Posted on 06/16/2008 8:22:23 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
It seems that whoever becomes the 5th Justice whether it be O'Connor or Kennedy they sell out to the highest bidder and their vote for cash and prizes or are blackmailed by the left if they don't vote the ACLU way and help their career they would expose them about things they don't want in public.
Since Kennedy became the 5th vote he has supported International Law supplanting the Constitution, Co2 is a pollutant, terrorist Habeas Corpus rights, and illegal alien rights, etc.
You know the left will give him all kinds of awards from the left in the next year.
It would be interesting to see his financial statements since O’Connor left the court and how much more he has been getting in speaking fees from the left-wing law schools.
I thought the brain-damaged kennedy was a senator; maybe they operated on the wrong one.
appointed by president ronald reagan.
i don’t know.
it seems that democrat justices stay democrat or even socialist,
but republican justices, some become democrat or even socialist.
‘tis odd.
It certainly has been interesting that certain GOP nominees have quickly adapted to the ways of DC. It is also a very large danger to representative government. Since the 1970s the public has been electing GOP presidents in large part to overturn Roe v. Wade, but there it sits.
And it is not like the public is asking to overturn something that is clearly in the constitution like say the second ammendment. They want over turned some from the shaddow of the constitutin if you believe it is there at all.
When the public fails to get their way election after election is it any wonder they become disallusioned with government and even the electoral process?
I think Reagan’s Kennedy is primarily motivated by getting invitations from the socialists in Washington who have the fancy parties and dinners. Too bad Reagan didn’t do his homework on that former Gerald R. Ford booster from Sacramento.
Exactly so.
I became disillusioned with the Supreme Court when they decided that our free speech rights didn’t mean squat because we might say “mean” things to one another. Following this, in decision after decision, it’s become more than obvious that they aren’t voting the law - they’re voting to make sure their own twisted and traitorous leftist political views are forced down the throats of the citizens of the U.S. - like it or not.
Politicized instead of Constitutionalized. (sumpthin like that)
It certainly has been interesting that certain GOP nominees have quickly adapted to the ways of DC. It is also a very large danger to representative government. Since the 1970s the public has been electing GOP presidents in large part to overturn Roe v. Wade, but there it sits.
—
Things that make ya go hmmmmmm..
They don’t call them sheople for nuttin’.
Remember that Anthony Kennedy was Reagan’s 3rd choice for the Supreme court. He first appointed Robert Bork, whose confirmation became a circus and a dress rehearsal for how to de-rail judicial nominations. Then Douglas Ginsburg was nominated and withdrew due to his having smoked marijuana.
Some judges become more liberal, such as Souter and Stevens. Some such as Thomas and Scalia, stick to their conservative principles no matter what.
Thats easy,Most like to be invited on the cocktail party circut in the DC area.Justice Thomas not being one of them.
Justices who are not ideologues like O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy always turn left once on the court, probably due to influence from leftist ideologues already on the court.
This is because non-ideologues tend to rule by emotion rather than principle (ruling by principle is often harsh and unfair), and leftist arguments always appeal to the emotion.
But make no mistake - the liberals on the court are NOT ruling by emotion, they are ruling by their own leftist principles.
What does the Constitution say about removing a justice? How have other justices been removed in the past? Didn't FDR threaten to add more judges and dilute the votes of existing judges if he didn't get what he wanted in decisions?
HE was the 2nd choice. President Reagan appointed Judge Robert Bork and if not for TWO GOP SENATORS [Specter & Warner] he would have been seated to the SCOTUS.
Sadly we have been paying for their error in judgement since!
The dog & pony show at the Bork conformation hearings had me fuming!
Actually he withdrew because he had lied about mj use under oath.
Another little time bomb for Obama. Did he disclose his hard drug use to the Illinois state bar on his application form, which I am sure is under oath. Not surprising he won't release the form.
They can be impeached for "bad behavior". At least by implication, which says that they serve for life "on good behavior".
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
Art. III Sec. 1)
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Art. I Section 2
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Art. I, Sec. 3
So, they can be impeached for "bad behavior" (The President can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdomeanors".)
So, the answer depends on the answer to the question, "Does ignoring the Constitution, or ruling in contravention to it, constitute 'bad behavior'?"
I'd say yes, but I don't get to decide, the House and Senate do. However taking a bribe would be an easier to make a case example of "bad behavior".
Nobody
gets there without being complicit with the globalists . . .
or if they do . . . they are quickl co-opted . . . if they choose to live.
Third choices usually turn out horribly. Clinton had Kimba Wood and Zoe Baird, as AG choices, but finally gave us Janet Reno after they both got shot down. The third one is generally quite terrible.
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.