Impeachment proceedings against the five Supreme Court Justices?

[shance]

Who continue to strip away our civil liberties and basic rights as American citizens.

I believe the most important and questionable act they took liberties on was literally grabbing power in 2001 and appointing our current president.

If anyone(s) is responsible for these past three and a half years of assaults on Civil Liberties and Democracy in general, I believe it would be these five Justices. Their immoral leadership insults Democracy every single day that they are allowed to continue to govern.

I know there was at one point interest in this topic. No better time than the present.

[rumguy]

1. that would be such an uphill battle

is it even possible?

[aquart]

3. Possible? Or good clean fun?

The lawschools should make this a term project.

[shance]

6. ANYTHING worth anything is an uphill battle Rummie.....

Thats just the way it is mi amigo.

You bet its possible.

If people are abusing their jobs, and that includes our Supreme Court justices, you fire them.

We forget all too easily that we are their employers. Same goes for essentially all Government positions.

We think they are bigger than we are and they arent.

They are just as human and as apt to be fired as we are. It may take more man power, but its legal and its the way you fire Supreme Court justices.

But they are abusing our rights and its gone too far in a Democratic/Republic society. They are abusing their power and they need to go.

[Lindsey]

2. I absolutely agree with you. You MUST read a book called

"The Betrayal of America" by Vincent Bugliosly(? sp.). He's the D.A. who handled the Charles Manson case. The book was originally an essay written for The Nation magazine just after the election. IT IS A MUST READ. If you can't find the book - see if you can special order it.

[theivoryqueen]

45. if it's the one I'm thinking of - so true

he wrote about how the Gore caompaigne kinda bungled teh lawsuits and in the end the supreme court erroneously decided to cut short the time for the recount? Very interesting read./

[Cleita]

4. Well, I always thought they should have been brought up on

charges of treason. Why? Because their actions have not been within the outlines of the Constitution, which they are sworn to interpret and uphold. They seem to not care what their primary function is.

[shance]

14. Thanks Cleita** That must be what Bugliosi wrote about in his book.

That makes sense.

Their legal response(s), namely in 2001 have taken great liberties and have gone outside the perimeters of the Constitution.

[Baltimoreboy]

15. Your own post said "interpret"

That's what they are doing. We just don't like how they are doing it.

[shance]

18. Interpretation and using ones elected position to go outside the bounds

of the Constitution are two totally different enchiladas in my book.

I used the term impeachment assuming that would be the correct procedure. I dont know what is exactly, nor am I an attorney.

Just asking questions Baltimore*

:)

[Cleita]

25. Interpret and ignore are two different words with two different

meanings. In the selection of 2000, the U. S. Supreme Court interfered with a state's supreme court, Florida's, by overstepping their jurisdiction. Now I am not a legal eagle either, but others more qualified than I have said so.

[olddem43]

5. There will be no impeachments

as long as the Repugs control congress.

[shance]

7. Really? Wasnt it the Republicans who brought Nixon down?

I need to say it really is no surprise that we are in the situation we are in with attitudes like this. That there is NO WAY because the Republicans tell us NO.

What kind of omnipotent power do you give them? Yes you are right, THEY are in power. Do we close up shop?

Forgive me. I get pretty drained by defeatist/march in lockstep mentalities.

They get us nowhere except further towards fascism.

[olddem43]

9. I believe the congress was Dem controlled then

The house Judiciary committee voted 3 bills of impeachment but the full house had not voted on them before he resigned. Therefore, he was never technically impeached. It was Goldwater who told him that it was time to go, that he couldn't even hold the 34 Senate votes needed to prevent conviction upon being impeached.

[Dookus]

11. correct

but Nixon lost the support of his fellow Republicans. He was going to be impeached, and likely convicted.

[freetobegay]

8. It's their job to interpret.

I don't like how they are doing it, but it's not impeachable yet.

[Dookus]

10. correct

I disagree vehemently with them, but impeachment of justices is not something we should pursue.

There are five justices who uphold Roe v. Wade. Should they be impeached because a lot of people think they're out of line?

Believe me, if impeaching justices was a good way to go, liberals would be on the losing end of the war.

[shance]

12. When does interpretation become exploitation and/or abuse of power?

It is their job to interpret, however, unless you are an attorney who who can define what would be qualified as an impeachable offense for Supreme Court justices, I would hold off from declaring an absolute.

I would be interested if there is an attorney hanging around*, to answer what would define an impeachable offense.

[freetobegay]

13. I suggest you read article III of the U.S. Constitution

I am no Lawyer, But I was able to understand it.

[shance]

16. Thank you I will.

Perhaps its not impeachment, however, one thing that cannot be neither denied or ignored is the five Supreme Court Justices used and exploited their position and power to overstep the boundaries of the Constitution, with specific reference to the 2000 Election.

[Jose Diablo]

43. I didn't think the Federal Judiciary had a constitutional mandate

to rule on any election. The rules for recounting votes are pretty well defined. If a election is contested, the votes are recounted. Whats to interpret? Besides that, voting is handled at the state level, under that juridiction.

The Federal Judiciary can rule in the case of a state denial of voting rights, but determining process, I don't know where in the constitution they obtained this right. The SCOTUS should never agreed to hear the case.

What the SCOTUS did was stop a recount, thus giving the election to Bu$h. This coupled with the storming of the ballot counting room by republican 'brown shits' and disenfranching black electors is what gave Bu$h the election.

Those 'brown shirts' should have been arrested by the Florida State Troopers. Why weren't they? That's a question for the executive in Florida to own. Jeb should have been yanked from office just on this point alone.

Add in the 'Jim Crow' disenfranchment with the voter purge of 'felons', well they all belong in jail.

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

41. Here I thought

their job was to determine the constitutionality of laws/lower court rulings they are presented (they get to decide what they will hear or not btw).

[shance]

42. Thanks****

How quickly I accept answers like *intepreting law* as fact.

Thanks for clarifying.

[stavka]

17. Childish...and against the constitution. Your rem'br Constitution?

[Zorra]

22. Yuh. We remember the constitution. It was the document that

protected our liberty and democracy before these 5 corrupt justices shredded it.

[shance]

24. LOL!

You are one funny Zorra***

[Lindacooks]

19. My husband once talked about this with Paul Wellstone

about a month before Wellstone was killed. Senator Wellstone thought it was a good idea, but didn't commit himself to it.

[Zorra]

20. If these Supreme Court Justices had been around during Jefferson's

presidency, the people would have tarred and feathered them. They might have been hung as traitors.

Impeachment would be charitable for these slime bags. I'm feeling charitable, let's impeach them.

[merh]

21. That is why this election is SSSOOOOOOO important!

Whoever wins in 2004 will, more likely than not, have the opportunity to appoint 3 justices to the Supreme Court. It is bad enough, but just imagine how bad it will be if 3 neo-cons are appointed. Don't loss sight of the goal. Rid our nation of the evil that is, then we can begin to rebuild. (IMHO)

[shance]

23. That is why accountability and a termination of employment policy*

are imperitive when appointing life-time (and life-changing) appointments like Supreme Court Justices.

They should be AS impeachable or replace-able in my opinion as any other governing official.

I am becoming more and more a proponent of term limits for all governing officials.

Historically, government positions were not supposed to be life time employment, and look at the level of sloth and backroom dealing and essentially whoring going on because of all the back-slapping bidness being done in D.C.

So think of some solutions. If there are changes to be made, then we need to change them. Give them 8 years like the president, or twelve.

What I think we are witnessing is an end result of abuse that stems from lack of consequential action/accountability from ideologues obtaining a lifetime term on the bench.

And, as we have experienced theres no way to fully ban ideologues from the bench.

[merh]

26. In college I had a political science professor that suggested that . . .

a lottery of our SS# be used to fill the vacancies in office. Spin the big basket and the 1st name out is prez, 2nd vp and so on and so on until all posts are filled. Each serves for 4 years and at the end of the 4 years, spin the basket again and refill the seats.
He insisted that was the only way to make citizens pay attention to their government and to cut out the abuses of office.

Of course at that time I thought he was kooky, I was naive and believed in the checks and balance systems of our government and the "goodness" of most members of the human race.

In hindsight, he may have been on to something and we may want to consider it. It's as good as any I have heard and better than what we have now. :think:

[shance]

28. There you have it.

another suggestion to put in the kitty.

Ive always liked the lottery.

:)

[merh]

30. No powerball though, the whole lottery concept is to deminish political

power. No special bonuses, extension of terms. Simple 4 years and you are out of there.
(edited because I cannot spell ;-))

[Wapsie B]

31. Might be the only way

to give the government back to the people. By removing the power brokers that run politics even on the local level we might have a chance to save this country. But on second thought if we had a lottery we could end up with a complete imbecile in the WH and make us the laughing stock of the world.

:evilgrin:

[merh]

32. You're right, he/she might show up what we have now!

:smoke:

[shance]

35. What about Dodgeball?

:)

[UTUSN]

27. Oh. Thought You Were Serious. (That It Was Happening.) n/t

[MUSTANG_2004]

29. Be fair

It was the liberal justices who said that the execrable McCain-Feingold was constitutional. Scalia wrote a vociferous dissent. Of all the things Bush has done that bother me, signing that was the worst.

It's hard to believe that in the United States it is now prohibited for Planned Parenthood or the NRA to buy a tv ad before an election that mentions a candidates position on the issues.

[shance]

33. I might agree with you on McCain-Feingold, if I knew enough there,

however,

What does that have to do with the 2000 election and our Civil Liberties, and basic rights as citizens of this nation?

Isnt it the responsibility of the Supreme Court to uphold, defend and protect the citizens of this country as well as the Constitution?

Interpretation is being taken VERY loosely by certain Justices who are taking great liberties and do not seem to be following the boundaries within the Constitution when it doesnt suit them, especially when it comes to our privacy rights as citizens and when it comes to fair and LEGAL election proceedings. It seems they use the Constitution when it fits into their agenda to create laws that fit their ideological agenda.

What amazes me and contradicts the very origin of their job as Court Justices is

Our rights as American citizens are not being protected, or even valued, our rights and liberties are being jeopardized by our own Supreme Court, the five justices actions and many of their pivotal rulings.

[shance]

34. And excuse me, but be FAIR? How fair were these five Justices

when they called the election?

[MUSTANG_2004]

49. Sure, that was bad.

But upholding McCain-Feingold was worse. Before getting rid of Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas for violating your rights, read their dissents to McCain Feingold:

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/fec/mcconnellfec121003opn.pdf

Congress, Bush, and the Supreme Court basically made pre-election television advertising illegal except by the candidates and the parties.

[immoderate]

36. Unfortunately,

they are allowed to interpret the Constitution badly. To 'peach a justice you have do catch them taking a bribe or something like that. Their political crimes are too subtle to be impeachable.

--IMM

[shance]

38. Are you qualified enough to give an accurate answer on how to impeach a

Justice?

I ask that because we often like to offer suggestions as to why something cant be done instead of looking at options of what can be done, especially when our Democracy is essentially on the line.

Dont think this is a time to just sigh and throw the hands up.

[Swamp Rat]

37. I was told no impeachments are possible

When I spoke with ACLU President Nadine Strossen a couple of years ago I asked her if there was any way of getting rid of Antonin Scalia, as I was (and still am) concerned about the separation of church and state. She answered by asking me if I "knew of any high crimes and misdemeanors." According to Strossen, they are there for life unless we can find some dirt on 'em.

I'm curious as to what Cheney and Scalia talked about when they came here to Louisiana to go "duck hunting." They've also gone on a few dinner dates together as well. I wonder if a fly on the wall will give us the buzz someday...

[shance]

39. This is all interesting. What Im hearing is our checks and balances are

not really checks and balances?

Especially when it comes to accountability regarding Supreme Court Justices?

Its certainly not Democratic or the checks and balances weve been taught to believe.

[Swamp Rat]

44. Yep

It does seem that the concept of "checks and balances" is not in use at this time by those that pretend to represent us. And your point about term limitations won't fall on deaf ears here - I fear Scalia's American Theocracy among other things.

By the way, I just heard Scot Ritter say, on Mike Webb's show, that we're in a "national nightmare." I couldn't agree more.

[Guaranteed]

50. No, that IS a "check and balance"

Judges are supposed to be especially protected from Congress and the executive branch because they have so few checks on those two branches of their own....

They're supposed to have the ability to judge and interpret independently. If they aren't sufficiently protected, they won't be able to do that.

[zmdem]

40. Not a good idea

Impeachment is a political process. Even if you could get 50% +1 in the house, there is no way you would get the required 2/3 of the senate that is required for removal. It would be a pointless exercise in wasting time.

The House Republicans made this mistake in President Clinton's case. Even if one believed Clinton had committed an impeachable offense, it was irresponsible to prefer the articles when there was no chance of the senate convicting. In the end, the House Republicans were made to look foolish. It would be the same re: the Democrats and the impeachment trials of SCOTUS justices.

[Senior citizen]

46. Nonsense. Times change and pols follow the wind.

I believe the basis for selecting the chimp that SCOTUS gave was his legitimacy as (p)resident. Once he is convicted of war crimes, the 5 who found him legitimate will be ousted. And it will serve as a warning to future SCOTUS justices that decisions must either follow precedent, set precedent, or at the very least have sound, logical reasoning behind them. The legitimacy of an officeholder who didn't have the office at the time they wrote the decision, is not something that existed at the time, and therefore not worthy of protection without some other reasoning behind it. Their other reasoning contradicted everything they had ever written, said, or ruled with regard to civil rights, which is why they insisted it not set a precedent. New precedents require careful reasoning, otherwise you just follow the old ones to be safe. If you can't do either, you don't interfere, certainly not in a way that appears to be biased and politically partisan. After all, Gore wasn't President yet either--why weren't they concerned about protecting HIS legitimacy as President--particularly since the votes in Florida hadn't been counted, and he had a majority everywhere else.

I predict that the gang of five WILL be impeached.

[shance]

47. Theres the spirit of Patriotism and Democracy talking.

I dont like the fact that we are being forced to look at the issue of impeachment,

HOWEVER,

these people have consistently been using their power to push their ideological, anti-Democratic agenda and its time for them to move on.

[dusty64]

48. scalia would make the

best target. A completely unqualified extremist with a long trail of corruption and conflicts of interest, just turn over a few rocks and see what you would find.