Posted on 03/16/2005 11:19:13 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Impeachable offense is whatever the congress says is impeachable.
Rep. Alcee Hastings (d) was a federal judge and he was impeached and removed from office because of a scandal involving gold plated plumbing fixtures. Then he became Rep. Hastings.
If congress decided they did not like Gingsbergs eyeglass frames they could impeach her. More likely they will find an excuse, vote, and boot her out.
However any impeachment involves a requirement in intestinal fotitude.
I do think that relying on unratified treaties is not only leagally unsupportable, it is also morally repugnant and an insult to the profession they purport to hold in high regard.
I think these justices who voted for Europe over the USA are doing this as a desperation move because they see the leftist days as numbered.
You will have a much stronger case when one day they directly take foreign law above our own while disregard our own law. That did not happen here.
There are only two instances where consideration of foreign law is valid, one has to do with interpretation of treaties and the other is to seek the original meaning of a phrase contained in our constitution such as "due process". That's it.
Do you think foreign laws and or moral precepts should be authoritative in SCOTUS' holdings?
If not, then why the heck should they cite them?
Citing foreign mores and/or court cases should hold NO sway in holdings of the SCOTUS, they are bound by their oath and the Constitution for their controlling authority to be the "Supreme Law of the Land". The Supreme LAw of the LAnd is the Constitution and those laws passed by the United States Congress. That's it, end of story.
And painting their bodies blue besides. Hey, they would love that in the Gay Pride parade
It is treason!
dave I defer to your knowledge of the gay parade, lol!
It's not the decision people are mad about. It's using foreign laws to interpret the Constitution. Not to mention declaring a percieved national opinion a law.
From Kennedy's opinion:
"The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions"
I've looked at the opinion a few times. I haven't seen any passages where the opinion relies on foreign law for its decisions.
Judge Hastings was convicted on two Articles of Impeachment: perjury and conspiracy to obtain a bribe.
Bump for later read.
I am sorry, but what am I missing?
The difference between the United States Constitution and the common law. Common law has its roots in history, especially the English common law. There is, howevere, no FEDERAL common law. Common law is a state concept. Under the Erie doctrine, there is no federal common law.
Historical law may have influenced the Framers when they wrote the U.S. Constitution, but the law of the Constitution is found in its text, not in historical precepts. The Constitution says what it says. Federal statutes say what they say. They are not concepts that evolved, they are legislative enactments that can only be interpreted from the text.
I agree. It should be treated as treason. However, in this case. I would prefer to impeach the Justices for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Very good point. But they stressed it wasn’t controlling their outcome.
I will agree that they are skating on thin ice but I don’t see this as a strong case against them.
State common law is based on English common law. The U.S. Constituion is based on a document drafted and voted on in Philadelphia, and democratically approved by the several states.
No, I was thinking AMERICAN LAW would be a good start.
At the very least it's a legal nullity and calls for purposeful disobedience on the part of state and local law enforcement.
Now Phyllis is recommending impeachment for use of foreign laws - meaning those laws and governances NOT adopted by the legislature of the US, but other legislatures (and not necessarily currently existing legislatures)
Some posters are getting a bit hung up on where America got its laws from. Doesn't matter. What matters is what laws it has adopted - those are what the courts should be judging, and are the only things that fall within their competence. Phyllis is onto something - if its possible to impeach a President for doing his job badly (and it is), then it's certainly possible to impeach a judge.
Well said.
I may be wrong, but I do not think so. The Roman Republic predates Christ, as did the death of Julius Caesar. IIRC, the English judges and hence the common law were introduced by William the Conqueror, who came to England in 1066.
Not that either has any business even being discussed as enlioghtening on what the Framers were thinking, or the citizens who ratified the Constituion. Just an academic point.
.
.
.
Thanks ;-)
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.