Impeaching Supreme Court Justices

[divemaster5734]

There was a satire piece posted about a "justice" resigning today.

 

While the article was intended to be humorous, the reality of our situation as programmed government zombies hit home while reading it.

 

So many people don't realize the "supreme court" is there are OUR permission. They CAN be replaced.

 

This is why it is so vital that congress and the senate be held accountable, as they have the power to impeach or other wise remove people ALL government appointed or elected positions.

 

For as along as they can keep us, The People, divided, they can continue to pursue their own agenda, personal enrichment through insider trading and other types of outright corruption.

 

When o appointed Elana Kagan I was amazed she was confirmed. The fact she refused to recluse herself on issues the fought for as solicitor general wasn't surprising.

 

Here's a recent article concerning the court.

Impeaching Supreme Court Justices

Matt Shipley

Most Americans incorrectly believe Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life and therefore somehow immune from public accountability, but this understanding is contrary to the Constitution and detrimental to our Republic.

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” Accordingly, it is for a term of good behavior our federal judges hold their office, not life, and they can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Misdemeanors, as the founders defined them, includes attempts to subvert the Constitution through misinterpretation or other methods. George Mason explained that impeachment is for “attempts to subvert the Constitution,” and Elbridge Jerry considered “mal-administration” as grounds for impeachment. Justice Joseph Story listed, among other reasons for impeachment, “unconstitutional opinions” and “attempts to subvert the fundamental law and introduce arbitrary power.” Alexander Hamilton and Justice Story defined “misdemeanor” as “mal-conduct” and Justices James Wilson and Story described “misdemeanors” as “non-statutory”, which means they are offenses for which no legal code exists.

From all these definitions and descriptions, it is clear the Constitutional framers intended misdemeanors to cover acts of political misbehavior, because the framers wanted to ensure every elected and appointed official at the national level is accountable to the people.

 

A common legal maxim maintains all contracts are to be construed according to the meaning of the parties at the time of making them. To interpret any contract contrary to its originally understood meaning is deceitful, subversive and criminal.

When the State ratifying committees and the private citizens of each State debated ratifying the Constitution, they did so under a commonly understood meaning to its words and clauses. Eventually, all thirteen original States ratified the Constitution and joined in union not only for their generation, but on behalf of all future generations.

Federal judges who interpret the Constitution in a manner that distorts this original intended meaning are altering the Constitution by circumventing the amendment process in Article V, which is a breach of our national contract. Any time the Constitution is changed, it is to the advantage of one group of people and to the detriment of another, because any change would either add another requirement to, or take away liberty from some group in society. If this is done without three fourths of the States agreeing to a change it is a despotic “encroachment and oppression” upon those it disadvantages, which is an illegal act deserving of punishment.

This criminal behavior is not just limited to purposeful misinterpretation of the Constitution, but extends, as pointed out by Justice Story, to referencing a different source of law other than what our founders used in establishing the Constitution and in defining boundaries to rights that are contrary to the understanding of that law.

Common law, as defined by William Blackstone, was not only the foundation of the American legal system, it was the Rosetta stone by which every American during the founding era understood law. As such, every word and clause in the Constitution, unless otherwise stated in the document, must be interpreted according to this pre-constitutional common law.

It is a non-statutory criminal act for those in public office, who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, to reference another source of law or limit or extend rights based on other principles than pre-constitutional common law. For example, when considering the subject of torture, Justice Ginsburg referenced foreign law in her opinion and for this reason alone, she should no longer be on the bench.

To some, breaking “the supreme Law of the Land” may seem like an irrelevant procedural offense, especially if one likes the change. The danger in this is that it sets a bad precedent and when a change is made that people do not like, they have very little to no legal recourse to correct it.

If we, as a nation allow elected and appointed officials to violate the Constitution through its misinterpretation then every law in our nation will be viewed in the same way and law will be used against the people instead of for them. This is why the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, must be held to a rigorous standard of Constitutional interpretation based on original intent. Accordingly, if Supreme Court Justices and Federal judges cannot logically support their opinions by connecting them to constitutional original intent or pre-constitutional common law and refuse to change them, then they need to be impeached and found guilty.

Implementing such a standard may not be easy, but it is not impossible. It begins with American citizens understanding original intent, voting for public officers based on this criterion, and demanding Federal supreme and inferior court judges are impeached if they unrepentantly cross this line in their opinions.

Elected officials will usually do what the majority of their voting constituents demand, therefore if voters from a simple majority of congressional districts across the nation demand their Representative impeach Federal judges, the Representatives will. Additionally, if voters in enough States demand their Senators convict an impeached civil officer, the Senators also will. This would send a very loud and clear message to Federal judges to stop legislating from the bench and to uphold constitutional original intent.

It is time “We the People of the United States” hold our elected and appointed officials to this rigorous standard. We must do this even when we individually do not like the outcome an original intent interpretation provides. Doing anything else will undermine our Republic and either turn us into a democracy, in which we are subjected to the tyranny of the majority, or it will allow the few to impose their will upon the rest, by which we will be subjected to the tyranny of the minority.

CDR Matthew W. Shipley, graduated from Navy recruit training in January 1985, Electronics Technician “A” School in October 1985, Naval Academy Preparatory School in 1987 and the United States Naval Academy in 1991.

Shipley’s tours include Assistant Platoon Commander at SEAL Team EIGHT, test article Officer-in-Charge of a Mark V Special Operations Craft (SOC) at United States Special Operations Command, Operations Officer at Special Boat Unit TWENTY, Mk V SOC Liaison Officer to Special Operations Command European Command, Naval Special Warfare Task Unit (NSWTU) Commander for a Mediterranean Amphibious Ready Group, and Platoon Commander at SEAL Team EIGHT.

As a reservist, Shipley served as Executive Officer of Navy Reserve Naval Special Warfare Group TWO Detachment 309, as Executive Officer of SEAL Team THREE deployed to Fallujah, Iraq in 2006, as NSWTU Commander Manda Bay, Kenya in Oct 2006 – Mar 2007, and as the Commanding Officer of SEAL Unit EIGHTEEN in Little Creek, Virginia from Dec 2009 – Dec 2011. He retired from the US Navy in Jan 2013.

Shipley’s awards include: Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Defense Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, Navy Achievement Medal and various unit, campaign and service awards.

 

 

[Snowpickle]

Sure they can be removed. But ask yourself, what is the chance of that?  Really, when you look over all the "bone head" decisions that have been made, and you look at how unpopular many of them have been, did anyone ever pull a judge?

 

That's the beauty of the system.  Judges are suppose to be above reproach because they don't have to worry about pleasing people.  They are appointed to the highest court due to their prior records and their moral platform.  Think about it, would you even WANT a system that could pull a judge if he doesn't make the most popular decision?

 

The constitution protects individuals rights, not the majorities.  That is why the US is the oldest government out there (except maybe Iceland), it is because our founding father's built in a check and balance system.  It's not perfect, but it has worked better than anything else in the last 236 years.

[divemaster5734]

Sure they can be removed. But ask yourself, what is the chance of that?  Really, when you look over all the "bone head" decisions that have been made, and you look at how unpopular many of them have been, did anyone ever pull a judge?

 

That's the beauty of the system.  Judges are suppose to be above reproach because they don't have to worry about pleasing people.  They are appointed to the highest court due to their prior records and their moral platform.  Think about it, would you even WANT a system that could pull a judge if he doesn't make the most popular decision?

 

The constitution protects individuals rights, not the majorities.  That is why the US is the oldest government out there (except maybe Iceland), it is because our founding father's built in a check and balance system.  It's not perfect, but it has worked better than anything else in the last 236 years.

I agree with you that they should be allowed to make decisions without having to cater to popularity ratings.

However, they are sworn to uphold the constitution. 

When they cater to whatever the current administration's policies are, they are NOT doing their job.

I realize no one in DC is bothering to do their job, and I am not singling out the court alone, but when all they do is serve the two equally corrupted political parties, they are not doing their intended jobs, and need to be removed from the position.

While in reality they only have jurisdiction over government lands, and the authority stops at the end of the federal buildings parking lots, it is not their job to create policy, but to interpret constitutional intent.

 

In truth, nothing will ever be done about the collectivists that sit on the court until something is done about the other 535 corrupt morons that hold elected positions.

 

I only posted this as a reminder that the members are not untouchable, no matter what the media says.

 

When Kagan was appointed faux news made a big deal about her "permanent and lifetime" appointment. Complete bs and propaganda.

 

Almost as frustrating as the village idiot saying we are spreading democracy throughout the world.

 

I dream of the day the constitutional guidelines are actually followed, but with the recent  decision that o care was constitutional, we know we are have strayed for off course.

[Snowpickle]

That's kewl, I think we are pretty much on the same page.  Also, one bad apple won't really effect most decisions, as it takes a majority.  But you and I both know that the overall make up of the court waxes and wanes with who ever is in the white house when a slot opens.  So the pendlum is always going to swing too much to the left or the right at any one time, but hopefully overtime, it lands up somewhere in the middle, which is where most of us can live with.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Snowpickle

[DinarMillionaire]

Dive, all I could think while reading this was... John Roberts SCREWED America with his interpretation of Obamacare. The Obama lawyers were arguing it wasn't a tax and he alone turned it into a tax. He was either coerced, threatened or is a damn idiot. He should be impeached. He and he alone, fuked America. When he said "We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders," he puss'd out. Instead of one of the three branches of government holding the other to account, he says Obama was elected, he gets what he wants, unconstitutional or not. What a dumbass. He should be the second most hated man in America. IMHO.

[skitealwedrop]

Our Supream Court Justices are appointed and confirmed by our friends in DC (cough). Their appointment is politically driven. That's how DC operates. 

 

In a perfect world American's should be responsible for the Members of our highest Court and their seat on the bench. American's should elect them with term limits. Our Constitution doesn't allow that. I'm not a fan of our Supream Court, as some of you know.

 

Our Constitution needs to be amended.

[eaglefan]

Our constitution is just fine. It's when the liberals misinterpret the constitution that we have a problem.

[divemaster5734]

Dive, all I could think while reading this was... John Roberts SCREWED America with his interpretation of Obamacare. The Obama lawyers were arguing it wasn't a tax and he alone turned it into a tax. He was either coerced, threatened or is a damn idiot. He should be impeached. He and he alone, fuked America. When he said "We do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders," he puss'd out. Instead of one of the three branches of government holding the other to account, he says Obama was elected, he gets what he wants, unconstitutional or not. What a dumbass. He should be the second most hated man in America. IMHO.

 

I was pretty upset with the "decision" as well.

 

Then it occurred to me he was throwing down the gauntlet, and trying to hasten the inevitable showdown between "main street" Americans and our pathetic lack of representation.

Everyone knows it is just a matter of time until enough people are ready to finally stand up. The only question is how much will the oppressors be able to accomplish before the showdown, and will it be enough to officially destroy any opposition to the one world government controlled by the UN that is being positioned as we speak.

Soon, there will be no more sovereignty countries or governments, they will all be controlled and manipulated by global governing powers.

There have been plans for only four regions, and four different currencies, it has been in the execution phase for over a decade now.

Anyone from Texas can tell you about the trade highway, trucks from Mexico will soon be allowed to bypass the current "border", and the new border/customs control will be in Kansas City.

 

Oops, that's for another discussion.

 

As for Roberts, it was his only possible action in order to stay in good graces with the PTB.

maybe he thought America was actually ready to take action.

While I don't agree with his decision, what about Kagan? She was the solicitor general for o, and already had a proven bias. She should have recused herself, but didn't.

I consider what she did a grievous and heinous violation of her oath, and a declaration of malintent towards America, our laws, and  our founding principals.

 

One day there will be an event that will be the spark, hopefully that day is not too far off.

 

 

Our Supream Court Justices are appointed and confirmed by our friends in DC (cough). Their appointment is politically driven. That's how DC operates. 

 

In a perfect world American's should be responsible for the Members of our highest Court and their seat on the bench. American's should elect them with term limits. Our Constitution doesn't allow that. I'm not a fan of our Supream Court, as some of you know.

 

Our Constitution needs to be amended.

I agree with your criticism, however, the supreme court is only the 2nd most powerful court in the land.

The constitution does need to be amended, almost all since the 13th need to be thrown out, but if it isn't followed there is no reason to even bother.

 

I am a firm believer in term limits, and once those limits are reached, no other involvement is allowed, and no lobbyist's.

Edited March 30, 2013 by divemaster5734

[gymrat76541]

I will let you know what I think about:

"Impeaching Supreme Court Justices"

after they vote on SAME SEX MARRIAGE. They should uphold the laws of the land in accordance to ours and the Founding Father's beliefs.

 

I do not care if it is 2013 or 2113. I do not care if 51% or 99% believe that it should be allowed. It goes against the Bible and Nature.

[dinar_stud]

I will let you know what I think about:

"Impeaching Supreme Court Justices"

after they vote on SAME SEX MARRIAGE. They should uphold the laws of the land in accordance to ours and the Founding Father's beliefs.

 

I do not care if it is 2013 or 2113. I do not care if 51% or 99% believe that it should be allowed. It goes against the Bible and Nature.

 

And yet as a secular nation, our laws are not based on the bible, the are based on common law. you have your beliefs but thats where they stay, The separation of church and state make sure your biblical beliefs cannot affect the law.

Edited March 30, 2013 by dinar_stud

[divemaster5734]

I will let you know what I think about:

"Impeaching Supreme Court Justices"

after they vote on SAME SEX MARRIAGE. They should uphold the laws of the land in accordance to ours and the Founding Father's beliefs.

 

I do not care if it is 2013 or 2113. I do not care if 51% or 99% believe that it should be allowed. It goes against the Bible and Nature.

 

 

And yet as a secular nation, our laws are not based on the bible, the are based on common law. you have your beliefs but thats where they stay, The separation of church and state make sure your biblical beliefs cannot affect the law.

 

 

I am Christian, and share gym's opinion that only heterosexual marriage is supported in the Bible.

 

I also believe our Bill of Rights are based on  Biblical teachings.

 

That being said, dinar is correct, if you focus solely on the intent of the framers, at the core, our constitution, including the original 10 amendments, leaves no doubt we as individual humans have the free will to make our own life choices.

 

As a Christian, I must accept that if God gave each human the ability to not just reject Him, but to "control" their own destiny.

 

A civil union between same sex partners should have all the far reaching benefits as a traditional marriage. If it were, there would not be assault on Christians for g ay marriage.

 

I find it insanely ironic and hypocritical that while progressives understand the constitution well enough to be able to argue for equal treatment based on that document, but theey become brain dead when trying to force feed unconstitutional socialism down on us at the same time.

 

it's like o stopping the free white house tours due to budget cutbacks while at the same time Kerry is giving away almost a BILLION dollars to people that want America gone.

 

If God gave everyone free will, and tells me not to judge, who am I to tell Him no freaking way, I'm only going to let people do what I THINK they SHOULD do. That's pretty hypocritical as well.

 

If I believe my Bible, then I should understand God alone has the authority to judge, and every human WILL be judged.

 

Even though just the thought of g ay marriage is very unnatural, as a nation of people with individual freedom they need to be allowed to follow their own direction, as long as they do not infringe on my right to be.

 

There has to be an acceptance from both sides and it has to be universal freedom, not just when it happens to benefit a small special interest.

Edited March 30, 2013 by divemaster5734

[yota691]

And yet as a secular nation, our laws are not based on the bible, the are based on common law. you have your beliefs but thats where they stay, The separation of church and state make sure your biblical beliefs cannot affect the law.

When the times comes your going to have a Problem explaining that one to God..Good Luck with that one of the Flesh...

Edited March 30, 2013 by yota691

[Heavyduty053]

The Congress, the UN and all the heads in this part of our world that are trying and have accomplished the take over of American spirit, our freedoms that offend, and the need to decide for ourselves because they think we are stupid are getting into position to control America, its people and its willingness to offer a defense against their senseless greed and arrogant ways for control. It is already being seen across America people will fill the pages of Yahoo, Facebook and Twitter with complaints, gripes, worries and then do nothing to stop it. I guess griping about somehow lessons their thoughts about it. All the while America is sinking, people is settling into a do nothing spirit and the powers that be is killing the United States people's spirit the right the wrongs anymore.

[Kaduku]

The problem was NEVER our Constitution nor the Bill of Rights!  the problems lies when there are corrupted parties either Republicans/Demon-crats, and Liberals who's only desire is to CHANGE what has been on the writings of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to suit their partys needs either to destroy it and/or ban certain parts of it in order to meet their agendas. Right NOW the Demon-crats/Liberals are doing JUST THAT...destroying/radical changes of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights to suit their Progressive/Communist agendas, which is to DISARM AMERICANS, TAKE AWAY THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND BAN THE 10th AMENDMENTS OF EACH STATES RIGHTS.

 

Obama's administration and corrupted politicians agendas are to dismantle America from within, become a DICTATOR (like the Nazi's etc...) a run America in a SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST REPUBLIC!

[KiaKaha]

And yet as a secular nation, our laws are not based on the bible, the are based on common law. you have your beliefs but thats where they stay, The separation of church and state make sure your biblical beliefs cannot affect the law.

 

ACTUALLY, Stud... if you read the laws of the Bible, you will see common law is based upon those. Obviously not things like Keep the Sabbath day holy... but just looking at the 10 commandments, don't steal, don't lie (perjury), don't commit adultery (unfortunately not prosecuted but a law none the less) just to name a few.

 

As far as separation of church and state, that is a misconception. The founders said that no religion would be set as the state religion... we aren't forced to follow one church, faith or belief system. We have a choice. Freedom to choose because there is no federal mandate establishing one way as the only way.

 

There, don't you feel better now that you've had that little bit of confusion cleared up for you?

 

Respectfully,

 

KK

[dinar_stud]

ACTUALLY, Stud... if you read the laws of the Bible, you will see common law is based upon those. Obviously not things like Keep the Sabbath day holy... but just looking at the 10 commandments, don't steal, don't lie (perjury), don't commit adultery (unfortunately not prosecuted but a law none the less) just to name a few.

 

As far as separation of church and state, that is a misconception. The founders said that no religion would be set as the state religion... we aren't forced to follow one church, faith or belief system. We have a choice. Freedom to choose because there is no federal mandate establishing one way as the only way.

 

There, don't you feel better now that you've had that little bit of confusion cleared up for you?

 

Respectfully,

 

KK

 

Actually kiakaha if you read history and of civilizations before isreal, you wioll see how wrong you are. There are tabets dating before the bible.

 

Also the constitution was based on English Common law, ad english Common law did not come from the bible. 

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” 

― Thomas Jefferson

 

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” 

― James Madison

 As you see our founding fathers did not want what happened in Europe and specially the UK, where religion was the law and the government was based on religion. 

 

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” 

― John Adams

How much more clearly the a founding father and the 2nd president of our nation, which was ratified by the whole senate in the Treaty of Tripoli.

 

We are not a christian nation, we are a nation that has christians.

When the times comes your going to have a Problem explaining that one to God..Good Luck with that one of the Flesh...

 

I am not afraid of the christian boogiemen, If you do not like the truth it is not my fault, but it does not chage that we are not a christian nation, nor does it invaluidate that our constitution was not based on the bible.

[dinar_stud]

"I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length,...that Christianity is part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is inconrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed...What a conspiracy this, between Church and State. Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all. Sing Tantarara, rogues all!" 

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Major John Cartwright, 6/5/1824

 

"Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland's question why the Ten Commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England we may say they are not because the never were." 

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

[DinarMillionaire]

A lesson on Religion in the history of the Founding fathers and America, from a Capital tour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E&sns=em

[Snowpickle]

Ah guys, we are getting just a tad off track aren't we? Dives' posting doesn't go into the religious aspects, so why do we even have to go there?  I like Ski's idea of term limits for everyone..why oh why do we have term limits on the executive branch but not the other two?

[dinar_stud]

Supreme Court Justice Brewer published a book in 1905 titled The United States: A Christian Nation. In it he wrote:

But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] 

Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

[yota691]

And yet as a secular nation, our laws are not based on the bible, the are based on common law. you have your beliefs but thats where they stay, The separation of church and state make sure your biblical beliefs cannot affect the law.

I got to thinking about comment an how wrong you are...Our Founding Father's built America from God Commandments..as you state Biblical Beliefs cannot effect law, well then I guess it is ok to throw these laws away...Thou shall not Kill, Thou shall not Steal, Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not bear false witness... (especially in a court room)...let me guess your response.. It based on common law.. In which if you could please tell me the Origination of these Common Law's... 

Edited March 31, 2013 by yota691