Can Federal Judges Be Recalled? (ref: California 9th Circuit Court)

FairOpinion ^ | Sept. 15, 2003 | FairOpinion

[AdamSelene235]

Number of justices has nothing to do with anything.

FDR didn't seem to think so, after he threatened to pack the SCOTUS with additional Justices they became much more compliant.

Court decisions have limited the power of government on many occasions not least was the ruling that the Income tax was unconstitutional. Why would a bunch of lackeys have done such a thing?

Its an honor system. There is no inherent motivation for the three branches to limit the power of the government.

And why would they have ruled Congressional acts unconstitutional with some regularity starting with Marbury v. Madison?

That was a power grab by the SCOTUS with obvious conflicts of interests. Prior to Marbury every branch of the government was expected to evaluate the Constitutionality of its actions. After Marbury, the SCOTUS reserved that privilege solely for itself hence Bush's: Gee CFR looks unconstitutional but who am I to judge, where do I sign?

Today you can't even mention the 2nd Amendment to a jury in a lower court lest they begin to contemplate matters of Constitutionality.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Courts are like the weather- everyone complains about it but no one does anything.

Judicial review is implicit in the Constitution and Marbury was not the first case of it. Hamilton argued, successfully, that the Carriage Tax was constitutional about 10 yrs. before Marbury.

However, what is regularly ignored is that the Congress has the power to prevent the Court from taking cases should it desire. Article III, Section 2, second paragraph specifically states that excepting the cases of original Jurisdiction enumerated above "...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Congress does not exercise this power granted it under the "Exceptions clause" because many believe it prefers the coward's way out by allowing the court to take unpopular decisions it could not get away with.

Jefferson is not expert on the constitution and much of his disgust with the Court came from his hatred of Marshall and his frustration that his appointees and Madison's fell under the sway of the Chief Justice.

It is a great myth that there is a "plain meaning" of the constitution. Like great poetry and profound religious texts there is immense depth within the seemingly simple words. Tracing their implications is far beyond most people as Marshall's work clearly showed.

There is nothing wrong with the Courts that electing more Republicans won't cure. Does this mean we will agree with all its decisions? No.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Never the less Congress stopped FDR. And, as the Court history shows, there was no guarantee the new justices would have rubber stamped FDR's plans. Ask Jefferson and Madison about that.

The constitution provides the "inherent motivation" to limit government. Ruling the Income tax unconstititional shows that the Court can work to do just that.

Marbury was not the first case which went before the Court as a matter of constitutionality. Alexander Hamilton argued before it that the Carriage Tax was constitutional about ten yrs. before. Ironically, Marbury actually prevented the Congress from enlarging the court's jurisdiction.

Discussions at the Constitutional Convention indicate that judicial review was assumed by the Founders. They understood that it was useless to hope that the other branches would limit their activities merely because they were believed to be unconstitutional. Congress ALWAYS thinks its laws are constitutional as the Executive ALWAYS thinks its acts are. Only the Court has no conflict of interest in ruling on such matters.

[AdamSelene235]

Never the less Congress stopped FDR.

Pfttt. Hardly.

Ruling the Income tax unconstititional shows that the Court can work to do just that.

Well thank goodness we don't have any income taxes. It is the nature of this system to expand. The experiment with limited government has failed.

Ironically, Marbury actually prevented the Congress from enlarging the court's jurisdiction.

In lower court today, discussion of Constitutionality is pretty much forbidden (unless its one of the popular amendments)until you reach the higher courts. I always assumed this was a result of Marbury. Whatever the cause, the practical effect is that American citizens have no real "access" to their Constitutional rights until they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly years in jail. Why not allow juries to judge Constitutionality in favor of the defendent? The burden should be on the state to prove Constitutionality rather on the individual to spend years waiting to even speak of the subject.

[SevenDaysInMay]

"Good behavior" is the period for which federal judges are to serve. After 70 years of "FDR packing" of the courts, and the 40 year monopoly of the Dem rule in the House, impeachment for judicial tyranny is "bad" social policy.

That means that blackrobes can by rule, ordering us to accept their libral social engineering which would never become statutes by our elected, representative branches of government.

This is not self-government. This is gaveled subjugation under penalty of law.

When judges and justices usurp powers without basis in law and nullify our individual and states' rights clearly indentified in our RATIFIED Constitution, that "bad behavior" is absolutely valid grounds for removal from office. Such unlawful, rogue blackrobes should lose the gravy train of full pay and benefits of the judges, especially in their not quite "retirement" twightlight zone.

There is no lawful basis for "lifetime" appointments to the federal bench.

We must elect only Constitutionalists to government, federal and local.

Our RATIFIED Constitution is THE Law of our Land. It is the only social contract from which anyone in government service derives any and all of their LAWFUL authority.

Politicians in or out of blackrobes have no more authority than you or I when they exceed their authority granted by and limited to powers conferred by our RATIFIED Constitution.

We do not need to acept blackrobes' creating news powers for government or to tell us that the words and phrases within our RATIFIED Constitution do not actually mean what they say, but mean only what we are told the words mean in the "living" Constitution.

SCOTUS Chief Justice Rhenquist is among the very worst at promoting violations of our RATIFIED Constitution. "Asset forfieture" violates our 5th's "takings" clause. The King judge who took over the Kansas City school district's management/taxation authority had no basis in law and prima facia violation of every concept of our constitutional law separation of powers was approved by the Rhenquist court - and failed badly in the King's goals.

Any blackrobe acts under color of law beyond the clear limits of LAWFUL authority under our RATIFIED Constitution is clearly outlaw. Because our conspiratorial congresses and presidents failed to block these repeated and frequent usurpations does not make these outlaws lawful.

Blackrobe tyranny is rampant and in your face, under penalty of law for you and me. Blackrobes believe that they are above the law, and hope they can continue the bluff.