Impeach Black Robed Insanity

"For too long, congress has allowed federal judges, appointed pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution, to flaunt the law. Appointed for life during good behavior, these judges, including members of the Supreme Court and “9th U.S. Circus Court of Appeals,” are vulnerable to “impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Just like the president, they can be impeached by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and convicted by a two thirds vote in the Senate. The time has come for good conservatives and true patriots to demand that congress impeach the activist, rock star judges."

www.theconservativevoice.com...

The "conspiracy" to subvert the constitution must not be allowed to continue. The Judiciary is under the complete control of the congress under Article 3 and it high time congress act to purge the activist courts from "making" law from the bench.

first you have to accuse them of an actual crime. Then u have to find laywers both better than them, and better than the ones they probably have contact with everyday. Then you have to get the media to portray them as such to get public backing to keep the party in line. your only chance is fox news. And i doubt bush is a small government kind of guy.

considering this,... well good luck

Originally posted by NuTroll
first you have to accuse them of an actual crime. Then u have to find laywers both better than them, and better than the ones they probably have contact with everyday. Then you have to get the media to portray them as such to get public backing to keep the party in line. your only chance is fox news. And i doubt bush is a small government kind of guy.

considering this,... well good luck

The crime is the violation of the consitution and their oath of office. Screw the media, the congress should act based on thier oath.

im not disagreeing with you (or agreeing). how are you going to get enough party support without public support to do this?

Originally posted by NuTroll
im not disagreeing with you (or agreeing). how are you going to get enough party support without public support to do this?

The "media" will put out a "push" poll indicating a lack of support. It will of course be a lie as usual. The congress should have the "guts" to act because the judicuary is now "the law" and not the people. Few people actually read the consitution nor are taught how it works in the public schools. As of this moment the consitution has been trashed by the Black robed tyrants.

and what the courts haven't trashed, the Bush administration has....right???

I'm not gonna vouch for the predictions below, I haven't read that much about this guy...but....

"The US courts under Bush have put the body corporate before the body politic--average citizens. Patience delayed Bush's fulfillment of predictions I made seeing him replacing retiring Supreme Court justices. The second term, however, will see that transformation of the Supreme Court to the extreme right accomplished. Bush's second most lasting legacy (beyond being a catalyst for economic and military disasters) will be his successful effort to swing the Supreme Court, the Appellate Courts and the rest of the judicial system to the right for a generation. In Bush's next four years, the neo-Conservative-cum-evangelical crusade will begin to turn the social clock back decades for women's and minority rights. The Supreme Court may not overthrow Roe v. Wade in Bush's second term, but it will fall nonetheless, even with a Democrat president in office after 2008, because of the right-wing Supreme Court Bush will leave behind. Four years ago, I predicted a civil, secular and religious divide of America. It is here, entrenched across the US map in bastions of blue-liberal states in a sea of rural red-conservative states. "

www.hogueprophecy.com...

what's the matter, are you worried that yous might lose a few seats in the legislator in a couple of years? Getting impatient?? Just got to rush the timeclock??

oh, by the way, those of you thinking about relocating to canada, new law, by 2008, you will need a passport to get back into the country...so, when ya go, leave your passport at home, maybe canada will let ya stay, since the US won't let ya in!!!

*snort* this has been going on "forever", albeit more quietly......was more noticeable during the 60's, though.

We are talking about the conservatives in Congress who just chose to cut Vet benefits but extend tax breaks to the wealthiest three-tenths of one percent of the population, right?

We're talking about the Congress that has at least one member who is making thinly veiled suggestions that people should kill judges?

We are talking about the Congress that has routinely passed legislation without even reading it so they don't even know if it might be Constitutional or not, right?

Oh. Yeah.

I think the fact that both sides spend a significant amount of time annoyed by the courts is a good sign that the judges are doing their jobes just about right.

(I'm new. Does this thread belong over on PTS?)

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The "conspiracy" to subvert the constitution must not be allowed to continue. The Judiciary is under the complete control of the congress under Article 3 and it high time congress act to purge the activist courts from "making" law from the bench.

I fail to see this supposed "activism" that seems to be the new conservative buzz. Could it be perhaps *shock* that we have elected officials who continually seek to pass laws that are in direct conflict with our constitutional protections?

Activism lies in the eye of the beholder and I personally am much more outraged at the garbage laws or practices that are being passed by State and Federal officials under the guise of "won't someone please think of the children" when in fact it is nothing more than an erosion of our constitutional rights. Our fearless leaders can package it any way they wish, call it anything they want, but some of us are more than aware of the real agenda here.


B.

Originally posted by Bleys
I fail to see this supposed "activism" that seems to be the new conservative buzz. Could it be perhaps *shock* that we have elected officials who continually seek to pass laws that are in direct conflict with our constitutional protections?

Bleys, you may have hit the nail on the head here: This is shamelessly lifted from the ATSNN Op/Ed I penned a while ago titled Caveat Emptor: The Selling of The GOP's Soul To The Religious Right.

One of the biggest goals of the Religious Right is an orchestrated takeover of the entire federal judiciary system. The key to this is Senate confirmation of nominated candidates that support their agenda. While the U.S. Supreme Court is considered the "brass ring", the control of the appellate court systems also is deemed essential to promoting the Religious Right agenda. To further the assault on the judiciary, the groups have revised a scare tactic from the past. Given their propensity to slap an ugly label on any and all opposition groups, the Judges that ear their ire for supporting gay marriage or the fundamental right to chose, are quickly labeled “activist judges.” Several prominent religious oriented conservatives including the ill fated Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork have decried activist judges as staging a coup d’etat of the the American system. These black robed guerrillas they claim are forcing a lifestyle socialism upon the country. Does anybody see the irony in this belief? These same groups who are vilifying judges demand total adherence to their agenda or the label will be slapped on.

Originally posted by driley
(I'm new. Does this thread belong over on PTS?)

Kinda, sorta. Members though have the opportunity first to debunk or advance the "conspiracy" assertions of Horacid (really conservativevoice.com).

But if it just becomes a partisan politics thread and the "conspiracy" assertions aren't advanced one way or the other, it'll go to P@ATS in time.

[edit on 13-4-2005 by RANT]

Originally posted by Bleys
I fail to see this supposed "activism" that seems to be the new conservative buzz. Could it be perhaps *shock* that we have elected officials who continually seek to pass laws that are in direct conflict with our constitutional protections?

Activism lies in the eye of the beholder and I personally am much more outraged at the garbage laws or practices that are being passed by State and Federal officials under the guise of "won't someone please think of the children" when in fact it is nothing more than an erosion of our constitutional rights. Our fearless leaders can package it any way they wish, call it anything they want, but some of us are more than aware of the real agenda here.


B.

So, so sad, Issue ONE, the court does not have the "right" of review for consitutionality. That itself is a violation of the consitution.

Activist courts are those that MAKE law from the bench. Things like "they mean this or such or that".

The entire Roe v wade ruling that made abortion a "right" was a horrible activist court issue. There are so many others.

Remember, the "supreme Court" once ruled it was OK to own slaves......

The ultimate power is in the hands of the people through the congress as their reprentatives. The congress can override the Executive veto and "remove" judges" for misconduct, such as making law..........

The great LIE is that it is "right wing religion" driving this issue. Go and read the writings of a guy named "Jefferson" about the 1803 "marbry v madison" ruling. He went nuts.............

Can't we get he of the gay vampire avatar's posts auto routed there, please?

If this article, topic and theme did not just drip off of Rove's most southward sphincter, I'd be suprised!!

On the Politics forum: is "Slugfest" the opinion, partisan sources repository?

As I stated in the other thread, the purpose of all this bloviating over the courts is to get rid of the last institutuion protecting American citizens, and American democracy, from the agenda of the radical theocratic right. With control of the White House, and both houses of Congress, the Dominionists and their allies are in a position to pass any law they want - with one caveat. The Court can overturn any law they pass that does not pass Constitutional muster.

To those who want to permanently ensure a Christian Reconstructionist future for the United States, this is unaccceptable. They realize their time is now, the pieces are in place. But the threat of judicial review is a black cloud over their agenda, without the legal tools to supress those who would try to stop the US turning into a Christian version of Iran, they know that eventually they will be overcome by a populace that largely does not want a theocratic America.

Thus all the hyperventilating over "activist" courts. They are trying to build popular momentum to defang or even remove any power that might stop them from legally jailing or killing anyone who opposes them. This is the bleeding edge of the hard right's attempt to permanently take power.

Be afraid folks, be very afraid.
The end of American democracy and the rule of law is closer than you think.

The job of Judges is to MAKE law, that is they look at a case before them, they consider general principles of Common Law and the modifications to that of Statute law and they make a judgement in line with either earlier judgements or in the best traditions of the Judicial process.

To assert that this is NOT a Judge's job is to take law-making out of professional hands and put it in the hands of people I would not trust to go to the toilet properly, ie Politicians.

Kiwimac

Originally posted by kiwimac
The job of Judges is to MAKE law, that is they look at a case before them, they consider general principles of Common Law and the modifications to that of Statute law and they make a judgement in line with either earlier judgements or in the best traditions of the Judicial process.

Succinctly put.

Let's also please remember the point that the three branches of government were made to be checks and balances for each other; not sock puppets or tools of each other. Judges are appointed for life to ensure that they are not the tools of the current government -- be it liberal or conservative.

Now we see arch-Conservatives screaming because the courts won't rule in favor of things that they want. In another decade, it will be the arch-Liberals howling the same thing. The noise means that the system is working and that we're not living under a dictatorship.

And let's talk about patriotism. The last time I saw it, "patriotism" does not mean "adhering to standards that were set in the 1950's."

The only time that "Patriotism" means "belonging to a Politically Approved Party" is when your nation is run by a dictatorship and the "politically approved party" is the one that is endorsed by Your Leader. This is the tactic that Hitler used -- all good Nazis were patriots and anyone who denounced the Nazis were "unpatriotic."

Stalin also used this tactic -- in fact, it was also applied to scientific writings... if the scientist's theories didn't support the Stalinist ideal, the scientist was "unpatriotic."

Now we John Plecnik says have judges who don't follow the Bush Ideal and the word "unpatriotic" is slung around like so much mud. Mr. Plecnik may be a patriot of some sort, but it's obvious that the patriotism he prefers is the "patriotism" of the Nazi regeime, the Stalinist regeime, the Saddam Hussein regeime and others of its ilk. I'm afraid that the patriots who were our founding fathers wouldn't recognize his form of "patriotism" at all.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The "conspiracy" to subvert the constitution must not be allowed to continue.

I agree


When are we going to through the Republicans out of office?

Originally posted by DrHoracid
So, so sad, Issue ONE, the court does not have the "right" of review for consitutionality. That itself is a violation of the consitution.

Activist courts are those that MAKE law from the bench. Things like "they mean this or such or that".

But that is part of the Courts job, as established by Article III.

Judicial power, as discussed in Article III, Section 2, does extend to the court the ability to review the constitutionality of a law established by Congress in the context of a "judiciary nature"--ie: during court cases. The court is not to be consulted during the writing of laws, but the constitutionality of a law is tested and ruled upon when it is brought before the court by those that have been injured, violated, or have had their constitutional rights otherwise infringed upon via said law.

This was the clear intention of the framers of the Constitution and was discussed at length by Madison and Wilson at the Constitutional Convention.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Interpreting laws made by Congress and signed by the President is one of the main functions of the judiciary--to interpret this as activism is false (and just the Conservative spin of the moment.)

The judiciary is supposed to interpret the laws without prejudice--not represent the will of the people, the Congress, or of the President. These things are not always the same. The Framers of the Constitution realized that there are times when the will of the people is irrational and that majority rule can be tyrannical--as Congress and the President are very much influenced by populist trends, the judiciary provides a counterbalance. It doesn't always work, but it works most of the time.

The Framers were very clear that the judiciary was to be independent--and Article III goes to the extent to even lay out how judges are to be compensated to ensure that economic pressure cannot be brought to bear.

Sure, there are judges who break the law--as well as Congressmen and even Presidents. That is why the Constitution includes instructions for removing corrupt officials....

But, removing officials that are doing their job but have different political views is not grounds for impeachment--it is just partisan politicking.

If you would like to discuss activism, what DeLay, Sensebrenner, Bush and those who promoted the Schiavo debacle did--forcing jurisdiction, and reversing a court ruling, was a violation of Article III.

The words "shall be vested" in Article III, Section I mean that the courts have limited jurisdiction under the Constitution and litigants before the court have the burden of proving that jursidiction exists. In the Schiavo case, the litigants did not prove that jurisdiction existed to the satisfaction of the court. Because of the bill that Congress passed, jurisdiction was forced back to the 11th Circuit Court--overturning a court ruling.

This is quite an egregious violation made by the legislative and executive branch as it stepped all over Article III, Section 1--namely "judicial power." The concept of judicial power, among other things, establishes the court as having the final say on the interpretation of the law.

Judicial power confers on federal courts the power to decide a case, to render a judgment conclusively resolving a case. Judicial power is the authority to render dispositive judgments, and Congress violates the separation of powers when it purports to alter final judgments of Article III courts.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Overturning a judicial decision is negating judicial power, which topples the Constitutional dogma of checks and balances--which moves us from a democracy to... what? Some distorted bastard child of a fascist theocracy, perhaps.... but regardless, it is tyranny.

So DeLay's tantrum over the judiciary couldn't possibly be about Constitutional violations because he is the one making them...

Can anyone say diversion?

The time has come for good conservatives and true patriots to demand that congress impeach the activist, rock star judges."

Absolutely not.

Activism, first off, can not be pushed into criminal behaviour.

Judicial Activism is not contrary to the constitution, and the supposed 'legislating powers' of judges does not constitute a constitutional crisis.

What does represent such a crisis is the Congress usurping the powers of judges, altering jurisdiction based on temporary issues, and demanding specific rulings from specific judges.

This 'conservative' opinion is not conservative, its not based on constiutional principles or strict adherence to seperation of powers.

The 'legislating judges' effect is questionable, whats not questionable as a constitutional offense is a witch hunt after judges who's rulings a political minority don't agree with.

Originally posted by Bout Time
Can't we get he of the gay vampire avatar's posts auto routed there, please?

If this article, topic and theme did not just drip off of Rove's most southward sphincter, I'd be suprised!!

On the Politics forum: is "Slugfest" the opinion, partisan sources repository?

"Gay vampire"... i've been struggling for sometime now to figure out what his avatar was, but now that you say it, I realize that's exactly what it is