Something the GOP seems to lack these days...
Posted on 06/18/2008 9:22:12 AM PDT by Jay777
As Justice Scalia said in his dissent, this will definitely be a decision America will regret.
Justice Roberts nails exactly what this is:
Roberts laments, “All today’s opinion has done is shift responsibility for those sensitive foreign policy and national security decisions from the elected branches to the Federal Judiciary.” He concluded that Congress’ balancing “the security of the American people” with detainees’ rights has been “brushed aside,” and that the American people have lost control of foreign policy to unelected and politically-unaccountable judges. This is absolutely judicial tyranny, and a definite overstepping of the Court’s boundaries. Some are suggesting impeachment.
How many Supreme Court Justices have ever been impeached? A total of 1.
Any of the Justices who joined the majority could be brought up on impeachment charges for legislating from the bench. I only choose Kennedy because he so eloquently wrote the opinion.
In conclusion, I believe that our lack of oversight of the court in using the Constitutional checks we have been given represents an unconstitutional passive union between the three branches of government. This is dangerous. Hamilton states in Federalist 78; “liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments.”
Unless something is done right now and Justice Anthony Kennedy is made an example of and held accountable for this, consider ALL of the branches to be in an unholy, unconstitutional “union.”
(Excerpt) Read more at stoptheaclu.com ...
It would take a house member right? How about Hunter or Tancredo? Both are leaving.
Impeachment would be a good idea. Trying them for treason and giving them a proper hanging would be even better.
Because there isn’t the political support needed to try. Next question.
With a Marxist’s in control of the congress, this will never see the light of day.
Sounds good to me
Start with that “confirmed bachelor” who thinks that all private property (except his own) belongs to “the state”.
What Stephenson doesn’t understand, is that if impeachment of SCOTUS Justices were to take place today, Roberts would be more likely to go than Ginsberg. Not a good idea...
Because elections have consequences. We have a majority that support the five and a minority with no spine.
As we all now know from the Clinton impeachment, the politics are such that if a political figure is impeached and removal from office fails for lack of votes, that ends up strengthening the political position of the impeached politician.
There is no way any Supreme Court Justice will get a two-thirds majority for removal in the current political climate.
Count the votes. Which (at least) 18 Democrats in the Senate will vote to remove? Which RINOs would also vote to acquit?
I don’t believe that impeachment is the correct remedy. I believe that the correct remedy is non-compliance. When the federal courts issue a habeus corpus writ for one of these combatants, it is the executive branch’s job to cite the constitution and Congressionally enacted statute, and refuse to comply. Under our system of government, The US Supreme Court is not the only arbiter of the meaning of the US constitution, just one of three.
To: United States Senate
Impeach the Five Supreme Court Justices
We the undersigned, after grieving as we have in the past for a close friend or relative who died in a war to ensure our right to vote, do hereby decide not to bury that entity, but to restore the life, dignity and respect of the institution our forefathers held... and we now hold dear. In order to accomplish this, we do hereby call for the impeachment of the five Supreme Court Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Connor, Thomas, and Kennedy because of the disgrace they have brought to said institution for the following reasons:
I .Violation of their civil duty as civil servants who work for the people of the United States to make judgements of law according to the United States Constitution, and not as Partisan operatives to ensure the "selection" of a president.They were appointed by the father's party of the "selected" to life terms, and deem themselves to have the power to "dictate" to the American people who their president shall be.They violated all that is "holy" in the democracy of this nation...the right to vote and be counted, and they selected a president as if in a "dictatorship". They placed the people's right to elect their president forever in jeopardy, by ensuring that their party forever holds the power to continue to name future justices which hail from their own political party. They did this knowing that their party would be able to name future justices of their ideological persuasion, thus ensuring the future outcomes of federally contested elections, not to mention legal rulings on a daily basis.
II. Violation of the U.S.Constitution's demand for "SEPARATION OF POWERS", by interevening in a State's Rights issue which ended in this body's selecting the new president by its abuse of power.They placed "ENDING the bother" and "DIFFICULTY of counting fairly", (which with common sense of the common man or woman would have been easy to determine---count the different types of ballots, and place them in separate piles)---" OVER AND ABOVE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO VOTE AND BE COUNTED", thereby declaring that "time was more important than counting a presidential election accurately".
III. These five justices undermined the validity and sanctity of this previously esteemed institution and tainted it forever, by laying the foundation, and setting an unconstitutional precedent whereby they ensure that for eternity every election in the United States will forever be thrown into the federal court's jurisdiction and subject to challenges in this court. They undermined the sovereignty of the most fundamental basic right in a democracy, "ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE" ! Each of these justices voted at the polls, and voted in the court, thereby incurring two votes each. They delayed the state of Florida's legal pursuit of "determining the intent of the voter" and ignored the fact that this same statute exists in at least 30 or more other states in these United States. By issuing a "STAY" before they even heard arguments they deliberately delayed the state of Florida's right to a manual count under its sovereignty and intentionally delayed their issuance of a ruling until it was too late for this state to count its votes.In that very ruling they failed to resolve the obvious issue of REMEDY for this election that had been before its body for weeks, thereby disenfranchising every American's vote, regardless of party, be it Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, etc.
1V.They used the Equal Protection clause in a way in which it has never been used before; it has been used traditionally and legally to shield minorities from unlawful discrimination. They in fact, turned this amendment upside down, thus using it to discriminate against minorities and majorities (their opposing party won the popular vote), and to therefore cause their votes to be discounted.
V. With their abuse of power, they removed from the electoral college and Congress their Constitutionally respective roles in breaking a "tie" in a presidential election, if this was in fact a tie (we the voters may never know), therefore interfering in the Constitutional process which should have been allowed to proceed.
VI. Conclusively, we the undersigned, and all people of the United States,regardless of party affiliation, and as patriots with COMMON SENSE, do hereby declare that this court denied us equal protection under the law, and ALL OF OUR VOTES WERE NEGATED AND INVALIDATED. These five justices cast a cloud of suspicion over the body of the Supreme Court, causing the following result:
A. An ILLIGITIMATE PRESIDENT AND LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD ...one unable to govern effectively, thereby jeopardizing democracy at its very core with WORLDWIDE consequences.
VII. They failed to remain unbiased and nonpolitical by dictating to the governed that they had "chosen " their president for them, as if they were parents sending children to bed while they decided who the president would be.
VIII. We the undersigned, being of legal voting age, and not children to be told to go to bed, are outraged at... and embarrassed by... these offenses committed by the five aforementioned justices, and are further insulted by the failure of two of the named to even bother to sign their prejudiced judgement, calling into question their abilities to fulfill their obligation to morally uphold their civil duty as unbiased civil servants to those of us who pay their salaries. We therefore proceed to do the only "civil" thing left to do, ...and with somber,sorrowful spirits ,yet aching with mighty strength and perserverence for justice, do hereby attempt to restore respect for this once revered institution, the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We therefore hereby CALL FOR THEIR IMPEACHMENT!
Sincerely,
The IMPEACH THE FIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES Petition to United States Senate was created by Voters in Election 2000 and written by Kathleen Westmoreland. This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no express or implied endorsement of this petition by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. The petition scripts are created by Mike Wheeler at Artifice, Inc. For Technical Support please use our simple Petition Help form.
Send this to a friend
There is no need for impeachment. President Bush can declare them enemy combatants, have them arrested and send them to Guantanamo.
Do we have 67 votes in the Senate?? Do I need to ask?
We aren’t impeaching them, and we won’t, because we are a politically degraded populace (not even going to dignify it with a word like ‘citizenry’) that believes the law is whatever those 9 say it is.
By a simple majority, Congress can vote to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court so that they can no longer rule on cases involving the War on Terror.
How about
“Because the Dims control both the House and the Senate?”
I see that happening. Not.
Yeh that dweeb weasel David Souter...Buzzie Ruth's little yes ma'm puppy dog. I despise him exceedingly!
That sounds like a good idea to me. Let’s see what the Hunter’s think of this one.
Two problems with impeachment; the Democratic congress would only consider impeaching the Justices who were on the right side of this decision, the Democratic controlled Senate would only approve a new Justice who was at least as bad or worse than the current five idiots who joined the wrong side of the decision.
I have a problem with the petition. We are not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. The ‘One Man, One Vote decision’ was a bad decision, not as bad as Roe v. Wade, not as bad as Boumedien v. Bush, but bad. stripping the several states of the right to organize their governments according to the wisdom of the Founders and have an upper house not elected from districts of equal population shifted power to the cities.
One man, one vote, is not a fundamental right, it is a principle usefully incorporated into constitutions, as a restraint on governmental power, but it is also a principle that should not be universalized in constitutions, because doing so leads to the tyrany of the majority, of faction. Hence the Senate and the Electoral College. We were better off before SCOTUS in another usurpation of power imposed ‘one man one vote’ on the several states.
I don’t believe impeachment will occur. However, I do believe that frustrated citizens will soon take matters into their own hands and...ahem...voice their displeasure to the tyrants in our judiciary and legislators (state, fed, and local) ....I do not advocate violence, but I believe some will take to these drastic measures...
Roberts laments, “All today’s opinion has done is shift responsibility for those sensitive foreign policy and national security decisions from the elected branches to the Federal Judiciary.” He concluded that Congress’ balancing “the security of the American people” with detainees’ rights has been “brushed aside,” and that the American people have lost control of foreign policy to unelected and politically-unaccountable judges. This is absolutely judicial tyranny, and a definite overstepping of the Court’s boundaries.
:::::::
Well worth restating -— LIBERALISM and its TYRANNY sees no law...only its own EMPOWERMENT.
Because what they did pales in comparative evil to what they did in 1973?
Breaking 200 years of settled precedent, the Court has rewritten the Constitution’s allocation of national security powers. In essence, the narrow majority attacked the actions of a Commander-in-Chief in time of war. It attacked the law as rewritten by Congress in response to a prior decision of this very Court. And it attacked the Court by aggressively ignoring its own prior decisions.
:::::::
This is judical tyranny — a court containing ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIVISTS who care only about carrying out a radical agenda, with virtual impunity and total disregard for the reason they are there.
Yep. Let Ginsburg and fiends...er friends, ENFORCE IT.
Being wrong is not an impeachable offense.
Composition of the court is probably the most important issue in this election and the primary reason I will work to get McCain elected. Stevens and Ginsberg can’t last much longer.
Kennedy? How about the other 4 schmucks?
Something the GOP seems to lack these days...
Quite frankly, this is another excellent arrow for John McCain to have in his quiver when he goes up against O’Baam this fall.....
Yeah but you don't get to impeach him, Congress does. And even if you could get half of the House to impeach him, you'll never get 67 votes in the Senate to convict.
Great idea that will never happen.
Sorry, if I offended you, I was merely referring to this clause in the Constitution.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, 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
Please don't insult me, simply because I happen to read the Constitution.
You got it. As President Andrew Jackson once said, "John Marshall has made decision, now let him enforce it". This sediment was also backed by none other than Alexander Hamilton in Federalist papers. When addressing the concern that the Court and life appointed members would have too much power, he pointed out the if that became the case the decisions could simply be ignored by the other branches.
The problem comes later during Marbury vs. Madison where John Marshall (see a pattern) declared with no authority that the Supreme Court as the final arbitor of law. Although treated as stoic in history, Congress routinely goes around the court and prohibits it from hearing certain issues. It generally hides behind the "all powerful" court when it does not have the guts to stand up to special interest. Checks and Balances work; the problem is that if one branch weakens itself, another will pick up the slack.
Bush should declare that Mr. Kennedy has made his decision, let him enforce it.
And on what grounds will they appeal it?
This is a power specifically granted to Congress in the Constitution. Will they argue that it’s unconstitutional to follow the Constitution?
This is from mt FR homepage. FMCDH(BITS)
“By a simple majority, Congress can vote to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court so that they can no longer rule on cases involving the War on Terror.
The Executive has the perfect right under the Constitution to refuse the findings of SCOTUS. They are neither a legislative nor an executive body. They may neither create nor enforce law. Their role, as designed by the founders, is little more than advisory. Indeed, their ill advised advice must be ignored. To do otherwise would be to collude in bad policy.
Probably have to do the one before you can do that other.
And in the Senate as it exists, no one any candidate the President would put up that was to the right of Kennedy, or maybe even of Souter, would not get a hearing, let alone a vote. So, McCain were the President, he would reach across the aisle to his friends there, and nominate another Souter, or even another Ginsberg. After all he wouldn't want his other friends in the media saying nasty things about him.
Yes, I know.
I’m merely making the point that it would be easier to get a majority to limit jurisdiction than the two-thirds majority required for removal.
Of course, with the spineless jellyfish we have in Congress, neither option is realistic right now.
Granting habeas to dirtbag islamic irregulars half way around the world is bad enough.
Their real crime is usurpation of the power of Congress to deny jurisdiction.
We used to have a republic. Our self appointed philosopher kings are out of control and nothing will be done about it.
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.