Impeach Kennedy for Being Supremacist Judge?Or Just Kill Him

Alternatively, folks who feel a bit out of sorts on all this can assist with contributions to my new project...

"END TIMES! - The Musical"

Donations (cash only please) will be gratefully received and put to the valuable purpose of making Armageddon one hot toe-tapper.

0 Replies

Sounds like a real money maker, Blatham. If you do it, please recognize and soothe your conscience with the knowledge that you will not be the only fly on the back of the lamb of god.

hehe

0 Replies

We're not going to recognize this country after Bush finishes three more years in the white house. The country has been forever changed. I'm glad I'm no longer a young man looking at my future in this country.

0 Replies

Where are the usual oppositionists? I expected some sort of claim of "conspiracy theory" by now. Are they reading along? Do they also see that perhaps this has gone too far?

0 Replies

Just reviewed the last six pages - nary a dissenting view or contrary opinion. Quite an impressive mutual reassurance thing you all have going here.

I do believe one could well make a case for the impeachment for a Supreme Court judge who openly refers to the laws of other countries and his concept of the prevailing tendency of the international community in striking down the duly enacted laws of a state on a criminal matter. Te provenence of this court is the laws of the United States, the treaties we have signed and ratified, and, of course, the constitution - and nothing else, certainly not the law of other countries.

I suspect the Congress would be extremely reluctant to take such a step. However, the continued ursurpation of legislative power by judges could readily overcome this reluctance.

I would start with Kennedy and Gunsberg, then move on th the Ninth Federal Circuit.

0 Replies

And let's thank georgeob1, the usual oppositionist, for chiming in finally at, what is it now, page 9? Let's give him a hand, ladies and gentlemen...

Congratulations!!

Is it just me, or are some of these arguments coming fron the neocons sounding more convoluted and ambivalent regarding the U.S. Constitution? Many of these neoconservatives were shot down a notch after the Terri Shiavo political orgy backfired for them in ways we have yet to see. It would seem to make sense that this extremist maneuver towards the courts is strategically planned and pre-ordained by the Republican Party, with Tom DeLay leading their way into the judicial abyss.

As we can see, georgeob1 is already anxious to get rid of Kennedy and Gunsberg.

I wonder how much more "continued ursurpation of legislative power" judges would need to commit in order to justify Congressional retribution?

Do we look at every feeding tube case in the country? Do we get them on all television and use them all for politcal pandering of a party's base? If somehow "enough" judges decided to rule in favor of patient's/spouse's right to termination, would that be enough to set Tom DeLay off into a neochristian frenzy? How many similar rulings would it take?

Hell, the neochristians could turn this into a Fox television show. As most news shows are nothing but entertainment these days, nobody would know the difference...

0 Replies

Georgeob1-I do not agree that the solution to the problem of the usurpation of legislative power by judges should be in the hands of Congress. It well may be that some do believe that such "usurpation" has occured. However, I remember the furor that took place when the extreme left excoriated the US Supreme Court for its decision( which I totally agreed with in the Gore Vs. Bush case after the 2000 election.

Judge Richard Posner, in his book "Breaking the Deadlock" characterized the decision thusly:
"Bush vs. Gore is an activist decision. It forges new doctrinal ground...The five most conservative Justices gave an expansive reading to the equal protection clause"

Then, the left was enraged.

I think that most court watchers would agree that the next three years will bring a large number of additions to the courts-District, Appealate and Supreme- which will be nominees who tend toward conservatism rather than liberalism. It is for that reason that I feel that the criticism of Judges like Kennedy may indeed be justified but should not lead to any legislation which would blunt the power and independence of the judiciary.

I will predict that those who, at this time, are decrying the "attacks" on Kennedy, will be in the forefront attempting to destroy the persons nominated by President Bush to the Appealate Court or Supreme Court. They tried to do it to Judge Clarence Thomas. They will do it again.

0 Replies

This gets better and better. Georgoeb is now talking about "usurpation of legislative power by judges" when the original topic was a possibly criminal attack on judicial independence by Congressmen and other reactionary elements in the government. I fail to see where the judiciary has usurped any power whatever. Judges are not ambulance-chasing lawyers who snuffle around, loking for cases to rule on so that they can "usurp" some legilsative power. They merely rule on cases brought to them. It is the job of an independent and impartial judiciary to curb and to rein in some of the more out-of-control actions of the legislative branch, among other things. With the current trend to confer more and more power to the executive branch, we are forgetting the whole notion of checks and balances. Congress passes laws. They do not go into effect without the President's signature. Then they may be challenged in a court of law and, in the end, the Supreme Court may rule on the constitutionality of such laws. This what judges are paid to do. In what sense is this a "usurpation" of legislative prerogatives?

0 Replies

Merry,
"They merely rule on cases brought to them."

Unless you are talking about the Mass Supreme Court. Remember ,they told the state legislature what law to write and how to write it.
That was a gross usurpation of power,dont you think.

0 Replies

Well, I'll confess to not knowing the "original intent" of this thread - I only read six or so pages of your mutual reassurance and clucking about radical right wing zealots,etc. That was enough to slake my appetite.

The three branches of our government are purposefully designed to check the excesses of the other. Presidents can veto the enactments of Congress; The Supreme Court can overturn or limit the application of laws that are found to violate the constitution; and Congress has the power of impeachment of Presidents and Judges.

If one believes that serious usurpation has been done by the Court then Congressional action is indeed appropriate, whether Chickzaria believes it or not.

While judges can rule only on the cases brought before them, just as Merry Andrew says, it is certainly possible for them to overreach their constituted authority in doing so.

I readily agree that where one stands on such matters often depends on where one sits. For example Republicans declared that the Florida Supreme Court overreached its authority in a critical ruling after the 2000 election that went against Bush, while Democrats made similar declarations about the Federal Supreme Court when it ruled against Gore.

I offered an example of judicial overreach which is neither Republican nor Democrat. Justice Kennedy overturned as unconstitutional a state law, acknowledging that he used his perception of the central tendency of the laws of other nations - and not the constitution itself - in making this finding. If that is not a case of judicial legislation from the bench, then pigs can fly.

0 Replies

There is a sophisticated constitutional debate in progress regarding what lattitude the SC ought to have as regards applying the constitution in the context of a world much different than the one that the framers knew of or could have conceived.

But what george is totally avoiding here (being a bit of an intellectual coward today) is how destructive and divisive, indeed how insane, are the ideas and comments of the religious right (particularly, though not exclusively) quoted in the various posts above.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

There is a sophisticated constitutional debate in progress regarding what lattitude the SC ought to have as regards applying the constitution in the context of a world much different than the one that the framers knew of or could have conceived.

But what george is totally avoiding here (being a bit of an intellectual coward today) is how destructive and divisive, indeed how insane, are the ideas and comments of the religious right (particularly, though not exclusively) quoted in the various posts above.

Interesting rhetorical arabesque. The issue is the obviously wrongful use of extra-constitutional references in denying the 'constitutionality' of a duly enacted state law, in place and enforced for many years, by an activist judge. Blatham merely changes the subject.

Apparently I haven't yet reacched a sufficiently high level of sophistication to participate fully in the intellectual debate here. I suspect the air is too thin up there and it has disturbed Blatham's equilibrium. Besides after a brief review of the preceeding pages, I find damn little that is either sophisticated or intelligent.

What has any of this to due with the imagined vices of the "religious right"???

0 Replies

george writes:

Quote:

I offered an example of judicial overreach which is neither Republican nor Democrat. Justice Kennedy overturned as unconstitutional a state law, acknowledging that he used his perception of the central tendency of the laws of other nations - and not the constitution itself - in making this finding. If that is not a case of judicial legislation from the bench, then pigs can fly.

I will have to watch out for flying pigs today.

george, your misrepresentation of the ruling doesn't make it fact. The ruling relied on Constitution but used international laws to help verify the decision was correct.

Congress can not impeach judges just because they disagree with a ruling. Judges "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Judges hold their office "during good behaviour". It is not bad conduct by a judge if you or congress disagrees with a ruling or even if you disagree with the logic used in the ruling. The historical standard for bad conduct has been illegal activity. A Judge performing his duty, ruling on a case and writing an opinion on that case is hardly bad conduct. I challenge you to find the criminal activity involved in Kennedy's ruling.

The constitutional remedy to a ruling about the constitution that you don't like is to amend the constitution. The remedy is NOT to impeach judges.

For a reasoned argument about why the judges MUST be independent and not subject to the whims of Congress I would suggest you read Federalist 78.

0 Replies

Sophistry. The argument that Justice Kennedy offered in declaring the death penalty for crimes committed by minors "cruel and unusual" could be used, without modification, to strike down the death penalty in every state and for the federal Government. If that is not legislating from the bench, then what is?

No constitutional amendment is indicated here. The widespread applicability of the death penalty in the 18th and 19th centuries here makes quite clear the original intent of the framers of the constitution with respect to this issue. Moreover the issue here - punishment for criminal offenses- is clearly within the constitutional purview of the several states. Legislatures are clearly more able to speak for the prevailing standards of the community than judges, and the constitutional argument used by Kennedy was both contrived and based on explicit reference to extra-constitutional factors -- a judicial action clearly beyond his authority.

Ultimately Congress is the judge of what constitutes an impeachable offense. While I agree the Congress will appropriately exercise judicious caution in exercising this power, it is entirely appropriate for the offense. Your suggestion that an amendment to the constitution is needed to restore the undeniable intent of its framers is itself quite remarkable.

0 Replies

"Sophistry" and "rhetorical arabeques"...you'd think george was writing a Hollywood screenplay set in an 1850 courtoom.

Neither you nor I george are clear enough on the rich and nuanced constitutional arguments advanced on this matter to deem ourselves much worth of helpful contribution. There's nothing easier to come by than difficult questions with their simple answers.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
There is a sophisticated constitutional debate in progress regarding what lattitude the SC ought to have as regards applying the constitution in the context of a world much different than the one that the framers knew of or could have conceived.

But what george is totally avoiding here (being a bit of an intellectual coward today) is how destructive and divisive, indeed how insane, are the ideas and comments of the religious right (particularly, though not exclusively) quoted in the various posts above.

Interesting rhetorical arabesque. The issue is the obviously wrongful use of extra-constitutional references in denying the 'constitutionality' of a duly enacted state law, in place and enforced for many years, by an activist judge. Blatham merely changes the subject.

Apparently I haven't yet reacched a sufficiently high level of sophistication to participate fully in the intellectual debate here. I suspect the air is too thin up there and it has disturbed Blatham's equilibrium. Besides after a brief review of the preceeding pages, I find damn little that is either sophisticated or intelligent.

What has any of this to due with the imagined vices of the "religious right"???

george,

You admitted you didn't know the original purpose of this thread. Please read the initial post and then come talk to us about that.

Thank you.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

"Sophistry" and "rhetorical arabeques"...you'd think george was writing a Hollywood screenplay set in an 1850 courtoom.

Neither you nor I george are clear enough on the rich and nuanced constitutional arguments advanced on this matter to deem ourselves much worth of helpful contribution. There's nothing easier to come by than difficult questions with their simple answers.

I was hoping you'd explain what those words mean. I can't remember how they're spelled long enough to look them up.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

"Sophistry" and "rhetorical arabeques"...you'd think george was writing a Hollywood screenplay set in an 1850 courtoom.

I thought they were pretty good too.

Quote:

Neither you nor I george are clear enough on the rich and nuanced constitutional arguments advanced on this matter to deem ourselves much worth of helpful contribution. There's nothing easier to come by than difficult questions with their simple answers.

Speak for yourself. (However, I generally try to avoid being "rich and nuanced" in both my thought processes and my words. My experience has been that, more often than not, this is a euphimism offered in defense of meaningless bullshit.)

Lola,

The last six pages were all I could stand. However, if you want to reject and exile me, I will go.

0 Replies

george

When you can write me 500 compelling words on how Dworkin has it wrong and when I can write a compelling arguent of equal size on how Scalia has it wrong, then I'll consider you and I to be doing something other than talking through our fat (your case) or pert (my case) asses.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

The point was that our laws were not created independent of the world and have a long history of world influence.

The Supreme Court did not rely on laws of other countries to make their decision, but rather to confirm that, having looked at what was taking place in other countries, their decision was correct.

Quote:
Citing the Court's 2002 ruling that outlawed the execution of mentally retarded murderers, Justice Kennedy first wrote that death penalty law and the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution require the Justices to evaluate "society's evolving standards of decency" in order to ensure that punishments are not excessive. The court must look for a national consensus on those standards of decency and then "determine, in the exercise of our own independent judgment, whether the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for juveniles."

The majority first found that there was a "telling" national consensus against the execution of juvenile murderers; a trend "similar, and in some respects parallel" to the consensus the Court found in 2002 to outlaw the execution of mentally retarded murderers.

Since 1989, when the Court last looked at juveniles and the death penalty, five states have specifically precluded capital punishment for juvenile offenders. No states have added juveniles within the class of capital defendants eligible for the death penalty. Moreover, Justice Kennedy found, even those states that technically permit the practice have shied away from executing murderers who were 16 or 17 when they killed.

The majority ruling next offered a rationale for treating 16- and 17-year-old offenders differently from adults. Citing studies and what "any parent knows," Justice Kennedy noted that juveniles are comparatively immature and irresponsible compared with adults and thus prone to "reckless behavior" and "negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure."

Moreover, relying on another study, Kennedy wrote that "the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult." These factual underpinnings led the majority to conclude that "from a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed."

Furthermore, Kennedy continued, "whether viewed as an attempt to express the community's moral outrage or as an attempt to right the balance for the wrong to the victim, the case for retribution is not as strong with a minor as with an adult. Retribution is not proportional if the law's most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of youth and immaturity." Especially for a young person, he added, a life sentence without the possibility of parole "is itself a severe sanction."

Finally, and perhaps most controversially for the legal isolationists among us, the majority acknowledged the impact that foreign law has on the debate. "The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty," Justice Kennedy wrote. "This reality does not become controlling...but the Court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of" the Eighth Amendment." In this case, he added, "the opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our conclusions."

SOURCE

This, george is why the case does not represent "legislating from the bench." If you can't stand to begin at the beginning can you comment on this article? Or will you simply run away and claim you've been rejected and exiled?

0 Replies

Impeach Kennedy for Being Supremacist Judge?Or Just Kill Him

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know