Skip to comments.Texas Two Step and recusal refusal at Supreme Court
Posted on 06/28/2015 8:44:00 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
This weeks Supreme Court decision in regard to legitimacy of homosexual marriage just well may be illegitimate itself whatever way the Court decides. And because of this very fact, 2016 and its crucial election must include initiatives to institute TERM LIMITS for SCOTUS along with a swift and very definitive process for removal of any member of the U.S. Supreme Court!
Just consider the fact that their rabid feminism pushed both Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Elena Kagan to marry two same-sex couples though they knew full well they were being called upon to give definitive judgment in the Obergefell case. Also, Justice Ginsburg had gone so far as to strongly suggest in public that the time for same-sex marriage had arrived. (1) Both female judges are insulting Americas highest legal authority, insulting ethical restraint in regards to conflict of interest, insulting the American family and, in fact, insulting the basis of our countrys rule-of-law underpinnings.
This final step in the use of historicity to re-write our constitutional laws and legal process is a step that must be called out now. If it didnt happen that way, then it should have, said an Afro-American teacher to me one day. She was referring to something that happened in the race-relations controversy and historical milieu in our country. In other words, she wanted the laws re-written the way she wanted them written and she wanted it done NOW.
Well, this version of Ginsburg-Kagan historicity is beyond anything the lib/Dem bulldozer through America has done so far. Their rabid hubris and out-of-control feminism have taken our country to a whole new level that in no way is America. But what is shaping up to be another slap in the face of honest rule-of-law has to do with how court employees manipulate...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
The supreme kangaroo court.
I’m not sure there is a need to set term limits on Justices of the Supreme Court...I cannot find a way, at this time to wrap around that idea...
But, I do recall there is a way to replace Justices by impeachment...
How that works, is up to the spines of those we actually do have methods of disposal for, those we elect to office, and thus the preferred method, in my opinion, the best way is to vote them out...That’s their term limit provision...
Stevie, yes, I thought there was a way to impeach judges too. Need to do some homework.
Get ready to hear “you don’t have standing” repeated ad-infinitum.
Federal judges are subject to the same degree of offenses as all federal officials, but to a somewhat higher degree. That Includes SCOTUS. The Senate has removed judges from office for substantial questionable conduct, even if no crime was committed.
But, Republican legislators in office now dont have the guts to do it.
Alcee Hastings was a Florida Federal Judge who was impeached and kicked off the bench for taking BRIBES.
He has been contually rewarded by Democrats by election and reelection to the House
I hear you both, but we have to do something. And, of course weigh the most effective actions against the lesser.
Something to think about. But, not for long. Our nation does not have much time left.
His election is “In yo face Mo Fo!”
Are you kidding?
Congress won’t even limit the appellate jurisdiction of USSC, which they have clear authority to do, by simple majority vote.
I’m perfectly serious, and stop calling me Shirley!
All kidding aside, I know Jim...Kinda makes you wonder why the process is limited in its operation by the very folks without the spine to actually do it these days...
Make it a constituent, or district vote/referendum to maybe just force the process, and we might see that occur more often...
Just an idea...
But they won’t go away, even when impeached and removed from office.
After which said corrupt judges obtain office in Congress. Alcee Hastings.
Washington is a den of iniquity. It amazes me that anybody allows that bunch of thieves and scoundrels any say so.
OK, and complete that thought for me, please?
The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Not, you will note, "as provided by law". It's "such regulations (not laws) as the Congress shall make".
Congress can prevent the USSC from hearing ANY cases regarding benefits due to illegal aliens, capital punishment, guns, abortion, school and other community prayers, state marriage laws, state regulation of contraception, state laws pertaining to legal or illegal drugs, etc, etc.
The ONLY power the USSC has to hear these cases is power COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY UNDER THE CONTROL OF CONGRESS, end of story.
Stop with the crap about impeaching justices - that will never happen.
Their powers can be severely curtailed by a simple majority vote in both Houses of Congress - Presidential approval not required, Presidential veto not permitted.
He's been a Rep from FL not quite since his removal.
Also, Hastings, a known and convicted bribee, was almost put in charge of the House Intelligence Committee by Pelosi, giving him access to lots of stuff he could sell.
He was in the news in the last month or so, drumming up support for a pay increase for Congress.
In the wikipedia entry, his convicted co-conspiring briber was pardoned on Clinton's last day in office.
A den of iniquity, indeed.
In the homo marriage case, all a court that lacks marriage jurisdiction has to do, to usurp jurisdiction, is claim that the question is a constitutional one. It hears the case to decide whether the Congressional regulation applies, and holds that it does not.
Back to square one.
Of course it's a Constitutional question. The Supreme Court is not granted unlimited power to hear appeals on Constitutional issues.
No disagreement there, as any case can be framed in a way that implicated the constitution - see Presser fighting an Illinois parade permit ordinance on 2nd amendment grounds. My point is that SCOTUS can, if it wants, cast a case in any way it wants, there is no requirement for intellectual honesty, and what you think you've cut them out of, they will pick up anyway, and issue an order.
a...Hastings was removed as a Fed judge, but the Senate neglected to ban him from holding public office...”
The bigger the transgression, the higher in esteem liberals are held in.
I expect Governor Blagojevitch will win a Senate seat when he finishes his term
(The prison one)
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.