Justice Scalia to retire

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancel4
  • Start date Start date
Watermark said:
You don't have to violate a law to be impeached.
Click to expand...



When you get tired of being pwnd, maybe you'll admit that the subject of the charge is criminal action.

The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
 
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911 said:
When you get tired of being pwnd, maybe you'll admit that the subject of the charge is criminal action.

The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may only be impeached and removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
Click to expand...

i seem to recall that federal judges are appointed for life subject to good behavior

malfeasance and misfeasance may also be considered crimes for judges
 
Norman Paperman said:
What the fuck are you going to convict him of? Being old?
Click to expand...

LOL! Doesn't happen very often:

Alcee Hastings
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Representative since 1993 and a Democrat, Hastings was previously a lawyer and judge. He spent ten years as a federal judge (1979-1989), but was impeached and removed from office for corruption and perjury. He was the sixth federal judge to be impeached and removed from office in American history.

As for the SCOTUS:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302_2/supreme_court_of_the_united_states.html

VIII
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE

Justices serve lifetime appointments. Under the Constitution they can be removed from the Court only by first being impeached (accused) by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. There is no precise standard for determining whether a justice has committed an impeachable offense, though the consensus is that removal should be for criminal or ethical lapses, not for partisan political reasons. No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached. In 1805 Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in the House by his political enemies, but the Senate failed to convict when it became apparent that Chase’s opponents were after him not because he had committed any wrongdoing but because they disagreed with his decisions. The possibility of impeachment may have been a factor in the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas, who left the Court in 1969 after allegations surfaced that he had accepted a questionable fee from a private foundation. Some conservative groups rallied for the removal of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1960s, but their efforts failed.
Click to expand...
 
We must take complete control of our government to enforce the will of the people.
 
WinterBorn said:
A ridiculous comparison. Worse than Dixie could ever manage. Impeaching a supreme court justice and handing out lots of rep point that have no meaning are not even in the same realm.
...
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, it must mean something to some, and it is the only power that they have in this forum, and they abused it swimmingly and as soon as they had it. *shrug*
 
any attempt, ANY attempt, to impeach and remove a conservative justice for political reasons would most likely be the straw breaking the camels back and invite the next civil war that you liberals really do not want.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
any attempt, ANY attempt, to impeach and remove a conservative justice for political reasons would most likely be the straw breaking the camels back and invite the next civil war that you liberals really do not want.
Click to expand...

Then explain why so many libertarians want to use the same tactic to get rid of judges simply because they dislike their politics? I have read in the campaign platform of at least one libertarian-leaning third party that good behavior does not mean a lifetime appointment and that judges can be impeached for disobeying the Constitution- which the judges are charged with interpreting according to the Constitution itself.
 
flaja said:
Then explain why so many libertarians want to use the same tactic to get rid of judges simply because they dislike their politics? I have read in the campaign platform of at least one libertarian-leaning third party that good behavior does not mean a lifetime appointment and that judges can be impeached for disobeying the Constitution- which the judges are charged with interpreting according to the Constitution itself.
Click to expand...

the flaw in your thinking is that judges interpret the constitution. they do not. WE the people interpret the constitution. we wrote it. the justices on the bench compare laws that the legislature writes with the constitution to see if those laws exceed the legislative powers.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the flaw in your thinking is that judges interpret the constitution. they do not.
Click to expand...

Yes they do- it says so in the Constitution- a documents you should read sometime.

U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 2:

…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…”
 
flaja said:
Yes they do- it says so in the Constitution- a documents you should read sometime.

U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 2:

…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…”
Click to expand...

judicial review is not the same as original jurisdiction, that's not what you are trying to say?
 
Southern Man said:
Yes it truly is. A while back Grind gave a million rep points to one of them on a whim, who then pos rep'd some of his liberal buddies and neg rep'd several conservatives. It was a clear demonstration of near-instantaneous abuse of power and took poor Grind a while to get things back to normal.
Click to expand...

I think Grind rather enjoyed it...no?
 
flaja said:
...which the judges are charged with interpreting according to the Constitution itself.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It is not the Constitution which judges are supposed to interpret, but rather whether a particular law, regulation, or governmental action violates constitutional protections. The vast majority of the Constitution is spelled out in specific terms. The only real exceptions are the 9th and 10th amendments which refer to non-enumerated rights and/or powers of the people and states, in which case the federal courts may need to determine if an unenumerated right (such as privacy) falls under constitutional protections or not.

The entire "interpret" misconception is a load of modern liberal bullshit to justify ignoring what the constitution actually says in favor of their agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top