Fire four judges to save the Constitution

[glockmail]

With regards to the recent Supreme Court decision that ObamaCare is constitutional, Roberts was wrong, along with the other four judges. Impeachment isn't used often enough in my opinion. The legislative branches simply lack the balls to fire people who need to be fired.

Perhaps President Romney should reverse the decision of the liberal god, FDR, who stacked the Court with liberals who rubber-stamped his blatantly unconstitutional policies and created the "precedent" that judges now use to justify shitting all over the Constitution. I'd like to see President Romney simply fire the four most liberal judges and return the court to five members.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Supreme Court justices have a lifetime appointment unless they commit an impeachable offense. Justices can be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate if they commit "high crimes and misdemeanors," which include crimes, unethical behavior, actions damaging to the government, etc. If found guilty, the justice will be removed from office. They cannot be removed on any other grounds, including incompetency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As was noted by glockmail on another thread about how we should fire 4 of the Supreme Court Justices I decided to check on how Supreme court Justices can be removed from thier position which is normally a lifetime appointment.
Recently the decision to hear the Constitutionality of obama's healthcare law case was based on a premise allowing it to be adjucated by the Supreme Court and then later that very premise was conveniently overturned by the judges that ruled in its favor just previously in order to be able to to find in the governments favor(by now ruling it a tax) when deciding the case. Ruled not a tax in order to hear the case then later a tax in order to uphold the law! Judge Roberts also flipped his stand to do just that. In my opinion that clearly points to his highly "unethical behaviour" . Judge Kagan refused to recuse herself from the case which was again quite clearly "unethical behaviour" since she was instrumental in advising obama during its creation and passing!
As noted previously, "unethical behvaiour is legal grounds for removal of a justice.
We have that by at least two justices but I maintain that its possibly by more than that. Those two that I cited are clearly guilty IMHO.-Tyr

[glockmail]

Actually the Constitution allows the legislator to impeach them simply for bad behavior. It is a much lower standard than "high crimes and misdemeanors" and should therefore be used much more often. But the legislature has historically lacked the balls to remove judges, and in return judges have given them free reign to usurp the Constitution.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually the Constitution allows the legislator to impeach them simply for bad behavior. It is a much lower standard than "high crimes and misdemeanors" and should therefore be used much more often. But the legislature has historically lacked the balls to remove judges, and in return judges have given them free reign to usurp the Constitution.

I agree wholeheartedly...
I JUST SENT YOU A PM ABOUT THIS THREAD. -Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

Supreme Court justices have a lifetime appointment unless they commit an impeachable offense. Justices can be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate if they commit "high crimes and misdemeanors," which include crimes, unethical behavior, actions damaging to the government, etc. If found guilty, the justice will be removed from office. They cannot be removed on any other grounds, including incompetency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As was noted by glockmail on another thread about how we should fire 4 of the Supreme Court Justices I decided to check on how Supreme court Justices can be removed from thier position which is normally a lifetime appointment.
Recently the decision to hear the Constitutionality of obama's healthcare law case was based on a premise allowing it to be adjucated by the Supreme Court and then later that very premise was conveniently overturned by the judges that ruled in its favor just previously in order to be able to to find in the governments favor(by now ruling it a tax) when deciding the case. Ruled not a tax in order to hear the case then later a tax in order to uphold the law! Judge Roberts also flipped his stand to do just that. In my opinion that clearly points to his highly "unethical behaviour" . Judge Kagan refused to recuse herself from the case which was again quite clearly "unethical behaviour" since she was instrumental in advising obama during its creation and passing!
As noted previously, "unethical behvaiour is legal grounds for removal of a justice.
We have that by at least two justices but I maintain that its possibly by more than that. Those two that I cited are clearly guilty IMHO.-Tyr

FDR Threatened to Disband the Supreme Court unless they declared his legislation Legal.

[glockmail]

I agree wholeheartedly...
I JUST SENT YOU A PM ABOUT THIS THREAD. -TyrAs I responded to that PM, no problems.

The problem we have with our government and what I think the Founders didn't comprehend is the simple lack of balls of most our elected and appointed officials. AND THIS TRAIT IS MOISTLY, IF NOT ALL, OF REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS.

After how the Democrats raped us up the ass with massive spending bills and ObamaCare as soon as they had the chance by controlling both the legislative and executive branches, no one can claim that they lack balls.

The GOP needs to grow a pair when it's our turn.

[logroller]

Per the constitution's seperation of powers, The president cant "fire" a scotus justice. To advocate such based on alleged constitutional violations is ironic to say the least. You need a house majorit and senate supermajority to remove a Supreme Court Justice; and if Congress has that, they could just as easily (if not more so) overturn obamacare. And btw, FDR didn't threaten to reduce the size of Scotus, just the opposite.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I had this bookmarked from back in may this year. In case you forgot some of obama's treasonous dealings.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2880795/posts

Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare
Canada Free Press ^ | May 5, 2012 | Sher Zieve

Dictator Obama Issues New Threat to Supreme Court over ObamaCare

In his latest display of his full USA federal government dictatorship over both the American people and the former co-branches of government, Dictator Obama is warning the Supreme Court to either rule in his favor or face severe consequences. Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.” Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly. The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him.

As an additional example of Obama’s illegal and (I believe) highly treasonous behaviors, on 1 May and 2 May Obama issued two additional unconstitutional and illegal Executive Orders. The first E.O., issued 1 May 2012, makes the USA subject to “international regulations” as opposed to looking to and following the US Constitution. Also, with this new E.O., the US FDA will now be able to be bypassed by International committees—thus, replacing the FDA with any international group which may be chosen. In essence, Obama is quickly eliminating US Sovereignty and selling the USA to the international “community.” The second E.O. issued in 2 days was signed by Obama on 2 May 2012. This E.O. instructs the USA to bow to international regulations instead of the US Constitution and Businessweek reports: “Obama’s order provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global regulatory official said today.

“Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way,” Sean Heather, vice president of the chamber’s Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, said in an e-mailed statement.” This also brings the USA closer to becoming a “North American Union” and—also—eliminating its sovereignty—in toto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obama never does anything to help strengten this nation.--Tyr

[glockmail]

Per the constitution's seperation of powers, The president cant "fire" a scotus justice. To advocate such based on alleged constitutional violations is ironic to say the least. You need a house majorit and senate supermajority to remove a Supreme Court Justice; and if Congress has that, they could just as easily (if not more so) overturn obamacare. And btw, FDR didn't threaten to reduce the size of Scotus, just the opposite. I was under the impression that FDR had added four members to the court. Reading up on it further, I realize now that I was wrong.

Congress has the sole power to fix the number of judges and to remove them due to bad behavior. So what needs to be done is to impeach the four most liberal, then fix the number to 5. Or appoint 4 originalists and leave the number at 9.

[Little-Acorn]

Actually the Constitution allows the legislator to impeach them simply for bad behavior. It is a much lower standard than "high crimes and misdemeanors" and should therefore be used much more often. But the legislature has historically lacked the balls to remove judges, and in return judges have given them free reign to usurp the Constitution.

"Misdemeanor" means, exactly, "bad behavior". And it was what the Framers meant when they wrote the phrase into the Constitution for impeachments.

Judges have been impeached and removed for it in the past. At least one judge was kicked out for repeatedly appearing on the bench, drunk.

What these four USSC Justices (maybe five after the Obamacare decision) have been doing, is far worse than that IMHO. They are directly violating the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

[fj1200]

^They would disagree and so would more than one third of the Senators.

[gabosaurus]

No judged were "fired" when the Supremes decided the 2000 Presidential election in favor of Dubya (by a 5-4 margin). Why should they be fired here? Because they made a decision that some people disagree with?

[glockmail]

"Misdemeanor" means, exactly, "bad behavior". And it was what the Framers meant when they wrote the phrase into the Constitution for impeachments...I have to disagree. Article II Section 1 states that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior...". That's far different wording than used for impeachment of the President or Congress.

[glockmail]

^They would disagree and so would more than one third of the Senators. Conviction only requires a simple majority.

[logroller]

"Misdemeanor" means, exactly, "bad behavior". And it was what the Framers meant when they wrote the phrase into the Constitution for impeachments.

Judges have been impeached and removed for it in the past. At least one judge was kicked out for repeatedly appearing on the bench, drunk.

What these four USSC Justices (maybe five after the Obamacare decision) have been doing, is far worse than that IMHO. They are directly violating the Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

Bad behavior---Congress is also sworn to uphold the Constitution; that Congress would vote to impeach a Supreme Court Justice for agreeing with a law of Congress' own creation amounts to entrapment in a sense, a misdemeanor in your ascribed parlance, defying any sense of decent behavior.

[logroller]

Conviction only requires a simple majority.
Impeachment in the House requires a simple majority; but that alone doesn't remove them from office. It requires a Senate supermajority to remove them from office. While a conviction, in the criminal sense of the word, would require a separate trial after the fact I believe.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/High+Crimes+and+Misdemeanors

[glockmail]

Impeachment in the House requires a simple majority; but that alone doesn't remove them from office. It requires a Senate supermajority to remove them from office. While a conviction, in the criminal sense of the word, would require a separate trial after the fact I believe.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/High+Crimes+and+Misdemeanors

I didn't read "super majority" in Article I Section 3.

[fj1200]

Conviction only requires a simple majority.

:no:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

[fj1200]

No judged were "fired" when the Supremes decided the 2000 Presidential election in favor of Dubya (by a 5-4 margin). Why should they be fired here? Because they made a decision that some people disagree with?

The relevant decision was 7-2. :slap:

[logroller]

I didn't read "super majority" in Article I Section 3.
See clause 6, 'at least two-thirds of those present' would mean that the number of votes in favor need number atleast twice that of those who abstain or vote against-- that's a form of supermajority. It goes back to parliamentary procedure.

[glockmail]

See clause 6, 'at least two-thirds of those present' would mean that the number of votes in favor need number atleast twice that of those who abstain or vote against-- that's a form of supermajority. It goes back to parliamentary procedure.Yup, I mis-read that previously.

[Kathianne]

With regards to the recent Supreme Court decision that ObamaCare is constitutional, Roberts was wrong, along with the other four judges. Impeachment isn't used often enough in my opinion. The legislative branches simply lack the balls to fire people who need to be fired.

Perhaps President Romney should reverse the decision of the liberal god, FDR, who stacked the Court with liberals who rubber-stamped his blatantly unconstitutional policies and created the "precedent" that judges now use to justify shitting all over the Constitution. I'd like to see President Romney simply fire the four most liberal judges and return the court to five members.

How dear is the constitution to your heart? Not very from the sound of this post, unless you have a point I'm not getting?

[Kathianne]

Hey way not nuke the SCOTUS and start over, after nuking those that disagree with us?

Oh, bummer, 'we're' in the minority.

[gabosaurus]

Perhaps President Obama should replace the four most conservative justices and replace them with liberals. Then we could REALLY reshape the constitution.
Starting with the Second Amendment. :cool:

[glockmail]

Gabs hates the Constitution now.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hey way not nuke the SCOTUS and start over, after nuking those that disagree with us?

Oh, bummer, 'we're' in the minority.

Obama ignores them , threatens them and if given another term may just dismiss them with an executive order!
Who knows what that traitor will do in a second term , look at how outrageously destructive he has been in his first.-Tyr