Impeach THE Six Supreme Court Justices

National Lawyers Guild ^ | Sometime in 2001 | Nathan Newman, NLG National Vice President

[bvw]

For Moral Turpitude
The House can impeach.

NOT the FIVE CONSERAVTIVE JUDGES mentioned in the Article -- but the SIX JUSTICES who Thursday threw our Nation and Laws into the pits of chaos, selfishness and anarchy.

- 30 -

[ALS]

If only it weren't political suicide.

[Notforprophet]

They had a bad week, to be sure. But it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. Nor would this impeachment initiative get off the ground.

NFP

[shred]

Well, this takes the prize for stupidest idea of the week.

shred

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

The Pubbies will do nothing. Count on it.

[Jim Noble]

If you had the votes to impeach them, you certainly have the votes to restrict their jurisdiction...

[The Old Hoosier]

But it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

Sure as hell does. Too bad it won't happen.

[bvw]

Recent Australian accusation of moral turpitude, meant in somewhat similar circumstance: "Crean slams Hollingworth for 'moral turpitude'.

From the article:

SIMON CREAN: Yes, but this is was the test that the Prime Minister made and I simply asked this question, Tony ... in terms of someone who continues to protect a paedophile when they were in a position of authority where they should have referred that, that is not appropriate action.

[Uncle Miltie]

"But it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment."

Wholesale disregard of at least three amendments this week doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. Huh.

I agree with ALS that impeachment is politically impossible, but disagree that their breach of the constitution is insufficient to impeachment. If flagrant disregard of the constitution among justices doesn't rise to the level, nothing does.

The distinction is that Americans are so uneducated and indoctrinated that they wouldn't recognize a high crime against the constitution. So constitutionally legitimate impeachments are politically impossible.

For which we can thank the Teachers' Union.

[bvw]

One of us, hopefully me, is wrong about just how wide-ranging and broad this ruling and the theory used in it is. It goes far beyond "sex", or even privacy.

[DannyTN]

I'd vote for it.

Impeach the Judges!!!

Attach them to Trees!!!

(just attach them...don't harm them)

[Dubya]

impeachment bump

[ALS]

Or at least surgically attach a joybuzzer to their nipples and connect that buzzer to the internet so we can clickem back into a clue!

about a million hits a minute should do the trick

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

bump

[Brilliant]

Impeach the 6 liberals. Their decision is that they can rewrite the Constitution to make it say whatever they want it to say. That is an abuse of power. Time to take back our government from the self-appointed kings.

[Notforprophet]

You might as well have impeached the 1972 court for giving us the Roe v. Wade decision. The SCOTUS is unique in that it has no accountability to the electorate. Impeachment of any of the nine Supremes is highly improbable.

NFP

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

The only organized force remaining -with some semblance of discipline and health-is the military. The members of the civil government are almost completely unfit to govern. The problem is not just the recent pro sodomite decision but the whole assault on our religion, our economic well being, our social life, our language, the favoring of the criminal element, the overt assault on our race etc.

With regard to the sodomy decision I predict that in the next 5 years or so in order to work at any learned profession one will have to sign some sort of document indicating one approves or supports homosexuality. Already judges in 'Kalifornia' must reveal their affiliation with the Boy Scouts.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

What the major pundits have missed on this debate -- even though Justice Scalia addressed it head on by warning of a major social "disruption" resulting from this ruling (to understand the veiled meaning of that warning one must read Fukuyama's book "The Great Disruption") -- is that the last such FUNDAMENTAL so-called "states' right" (really the right and liberty interest of the citizens of those states) "resolved" in this nation was slavery. The "resolution" required a civil war. More importantly, it was "resolved" -- constitutionally -- by an AMENDMENT rather than a judicial DIKTAT. The individual state governments ratified a 14th amendment giving the Feds the power to regulate on issues affecting the former slaves (expanded post facto to regulate on "race" generally). If the LEFT wants to pass an amendment prohibiting all regulation of moral and social issues as they affect interactions within the home they should just try to pass an Amendment (which we MUST resist). However, ALL -- conservatives and liberals who still value liberty should firmly resist the extreme LEFT's temptation to create a JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE IDEOLOGY/PARTY NOMENKLATURA.

For Fukuyama's book...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/068484530X/002-0464355-7759202?vi=glance

[Congressman Billybob]

Keep in mind that the National Lawyers Guild has been a Communist front organization for about 70 years. No reason to take them seriously. They are as politically effective as Vladimir Lenin is today (in his glass box in the Kremlin).

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, now up FR, "Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies."

[DannyTN]

"about a million hits a minute should do the trick "

Could these humorous postings be construed as a threat? I think we might need to be careful here.

There's a reason I put (but don't harm them) under my email. So that my Iranian Attach them to Trees humorous reference wouldn't/couldn't be taken seriously.