, and even common, for Judges to be removed who flaunt their Oath of Office by ignoring or trying to re-write The Constitution.

An "independent Judiciary" is very different from a "Rogue Judiciary Run Amok."

[Gargantua]

Is this going to be your M.O. on Free Republic? Jump on anyone who isn't as apathetic as you are, and who doesn't agree with you 100%?