>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:30:19 +0000, 2938 Dead wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:04:30 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 04/05/2012 12:01 AM, Gary DW wrote:
>>>>> In article<jli6fe$en...@dont-email.me>, 2938 Dead says...
>>>>>>> Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were
>>>>>>> quacking about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me
>>>>>>> and "rightards" in general of opposing this principle -- and today
>>>>>>> you are calling for judges who issue rulings you don't like to be
>>>>>>> removed from the bench.
>>>>>> I'm calling for the removal of any judges who openly defy the
>>>>>> constitution. Judges acting in bad faith must be impeached.
>>>>> Agreed. But such a thing is completely impossible with a 50/50
>>>>> divided America and Congress.
>>>>> I can see an asshole Pub House getting pissed and sending an
>>>>> impeachment of a USSC judge to the Senate just as a juvenile attempt
>>>>> at example (cough, Clinton, cough) but no way could it get 2/3 of
>>>>> the Senate to convict in todays political environment.
>>>> The Clinton impeachment is recent proof that oru chacks and balances
>>>> actually work.
>>> So you approve of impeaching Slappy, Scaly and Roberto?
>> The idea behind lifetime terms for SCOTUS justices is to prevent them
>> from being influenced by contemporary politics. Their job is to decide
>> the constitutionality of laws, based on their own interpretation of the
>> Constitution, not the public's (and definitely not the interpretation of
>> Canadians like you).
> Indeed, but in this cale, they were pre-influenced, fascist parodies of
> judges pressed on us by the GOP.
> Or are you really going to argue that Slappy was the best of all possible
> choices for the Court? Or that Scalie isn't openly defiant of judicial
> ethics?
I assume that the term "Slappy" is your pet name for Justice Thomas.
The truth is that Thomas, Scalia and Roberts have all done a good job as Supreme Court justices.
> > On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:04:30 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
> >> On 04/05/2012 12:01 AM, Gary DW wrote:
> >>> In article<jli6fe$en...@dont-email.me>, 2938 Dead says...
> >>>>> Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were
> >>>>> quacking about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me
> >>>>> and "rightards" in general of opposing this principle -- and today
> >>>>> you are calling for judges who issue rulings you don't like to be
> >>>>> removed from the bench.
> >>>> I'm calling for the removal of any judges who openly defy the
> >>>> constitution. Judges acting in bad faith must be impeached.
> >>> Agreed. But such a thing is completely impossible with a 50/50 divided
> >>> America and Congress.
> >>> I can see an asshole Pub House getting pissed and sending an
> >>> impeachment of a USSC judge to the Senate just as a juvenile attempt at
> >>> example (cough, Clinton, cough) but no way could it get 2/3 of the
> >>> Senate to convict in todays political environment.
> >> The Clinton impeachment is recent proof that oru chacks and balances
> >> actually work.
> > So you approve of impeaching Slappy, Scaly and Roberto?
> Learn to read, and learn to think.
You keep saying that, but you never seem to heed your own advice.
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:53:17 +0000, 2938 Dead quacked:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:43:53 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>> The idea behind lifetime terms for SCOTUS justices is to prevent them
>> from being influenced by contemporary politics. Their job is to decide
>> the constitutionality of laws, based on their own interpretation of the
>> Constitution, not the public's (and definitely not the interpretation
>> of Canadians like you).
> Indeed, but in this cale, they were pre-influenced, fascist parodies of
> judges pressed on us by the GOP.
By "pressed on us by the GOP," you mean they were confirmed by a majority of the democratically-elected Senate.
Of course, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were "pressed on us" by the Democrats. They also were confirmed by a majority of the democratically-
elected Senate, so should they be removed from office for making decisions I may not agree with?
> Or are you really going to argue that Slappy was the best of all
> possible choices for the Court? Or that Scalie isn't openly defiant of
> judicial ethics?
Was Sotomayor the best of all possible choices for the Court, or was she chosen to fill an ethnic quota? As for judicial ethics, what about a Justice who refuses to recuse herself from a case her office defended when she was Solicitor General, and had expressed her personal support for the law? A judge is supposed to be unbiased, but it seems Justice Kagan has already decided how she will rule before hearing any arguments.
You call others fascist, but you are the real fascist -- expressing contempt for our constitutional democratic process. You babble about "democracy," then decree that elections that don't go your way be nullified.
A quick search reveals that "Scalie" was confirmed by a 98-0 vote, Kennedy 97-0, Roberts 78-22, Alito 58-42, and "Slappy" 52-48.
"Democracy" means "majority rules," so how large of a majority do "Democrats" like you require before you respect the results of a vote?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone."
> > You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.
> "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their
> Offices during good Behavior..."
> -- Article III, Section 1
> What "good behavior" means is vague, but would seem to imply not having
> committed a crime. The Framers obviously did not intend to allow judges
> to be impeached for making rulings that the other branches of government
> disagree with -- this would defeat the system of checks and balances.
> > Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles
> > of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle
> > talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice
> > Salmon Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The
> > Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since,
> > but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law,
> > Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.
> Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were quacking
> about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me and "rightards"
> in general of opposing this principle -- and today you are calling for
> judges who issue rulings you don't like to be removed from the bench.
> America is headed down a dangerous path. Our system of checks and
> balances is being attacked by left and right alike, ostensibly in the
> name of "democracy" but will certainly lead to a tyrannical dictatorship
> of exactly the sort the Founders wanted to prevent.
> The check of the indirectly elected Senate on the directly House was
> destroyed by the 17th Amendment, with the result that corporations that
> used to have to purchase entire state legislatures (which appointed the
> senators) can now purchase 100 senators directly. The independent
> Supreme Court, with appointed members who serve life terms (to prevent
> them from being influenced by politics), is now under attack, and once it
> is gone, mob rule will ensue.
> With no checks and balances, no way to enforce election results, the
> party that comes to power first will stay in power, and we will have a
> dictatorship. If you want a vision of America's future, look at
> Venezuela.
Oh, Jeez! What if the populace buy 100 Senators? The very idea of it
is scandalous!
_______________________
It adds no small weight to all these considerations, to recollect that
history informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a senate.
Sparta, Rome, and Carthage are, in fact, the only states to whom that
character can be applied. In each of the two first there was a senate
for life. The constitution of the senate in the last is less known.
Circumstantial evidence makes it probable that it was not different in
this particular from the two others. It is at least certain, that it
had some quality or other which rendered it an anchor against popular
fluctuations; and that a smaller council, drawn out of the senate, was
appointed not only for life, but filled up vacancies itself. These
examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to
the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the
fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very
instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will
blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances
which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well
ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary,
in reasoning from the one case to the other. But after allowing due
weight to this consideration, it may still be maintained, that there
are many points of similitude which render these examples not unworthy
of our attention. Many of the defects, as we have seen, which can only
be supplied by a senatorial institution, are common to a numerous
assembly frequently elected by the people, and to the people
themselves. There are others peculiar to the former, which require the
control of such an institution. The people can never wilfully betray
their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the
representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently
greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of
one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar
bodies is required in every public act.
--from Federalist No. 63, which the scholars have attributed to either
Madison OR Hamilton, and notice that the writer discusses some of the
differences in selecting and tenuring senators, including variations
in the State of Maryland. Read on! This is fascinating material.
Personally, I don't see that James Madison would have objected to
popular election of Senators in the USA, particularly since their
terms were set in the Constitution at 6 years and in each state
staggered. I'd damn sure rather choose a Senator by my suffrage than
have our corrupt legislature appoint her. Or him. (I just had to
throw the gender issue in there to irritate our horde of right-wing
misogynists.)
> You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.
> Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of
> the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk.
> During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Salmon
> Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate
> acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as
> the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s
> idea is worth revisiting.
No it's not. A justice who decisions demand impeachment means the
Senate didn't do its "due diligence".
Striking down "Obamacare" doesn't rise to the level needed to justify
impeachment....but selecting Bush 1/2 to be president by fiat did!
> The problem with the current court is not merely that there is a good
> chance it will strike down a clearly constitutional law. The problem is
> that this decision would be the latest salvo in what seems to be a
> sustained effort on the part of the Roberts Court to return the country
> to the Gilded Age.
> During that period - which ran from the years after of the Civil War to
> the start of the 20th century - wealth became highly concentrated and
> corporations came to dominate American business.
> At the close of the Gilded Age, the U.S. infant mortality rate was around
> 10 percent - a number you find today in impoverished Central African
> nations. In some cities, it exceeded 30 percent. Women could not vote,
> and their lives were controlled by men. Blacks lived apart from whites
> and comprised an economic, social, and political underclass. Corporations
> exerted an unchecked and deleterious influence on the lives of workers.
> Supreme Court Justices
> If the Supreme Court Justices dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David
> Dow, we should dump them., Tim Sloan, AFP / Getty Images
> All these ills were ultimately addressed by the federal government, but
> the strongest and most sustained resistance to fixing them came from the
> court. One exception was the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who
> argued that where economic regulations are at stake, judges must respect
> legislative decisions aimed at protecting society’s most vulnerable
> members. Our Constitution, Holmes famously wrote, does not enact social
> Darwinism. If the legislature acts to protect the poor and less powerful,
> its actions must be respected by the judicial branch.
> That idea doesn’t appear to hold much water with the current court.
> Justice Clarence Thomas, in particular, has a well-known affinity for the
> values of the Gilded Age. But he has quietly gone from being an outlier
> to being only one of five consistently regressive votes.
> The pattern began with the court’s 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart,
> a case involving a rarely used, late-term abortion procedure. In holding
> that the government can prohibit abortion even where a woman’s life or
> health is at risk, the court overturned a decision that was not yet 10
> years old.
> To justify the ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy - an ostensibly staunch
> believer in individual liberty - explained that some women who might
> otherwise undergo it would come to regret their decision. Ah, fickle
> women! Since Roe v. Wade the abortion debate has always involved male-
> dominated legislatures enacting laws telling women what they can and
> cannot do. The Roberts Court, it seems, is similarly not averse to
> helping protect women from themselves.
> Also in 2007, the court ruled that a Seattle school district’s plan to
> achieve racial balance in its public schools was unconstitutional.
> Reasonable people can of course disagree about whether using race to
> arrive at a diverse student body is good policy or bad. But there is an
> unquestionable moral distinction between using race to encourage racial
> integration versus using race to keep the blacks away.
> The latter is, of course, what the court allowed in 1896, when it upheld
> the so-called “separate but equal" doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson.
> Justice Harlan famously dissented in Plessy, insisting that the
> Constitution is colorblind. In a perverse rhetorical move, Chief Justice
> John Roberts, writing for the court in the Seattle case, suggested that
> Harlan's phrase applies equally where the government is trying to promote
> the blending of the races rather than maintaining their separation.
> And then came Citizens United, in which the court struck down a popularly
> supported, bipartisan effort to place limits on the ability of the
> wealthy to dominate political discourse. Income inequality is a fact of
> life in a capitalist system. But when it comes to choosing our elected
> representatives, the people are supposed to stand on equal footing. Your
> right to control your destiny by electing people who share your visions
> and values is not supposed to depend on the fatness of your wallet. But
> now, thanks to five justices, it does. In ruling that corporations have a
> First Amendment right that precludes Congress from regulating how much
> money they can spend to support political candidates or causes, the court
> propped up a regime where the voices of the wealthy drown out all the
> rest.
> Each of these cases was decided by a 5-4 vote, along predictable and
> ideological lines. Each overturned comparatively recent precedent. Each
> paid obeisance to a 19th-century norm. And while any individual ruling
> can always be justified or explained away, a larger truth emerges
> ineluctably from the whole. A decision overturning the Affordable Care
> Act will fit snugly into this narrative.
> The vacuity of the arguments against the health-care law has been well
> covered (see especially Akhil Amar’s analysis in Slate). I will add only
> two points.
> First, Congress’s authority in passing the law rests on an elementary
> syllogism: You don't have to drive, but if you do, the government can
> make you buy insurance. The logical structure at work here is that if you
> are going to do something (drive, for example), the government can make
> you purchase a commercial product (insurance, for example), so long as it
> has a good reason for doing so (making sure you can pay for any damage
> you do). That logic is obviously satisfied in the health-care context.
> You are going to use medical care, so the government can make you buy
> insurance in order to make sure you can pay for it. Liberty, like every
> other human and constitutional right, is not absolute. Under some
> circumstances, it can be regulated.
> Which leads to the second point: critics of the health-care law say the
> only reason the rest of us have to pay for medical services used by
> people who have no money is that laws require hospitals to treat people
> who come in for emergencies regardless of their ability to pay. In other
> words, the critics say, the only reason there is a social cost - the only
> reason the syllogism works - is because of the underlying laws requiring
> hospitals to treat the poor.
> Unlike silly examples involving broccoli and cell phones, that so-called
> “bootstrap" argument is sound. But here the critics drop their
> ideological mask as surely as the court dropped it in the Gonzales
> ruling. Their argument can be restated thusly: if you repeal laws
> requiring hospitals to treat the poor, you eliminate the constitutional
> basis for mandatory insurance coverage.
> You don’t have to pull the analytical thread of that reasoning very hard
> to see that it boils down to an argument for allowing the poor to die.
> And if the Supreme Court strikes down the health-care law, that is
> exactly the ideology it will have to embrace. It will be saying that
> Congress cannot guarantee medical coverage for the poor and then
> implement a system to pay for it. In other words, the only people
> entitled to health care are the people who can afford it.
> The last time the court went down this path, saner heads prevailed.
> Oliver Wendell Holmes’s view was historically and constitutionally
> correct, and the court finally acknowledged this in a pivotal 1937 case,
> West Coast Hotel v. Parish. In West Coast Hotel, the court ruled that the
> Constitution safeguards not just individual liberty but community
> interests as well; and in matters of economics, it is the legislature’s
> job to strike the appropriate balance between those two. If the Roberts
> Court overturns the Affordable Care Act, it will be mimicking the
> discredited court of 1935.
> We can argue about whether President Jefferson was right to try to
> impeach Justice Chase. But there’s no question that he was right to say
> that impeachment is an option for justices who undermine constitutional
> values. There are other options, as well. We might amend the Constitution
> to establish judicial term limits. Or we might increase the number of
> justices to dilute the influence of its current members (though FDR could
> tell you how that turned out). In the end, however, it is the duty of the
> people to protect the Constitution from the court. Social progress cannot
> be held hostage by five unelected men.
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:53:17 +0000, 2938 Dead wrote:
> Go look up the requirements for impeachment, if you can't remember them
> from the last time you tried to impeach a politician you didn't like.
An impeachment is the same as an indictment. The House has the sole power of impeachment, and a simple majority is required. The Senate tries the impeachment, with a two-thirds majority required to convict.
But impeachment is for a CRIME, which is obvious by the use of the words "try" and "convict" in Article I, Section 3. Elected officials who make unpopular decisions can be voted out of office, but it is not a CRIMINAL offense to do so.
Bill Clinton committed the CRIME of lying under oath: he was properly impeached by the House and the Senate jury chose to acquit him. George W. Bush committed the CRIME of violating the federal wiretapping law: in this case the House refused to impeach, though his crime was far more serious than Clinton's. But no president can be impeached just because you don't like his policies, as long as his policies are lawful.
That you may not like a particular Supreme Court decision does not mean you can impeach justices for it, just as those of us who don't like Obamacare can't impeach Chairman Obama for signing it into law. His punishment comes at the polls, whereas members of SCOTUS enjoy full protection from their decision to uphold it or strike it down. Each Justice bases his decision on his interpretation of the Constitution as a professional lawyer and judge, not caring one whit what the mob thinks, and caring even less what Canadian high school dropouts think.
I grow tired of trying to reason with you. Your spelling and grammar indicate you are intelligent, but your inflexibility of thought and your refusal to even acknowledge the existence of facts that contradict your world view and patently false statements (e.g. your continued denial that the Mexican peso was revalued in 1993) suggests that are a seriously disturbed person.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"From the table at Winston's left, a little behind his back, someone was talking rapidly and continuously, a harsh gabble almost like the quacking of a duck, which pierced the general uproar of the room."
"What was slightly horrible, was that from the stream of sound that poured out of his mouth it was almost impossible to distinguish a single word. Just once Winston caught a phrase -- 'complete and final elimination of Limbaughism' -- jerked out very rapidly and, as it seemed, all in one piece, like a line of type cast solid. For the rest it was just a noise, a quack-quack-quacking."
"As he watched the eyeless face with the jaw moving rapidly up and down, Winston had a curious feeling that this was not a real human being but some kind of dummy. It was not the man's brain that was speaking, it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was a noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck."
> >> You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.
> > "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their
> > Offices during good Behavior..."
> > -- Article III, Section 1
> > What "good behavior" means is vague, but would seem to imply not having
> > committed a crime. The Framers obviously did not intend to allow judges
> > to be impeached for making rulings that the other branches of government
> > disagree with -- this would defeat the system of checks and balances.
> Then why does the Constitution permit the impeachment of federal judges?
Because a federal judge functions at a much lower level. What you are
calling for is, like the Clinton impeachment, political revenge.
Federal judges are on more of an assembly line system of nomination
and appointment. The SC is suppose to be far more deliberative of the
president and Senate.
> >> Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles
> >> of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle
> >> talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice
> >> Salmon Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The
> >> Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached
> >> since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care
> >> law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.
> > Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were
> > quacking about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me and
> > "rightards" in general of opposing this principle -- and today you are
> > calling for judges who issue rulings you don't like to be removed from
> > the bench.
> I'm calling for the removal of any judges who openly defy the
> constitution. Judges acting in bad faith must be impeached.
Your bad faith is Rush's Constitutionality. Besides, I think Obama's
HCR was bad legislation. It only enriches the insurance companies. He
refused to fight (whether he'd have won or not is irrelevant) for
single payer (Medicare-for-All) and I think he did so to repay the
insurance companies. Prove me wrong,.
> An independent judiciary IS important. But if politics has corrupted it,
> then it isn't independent any more, is it?
Thomas **CAN** meet the test for impeachment as he, through his wife,
has a financial interest in the outcome of the coming SC decision and
he refuses.to recuse himself.
Scalia *MIGHT* similarily qualify, giving his ex parte meetings with
individuals having "partisan" interests in SC cases.
But actual decisions, because you or I don't like them isn't
sufficient.
It's rather like impeaching a president....you can't (or shouldn't)
based on which bills he signs or vetos.
> > America is headed down a dangerous path. Our system of checks and
> > balances is being attacked by left and right alike, ostensibly in the
> > name of "democracy" but will certainly lead to a tyrannical dictatorship
> > of exactly the sort the Founders wanted to prevent.
> > The check of the indirectly elected Senate on the directly House was
> > destroyed by the 17th Amendment, with the result that corporations that
> > used to have to purchase entire state legislatures (which appointed the
> > senators) can now purchase 100 senators directly. The independent
> > Supreme Court, with appointed members who serve life terms (to prevent
> > them from being influenced by politics), is now under attack, and once
> > it is gone, mob rule will ensue.
> > With no checks and balances, no way to enforce election results, the
> > party that comes to power first will stay in power, and we will have a
> > dictatorship. If you want a vision of America's future, look at
> > Venezuela.
> --
> “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
> inevitable” -JFK
> --
> “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
> inevitable” -JFK- Hide quoted text -
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:43:53 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:30:19 +0000, 2938 Dead wrote:
> >> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:04:30 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
> >>> On 04/05/2012 12:01 AM, Gary DW wrote:
> >>>> In article<jli6fe$en...@dont-email.me>, 2938 Dead says...
> >>>>>> Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were
> >>>>>> quacking about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me
> >>>>>> and "rightards" in general of opposing this principle -- and today
> >>>>>> you are calling for judges who issue rulings you don't like to be
> >>>>>> removed from the bench.
> >>>>> I'm calling for the removal of any judges who openly defy the
> >>>>> constitution. Judges acting in bad faith must be impeached.
> >>>> Agreed. But such a thing is completely impossible with a 50/50
> >>>> divided America and Congress.
> >>>> I can see an asshole Pub House getting pissed and sending an
> >>>> impeachment of a USSC judge to the Senate just as a juvenile attempt
> >>>> at example (cough, Clinton, cough) but no way could it get 2/3 of
> >>>> the Senate to convict in todays political environment.
> >>> The Clinton impeachment is recent proof that oru chacks and balances
> >>> actually work.
> >> So you approve of impeaching Slappy, Scaly and Roberto?
> > The idea behind lifetime terms for SCOTUS justices is to prevent them
> > from being influenced by contemporary politics. Their job is to decide
> > the constitutionality of laws, based on their own interpretation of the
> > Constitution, not the public's (and definitely not the interpretation of
> > Canadians like you).
> Indeed, but in this cale, they were pre-influenced, fascist parodies of
> judges pressed on us by the GOP.
But the real fault lies with the democratic party for failing to
properly construct its message to the voter, its failure to oppose
reichwing legislation (example: the elimination of limits on ownership
of media),its willingness to support reichwing southern "democrats"
simply to maintain an apparent majority in both Houses of Congress...
> Or are you really going to argue that Slappy was the best of all possible
> choices for the Court? Or that Scalie isn't openly defiant of judicial
> ethics?
> > If justices can be removed from office for making unpopular decisions,
> > all three branches of government become popularity contests, and the
> > check and balance of the court on the other two branches breaks down.
> > Geez, you are a retard.
> Go look up the requirements for impeachment, if you can't remember them
> from the last time you tried to impeach a politician you didn't like.
> >> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:30:19 +0000, 2938 Dead wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:04:30 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
> >>>> On 04/05/2012 12:01 AM, Gary DW wrote:
> >>>>> In article<jli6fe$en...@dont-email.me>, 2938 Dead says...
> >>>>>>> Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were
> >>>>>>> quacking about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me
> >>>>>>> and "rightards" in general of opposing this principle -- and today
> >>>>>>> you are calling for judges who issue rulings you don't like to be
> >>>>>>> removed from the bench.
> >>>>>> I'm calling for the removal of any judges who openly defy the
> >>>>>> constitution. Judges acting in bad faith must be impeached.
> >>>>> Agreed. But such a thing is completely impossible with a 50/50
> >>>>> divided America and Congress.
> >>>>> I can see an asshole Pub House getting pissed and sending an
> >>>>> impeachment of a USSC judge to the Senate just as a juvenile attempt
> >>>>> at example (cough, Clinton, cough) but no way could it get 2/3 of
> >>>>> the Senate to convict in todays political environment.
> >>>> The Clinton impeachment is recent proof that oru chacks and balances
> >>>> actually work.
> >>> So you approve of impeaching Slappy, Scaly and Roberto?
> >> The idea behind lifetime terms for SCOTUS justices is to prevent them
> >> from being influenced by contemporary politics. Their job is to decide
> >> the constitutionality of laws, based on their own interpretation of the
> >> Constitution, not the public's (and definitely not the interpretation of
> >> Canadians like you).
> > Indeed, but in this cale, they were pre-influenced, fascist parodies of
> > judges pressed on us by the GOP.
> > Or are you really going to argue that Slappy was the best of all possible
> > choices for the Court? Or that Scalie isn't openly defiant of judicial
> > ethics?
> I assume that the term "Slappy" is your pet name for Justice Thomas.
> The truth is that Thomas, Scalia and Roberts have all done a good job as
> Supreme Court justices.
Heh....if General Motors is a person.....what are you? What part of
you is made of cement?
The judical "sins" of your idols are clear. Example? The SC's
annointment of Bush 1/2 as president. The Court had no right to
intervene in a "state right" privilege (selection of electors). The
republic was not about to collapse in anarchy.
>> >> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:30:19 +0000, 2938 Dead wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:04:30 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>> >>>> On 04/05/2012 12:01 AM, Gary DW wrote:
>> >>>>> In article<jli6fe$en...@dont-email.me>, 2938 Dead says...
>> >>>>>>> Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were
>> >>>>>>> quacking about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me
>> >>>>>>> and "rightards" in general of opposing this principle -- and today
>> >>>>>>> you are calling for judges who issue rulings you don't like to be
>> >>>>>>> removed from the bench.
>> >>>>>> I'm calling for the removal of any judges who openly defy the
>> >>>>>> constitution. Judges acting in bad faith must be impeached.
>> >>>>> Agreed. But such a thing is completely impossible with a 50/50
>> >>>>> divided America and Congress.
>> >>>>> I can see an asshole Pub House getting pissed and sending an
>> >>>>> impeachment of a USSC judge to the Senate just as a juvenile attempt
>> >>>>> at example (cough, Clinton, cough) but no way could it get 2/3 of
>> >>>>> the Senate to convict in todays political environment.
>> >>>> The Clinton impeachment is recent proof that oru chacks and balances
>> >>>> actually work.
>> >>> So you approve of impeaching Slappy, Scaly and Roberto?
>> >> The idea behind lifetime terms for SCOTUS justices is to prevent them
>> >> from being influenced by contemporary politics. Their job is to decide
>> >> the constitutionality of laws, based on their own interpretation of the
>> >> Constitution, not the public's (and definitely not the interpretation of
>> >> Canadians like you).
>> > Indeed, but in this cale, they were pre-influenced, fascist parodies of
>> > judges pressed on us by the GOP.
>> > Or are you really going to argue that Slappy was the best of all possible
>> > choices for the Court? Or that Scalie isn't openly defiant of judicial
>> > ethics?
>> I assume that the term "Slappy" is your pet name for Justice Thomas.
>> The truth is that Thomas, Scalia and Roberts have all done a good job as
>> Supreme Court justices.
>Heh....if General Motors is a person.....what are you? What part of
>you is made of cement?
I bet David can't name one could decision that Slappy has written the
majority opinion for.
>The judical "sins" of your idols are clear. Example? The SC's
>annointment of Bush 1/2 as president. The Court had no right to
>intervene in a "state right" privilege (selection of electors). The
>republic was not about to collapse in anarchy.
--
"So called payroll taxes aren't taxes at all" -- Steve Canyon, trying to explain
why millionaires don't actually pay less taxes than median income families.
>>>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:30:19 +0000, 2938 Dead wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:04:30 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/05/2012 12:01 AM, Gary DW wrote:
>>>>>>> In article<jli6fe$en...@dont-email.me>, 2938 Dead says...
>>>>>>>>> Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were
>>>>>>>>> quacking about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me
>>>>>>>>> and "rightards" in general of opposing this principle -- and today
>>>>>>>>> you are calling for judges who issue rulings you don't like to be
>>>>>>>>> removed from the bench.
>>>>>>>> I'm calling for the removal of any judges who openly defy the
>>>>>>>> constitution. Judges acting in bad faith must be impeached.
>>>>>>> Agreed. But such a thing is completely impossible with a 50/50
>>>>>>> divided America and Congress.
>>>>>>> I can see an asshole Pub House getting pissed and sending an
>>>>>>> impeachment of a USSC judge to the Senate just as a juvenile attempt
>>>>>>> at example (cough, Clinton, cough) but no way could it get 2/3 of
>>>>>>> the Senate to convict in todays political environment.
>>>>>> The Clinton impeachment is recent proof that oru chacks and balances
>>>>>> actually work.
>>>>> So you approve of impeaching Slappy, Scaly and Roberto?
>>>> The idea behind lifetime terms for SCOTUS justices is to prevent them
>>>> from being influenced by contemporary politics. Their job is to decide
>>>> the constitutionality of laws, based on their own interpretation of the
>>>> Constitution, not the public's (and definitely not the interpretation of
>>>> Canadians like you).
>>> Indeed, but in this cale, they were pre-influenced, fascist parodies of
>>> judges pressed on us by the GOP.
>>> Or are you really going to argue that Slappy was the best of all possible
>>> choices for the Court? Or that Scalie isn't openly defiant of judicial
>>> ethics?
>> I assume that the term "Slappy" is your pet name for Justice Thomas.
>> The truth is that Thomas, Scalia and Roberts have all done a good job as
>> Supreme Court justices.
> Heh....if General Motors is a person.....what are you? What part of
> you is made of cement?
> The judical "sins" of your idols are clear. Example? The SC's
> annointment of Bush 1/2 as president. The Court had no right to
> intervene in a "state right" privilege (selection of electors). The
> republic was not about to collapse in anarchy.
You are aware that Gore was trying to illegally steal the election?
<liberalh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 5, 12:53 pm, 2938 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:43:53 -0500, Dänk 42Ø wrote:
>> > On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:30:19 +0000, 2938 Dead wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:04:30 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>> >>> On 04/05/2012 12:01 AM, Gary DW wrote:
>> >>>> In article<jli6fe$en...@dont-email.me>, 2938 Dead says...
>> >>>>>> Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were
>> >>>>>> quacking about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me
>> >>>>>> and "rightards" in general of opposing this principle -- and today
>> >>>>>> you are calling for judges who issue rulings you don't like to be
>> >>>>>> removed from the bench.
>> >>>>> I'm calling for the removal of any judges who openly defy the
>> >>>>> constitution. Judges acting in bad faith must be impeached.
>> >>>> Agreed. But such a thing is completely impossible with a 50/50
>> >>>> divided America and Congress.
>> >>>> I can see an asshole Pub House getting pissed and sending an
>> >>>> impeachment of a USSC judge to the Senate just as a juvenile attempt
>> >>>> at example (cough, Clinton, cough) but no way could it get 2/3 of
>> >>>> the Senate to convict in todays political environment.
>> >>> The Clinton impeachment is recent proof that oru chacks and balances
>> >>> actually work.
>> >> So you approve of impeaching Slappy, Scaly and Roberto?
>> > The idea behind lifetime terms for SCOTUS justices is to prevent them
>> > from being influenced by contemporary politics. Their job is to decide
>> > the constitutionality of laws, based on their own interpretation of the
>> > Constitution, not the public's (and definitely not the interpretation of
>> > Canadians like you).
>> Indeed, but in this cale, they were pre-influenced, fascist parodies of
>> judges pressed on us by the GOP.
>But the real fault lies with the democratic party for failing to
>properly construct its message to the voter, its failure to oppose
>reichwing legislation (example: the elimination of limits on ownership
>of media),its willingness to support reichwing southern "democrats"
>simply to maintain an apparent majority in both Houses of Congress...
Oh, yeah, I know. Democrats decided to lead by surrendering, and
share responsibility for this mess.
>> Or are you really going to argue that Slappy was the best of all possible
>> choices for the Court? Or that Scalie isn't openly defiant of judicial
>> ethics?
>> > If justices can be removed from office for making unpopular decisions,
>> > all three branches of government become popularity contests, and the
>> > check and balance of the court on the other two branches breaks down.
>> > Geez, you are a retard.
>> Go look up the requirements for impeachment, if you can't remember them
>> from the last time you tried to impeach a politician you didn't like.
>> --
>> “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
>> inevitable” -JFK
>> --
>> “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
>> inevitable” -JFK- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
--
"So called payroll taxes aren't taxes at all" -- Steve Canyon, trying to explain
why millionaires don't actually pay less taxes than median income families.
>>> You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.
>> "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their
>> Offices during good Behavior..."
>> -- Article III, Section 1
> In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court
> shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
> with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as
> the Congress shall make.
> --- Article III, Section 2, Other Cases clause
> The Congress has the right to define the limits of the Court's authority,
> as is made clear. So Congress can inform the court that its power to
> regulate the commerce that is the health care system of the nation is not
> subject to judicial oversight.
And to think you and your fellow leftards had conniption fits a few years ago when a Republican Congress tried to pass laws regarding school prayer with a condition that the courts couldn't rule on them.
> And the Good Behavior clause you cite is relevant: if a justice does not
> follow the Constitution and usurps power, he is to be impeached. Thanks
> for pointing that out.
Since the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution, which body will decide whether it has not followed it? Are you calling for the creation of a Supremer Court, which will review every decision the Supreme Court makes?
>> Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were
>> quacking about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me and
>> "rightards" in general of opposing this principle -- and today you are
>> calling for judges who issue rulings you don't like to be removed from
>> the bench.
> Newt Gingrich, Tom "The Hammer" DeLay, Bush, Cheney...what judges who have
> ruled as "activist leftist judges" have they not threatened with
> impeachment??
Have I expressed support for any of these fools or their ideas? In fact, I spent seven years (2002-2008) calling for Emperor Bush's impeachment, while leftards like you were bleating praise for Nancy Pelosi's decision to move impeachment off the table to make room for a more important farm subsidy bill. And I objected to Newt's suggestion that "activist" judges be arrested and forced to explain their rulings to a congressional committee, and dismayed that the "opposition" party now proposes the same thing.
> Tell me how that do that with a fukup named Scalia, who is the expression
> of the will of the people from 25 years ago. How about that the guy who
> likes his Coca Cola with pubic hairs in them....what's his
> name?....Clarence "Uncle" Thomas? I will give you the fact that Roberts
> and Alito are more recent, so I see them as an expression of the will of
> the people.
The idea behind life terms -- and lifetime salaries after they retire -- for SCOTUS justices is to discourage them from making decisions that might enrich them later. They are supposed to be above politics and greed.
Mexico has single term limits for virtually every public office, including the presidency and senate (six years), the house (three years), and the supreme court (fifteen years). With no chance of re-election, the Mexican system became a "rotating dictatorship," where officials try to steal as much as they can before their terms expire.
>> With no checks and balances, no way to enforce election results, the
>> party that comes to power first will stay in power, and we will have a
>> dictatorship.
> WhatTF??? Huh????
Life terms for SCOTUS justices provides stability and continuity over generations. Contrast this with Venezuela, whose dictator is dying of cancer. All branches of Venezuela's government are controlled by Hugo Chavez; his "United Socialist Party" is all about him -- when he goes the Party will collapse and chaos will ensue.
The Framers carefully designed a system that would remain stable for generations -- with staggered term limits for different branches to ensure that the entire government could not be replaced at once. If a "reform" is a good idea today, it will be a good idea two and six and twenty years from now. And if you don't like the slow pace of Change, feel free to get enough support to ratify a constitutional amendment. (Given how popular Obamacare supposedly is, getting enough support for an amendment if it is struck down should be no problem.)
If you don't like how our STABLE constitutional system works, feel free to move to Mali or Malawi or Derkaderkastan where there are no generational institutions -- just dictatorships which are toppled and replaced by new dictatorships every few months.
You are a fascist. Leftarded control-freaks like you make me glad we have a Second Amendment. Your blatant contempt for the Constitution makes me glad we real "patriots" have a way to defend it. And as a huge fan of George Orwell, I am offended by your use of his most famous character's name as your alias. You are not Winston Smith, you are O'Brien. You represent the totalitarian system that Winston fought against.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"The Party claimed, of course, to have liberated the proles from bondage. Before the Revolution they had been hideously oppressed by the capitalists, they had been starved and flogged, women had been forced to work in the coal mines (women still did work in the coal mines, as a matter of fact), children had been sold into the factories at the age of six. But simultaneously, true to the Principles of doublethink, the Party taught that the proles were natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals, by the application of a few simple rules."
-- 1984
>> I don't think the USSC is gonna put up with such talk, or
>> 'orders' from the executive branch either. They're an
>> equally-empowered branch of government and beholdin' to
>> NOBODY.
> We'll remember that when the litany of bullshit from wingers screech
> about the "activist judges" shooting down bullshit republican
> legislation.
And we'll remember your position when a future Republican-controlled Congress proposes impeachment of "activist judges" who rule against your pet legislation. The Framers understood this, which is why they created (what they hoped would be) an independent judiciary.
Democracy works both ways: When you demand that other accept the will of the majority -- when the majority agree with you -- you must also accept the will of the majority when they DISAGREE with you. Unfortunately, this fascist tendency is not unique to either ruling party.
You say you believe in democracy, but this is only when democracy goes your way: Since a (slim) majority of Congress passed the Obamacare law, the Supreme Court is obliged to uphold it as constitutional. Had an overwhelming majority of Congress passed a law making it a crime to be an annoying fucktard on the Internet, you would defend the power of the same Supreme Court to strike it down. You don't care about democracy, all you care about is creating a system that you can use to impose your ideas on others, no matter how unpopular or unconstitutional they are. This makes you a fascist.
>>>> You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.
>>> "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their
>>> Offices during good Behavior..."
>>> -- Article III, Section 1
>> In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court
>> shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
>> with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as
>> the Congress shall make.
>> --- Article III, Section 2, Other Cases clause
>> The Congress has the right to define the limits of the Court's
>> authority, as is made clear. So Congress can inform the court that its
>> power to regulate the commerce that is the health care system of the
>> nation is not subject to judicial oversight.
> And to think you and your fellow leftards had conniption fits a few > years ago when a Republican Congress tried to pass laws regarding school
> prayer with a condition that the courts couldn't rule on them.
And yet YOU and your fellow rightards are urging the Supreme Court NOW to nullify Obamacare??? So which is it? The Court can zap the law or not??
>> And the Good Behavior clause you cite is relevant: if a justice does
>> not follow the Constitution and usurps power, he is to be impeached. >> Thanks for pointing that out.
> Since the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution, > which body will decide whether it has not followed it? Are you calling > for the creation of a Supremer Court, which will review every decision > the Supreme Court makes?
The Congress is constitutionally given that power, numbskull. It's their prerogative.
>>> Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were
>>> quacking about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me
>>> and "rightards" in general of opposing this principle -- and today you
>>> are calling for judges who issue rulings you don't like to be removed
>>> from the bench.
>> Newt Gingrich, Tom "The Hammer" DeLay, Bush, Cheney...what judges who
>> have ruled as "activist leftist judges" have they not threatened with
>> impeachment??
> Have I expressed support for any of these fools or their ideas?
That's right, you're a fool for Ron Paul, who not only would have judges impeached, but also shot for good measure.
> In > fact, I spent seven years (2002-2008) calling for Emperor Bush's > impeachment, while leftards like you were bleating praise for Nancy > Pelosi's decision to move impeachment off the table to make room for a > more important farm subsidy bill.
You'll have to cite where a "leftard like [me]" actually said Pelosi was right about that. I am not a Democrat or a fan of them.
> And I objected to Newt's suggestion > that "activist" judges be arrested and forced to explain their rulings > to a congressional committee, and dismayed that the "opposition" party > now proposes the same thing.
" 'Opposition' party"?? What party are you talking about? I haven't heard Obama call for arrests and forced explanations.
>> Tell me how that do that with a fukup named Scalia, who is the
>> expression of the will of the people from 25 years ago. How about that
>> the guy who likes his Coca Cola with pubic hairs in them....what's his
>> name?....Clarence "Uncle" Thomas? I will give you the fact that
>> Roberts and Alito are more recent, so I see them as an expression of
>> the will of the people.
> The idea behind life terms -- and lifetime salaries after they retire --
> for SCOTUS justices is to discourage them from making decisions that > might enrich them later. They are supposed to be above politics and
> greed.
Are you making a serious, valid point here---you know, one that applies to reality?
> Mexico has single term limits for virtually every public office, > including the presidency and senate (six years), the house (three > years), and the supreme court (fifteen years). With no chance of > re-election, the Mexican system became a "rotating dictatorship," where > officials try to steal as much as they can before their terms expire.
Funny how it has ALWAYS and ONLY been the Republicans bleating about term limits, with no reward of continued incumbency for those who do a good job.
FDR had to die in office to stop the people from wanting more of his success.
>>> With no checks and balances, no way to enforce election results, the
>>> party that comes to power first will stay in power, and we will have a
>>> dictatorship.
>> WhatTF??? Huh????
> Life terms for SCOTUS justices provides stability and continuity over > generations.
20-25 year maximum terms are enough to give your stamp of jurisprudence.
At any rate, Jefferson and many others did not want to vest so much power into those holding life terms. When the justices go against the overwhelming wishes of the people, and especially in a 5-4 vote, it's time to reform the judiciary and cut their nads off.
> The Framers carefully designed a system that would remain stable for > generations -- with staggered term limits for different branches to > ensure that the entire government could not be replaced at once. If a > "reform" is a good idea today, it will be a good idea two and six and > twenty years from now. And if you don't like the slow pace of Change, > feel free to get enough support to ratify a constitutional amendment. > (Given how popular Obamacare supposedly is, getting enough support for > an amendment if it is struck down should be no problem.)
For-profit health care systems are ILLEGAL and CRIMINAL in developed nations with better life quality indices than the United States.
> If you don't like how our STABLE constitutional system works, feel free > to move to Mali or Malawi or Derkaderkastan where there are no > generational institutions -- just dictatorships which are toppled and > replaced by new dictatorships every few months.
> You are a fascist. Leftarded control-freaks like you make me glad we > have a Second Amendment. Your blatant contempt for the Constitution > makes me glad we real "patriots" have a way to defend it. And as a huge
> fan of George Orwell, I am offended by your use of his most famous > character's name as your alias. You are not Winston Smith, you are > O'Brien. You represent the totalitarian system that Winston fought
> against.
You need to lay off the bong. You are clearly inhaling some wicked shit.
-- America's fascists, who are recognized by the name "Republican" and "Teabagger," are the evil that festers
when good, decent people look on in apathy, doing nothing.
>>>>> You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.
>>>> "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their
>>>> Offices during good Behavior..."
>>>> -- Article III, Section 1
>>> In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court
>>> shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
>>> with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as
>>> the Congress shall make.
>>> --- Article III, Section 2, Other Cases clause
>>> The Congress has the right to define the limits of the Court's
>>> authority, as is made clear. So Congress can inform the court that its
>>> power to regulate the commerce that is the health care system of the
>>> nation is not subject to judicial oversight.
>> And to think you and your fellow leftards had conniption fits a few
>> years ago when a Republican Congress tried to pass laws regarding school
>> prayer with a condition that the courts couldn't rule on them.
> And yet YOU and your fellow rightards are urging the Supreme Court NOW to
> nullify Obamacare??? So which is it? The Court can zap the law or not??
>>> And the Good Behavior clause you cite is relevant: if a justice does
>>> not follow the Constitution and usurps power, he is to be impeached.
>>> Thanks for pointing that out.
>> Since the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution,
>> which body will decide whether it has not followed it? Are you calling
>> for the creation of a Supremer Court, which will review every decision
>> the Supreme Court makes?
> The Congress is constitutionally given that power, numbskull. It's their
> prerogative.
Yes the Congress is, and all it takes is a simple majority in the House to impeach. Do you really believe that a majority of the House would vote to impeach, simply because the Justice handed down a disagreeable ruling? Even more, it requires a two thirds majority in the Senate to convict. Can you honestly say that a two thirds majority could be gained on such a charge?
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:47:06 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:28:09 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
> wrote:
>>>> Since the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the
>>>> Constitution, which body will decide whether it has not followed it? >>>> Are you calling for the creation of a Supremer Court, which will
>>>> review every decision the Supreme Court makes?
>>> The Congress is constitutionally given that power, numbskull. It's
>>> their prerogative.
>>Yes the Congress is, and all it takes is a simple majority in the House
>>to impeach. Do you really believe that a majority of the House would
>>vote to impeach, simply because the Justice handed down a disagreeable
>>ruling? Even more, it requires a two thirds majority in the Senate to
>>convict. Can you honestly say that a two thirds majority could be gained
>>on such a charge?
> You don't seem to have any problem with a bare majority in the 1997
> House voting a sham bill of impeachment of Clinton when NO "impeachable
> offenses" were ever established.
> The foundation of that impeachment was a forced "referral" from Kenny
> Starr who wrote a THEORETICAL set of "possible" offenses related to
> "moral grounds" that had NO witnesses, NO first hand testimony and
> relied on Hearsay and "looks like".
> Starr never considered the referral a legally substantive document. He
> intended it be "possible offenses" that Hyde would have to hold hearings
> on to provide proper evidence
> Hyde didn't and most of the articles were immediately thrown out.
> Clinton was acquitted.
The House had a half-day of debate on the four charges, and Clinton's lawyers were not permitted to testify in his defence. Even then, the Republicans could only pass two of the four charges, and oddly enough, perjury was one of the ones voted down. To hear the resident Clinton haters, that's what Clinton was guilty of.
-- “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable” -JFK
-- “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable” -JFK
>>>>>> You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.
>>>>> "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their
>>>>> Offices during good Behavior..."
>>>>> -- Article III, Section 1
>>>> In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court
>>>> shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
>>>> with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as
>>>> the Congress shall make.
>>>> --- Article III, Section 2, Other Cases clause
>>>> The Congress has the right to define the limits of the Court's
>>>> authority, as is made clear. So Congress can inform the court that its
>>>> power to regulate the commerce that is the health care system of the
>>>> nation is not subject to judicial oversight.
>>> And to think you and your fellow leftards had conniption fits a few
>>> years ago when a Republican Congress tried to pass laws regarding school
>>> prayer with a condition that the courts couldn't rule on them.
>> And yet YOU and your fellow rightards are urging the Supreme Court NOW to
>> nullify Obamacare??? So which is it? The Court can zap the law or not??
>>>> And the Good Behavior clause you cite is relevant: if a justice does
>>>> not follow the Constitution and usurps power, he is to be impeached.
>>>> Thanks for pointing that out.
>>> Since the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution,
>>> which body will decide whether it has not followed it? Are you calling
>>> for the creation of a Supremer Court, which will review every decision
>>> the Supreme Court makes?
>> The Congress is constitutionally given that power, numbskull. It's their
>> prerogative.
> Yes the Congress is, and all it takes is a simple majority in the House > to impeach. Do you really believe that a majority of the House would > vote to impeach,
That's not the question. A member of your idiot brethren had to be schooled on the Constitution, because rabid partisanship like his apparently means he loses all his bearings connecting him to reality.
> simply because the Justice handed down a disagreeable > ruling?
The two presidental impeachments were done for High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
Do you know anything about anything, let alone history?
> Even more, it requires a two thirds majority in the Senate to > convict. Can you honestly say that a two thirds majority could be gained > on such a charge?
You bring up the good point that we don't live any longer in an age of morality, an age of statemenship.
Presidents can start crimes against the peace----wars of aggression, based on lies----and they get to walk out of the White House instead of frogmarched.
Bush is hated MORE for the fact that he trainwrecked the economy rather than he killed hundreds of thousands without any cause in Iraq, including our own soldiers. The nation is as much a disgrace as Bush is.
A filibustering Senate is representative of your observation that it's all about partisan thuggery, and no longer about a sense of honor or shamelessness.
We have two cable news channels more interested on telling only truths that support their causes---left or right---rather than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the whole truth.
That especially goes for posters to the Usenet, and no less you.
-- America's fascists, who are recognized by the name "Republican" and "Teabagger," are the evil that festers
when good, decent people look on in apathy, doing nothing.
> You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.
> Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of > the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. > During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Salmon > Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate > acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as > the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s > idea is worth revisiting.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. What a bunch of whiners leftards are.
> In article <jli6fe$en...@dont-email.me>, 2938 Dead > says...
> > > Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were
> > > quacking about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me and
> > > "rightards" in general of opposing this principle -- and today you are
> > > calling for judges who issue rulings you don't like to be removed from
> > > the bench.
> > I'm calling for the removal of any judges who openly defy the > > constitution. Judges acting in bad faith must be impeached.
> Agreed. But such a thing is completely impossible with > a 50/50 divided America and Congress.
> I can see an asshole Pub House getting pissed and > sending an impeachment of a USSC judge to the Senate > just as a juvenile attempt . . .
That's because you're a paranoid idiot. Remember it's leftard 2938 dead who's all for impeaching judges that don't agree with him.
Well with Obama. If the judges don't agree with his healthcare. Then he wants them to
be impeached. I knew Obama was going try to bribe the judges he appointed. If he
does. Then he can be impeached himself.
"Harold Burton" <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> In article <MPG.29e6e327a4954bc9989...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Gary DW <Dw2spike3...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>> In article <jli6fe$en...@dont-email.me>, 2938 Dead
>> says...
>> > > Let the purges begin! And to think that just yesterday you were
>> > > quacking about the need for an independent judiciary -- accusing me >> > > and
>> > > "rightards" in general of opposing this principle -- and today you >> > > are
>> > > calling for judges who issue rulings you don't like to be removed >> > > from
>> > > the bench.
>> > I'm calling for the removal of any judges who openly defy the
>> > constitution. Judges acting in bad faith must be impeached.
>> Agreed. But such a thing is completely impossible with
>> a 50/50 divided America and Congress.
>> I can see an asshole Pub House getting pissed and
>> sending an impeachment of a USSC judge to the Senate
>> just as a juvenile attempt . . .
> That's because you're a paranoid idiot. Remember it's leftard 2938 dead
> who's all for impeaching judges that don't agree with him.
