should congress impeach judges?

[MaterDei]

Congress not only should impeach judges, but they have a constitutional duty to impeach them when they behave inappropriately.

 

[stevelyn]

I think we should start with impeaching about half of Congress before we mess with the Judiciary.

 

[BryanP]

Congress not only should impeach judges, but they have a constitutional duty to impeach them when they behave inappropriately.

Aye, and there's the rub. Define inappropriate for me. Most people, when push comes to shove, define it as "making decisions with which I disagree."

 

[rdbrowning]

I may be under educated for this discussion, but can someone please explain to me how the Supreme Court can try a case when only one side shows up and then use that farce as a basis for all future rulings? But isn't that exactly what happened with the Miller case in 36(?) ? To a simple person like me it would seems more appropriate to throw the case out and not hear it if the party that asked for the trial didn't show up. This is making a mockery of the "justice" system and turning it into a "legal" system.

Should they be impeached for such? Absolutely. If I didn't do my job any more prudently than they are I would be fired too.

 

[Bruce H]

The constitution doesn't need interpeting. The laws passed by congress and signed by the president need interpeted to see if they agree with what the constitution authorizes. This doesn't happen today and has been neglected for quite a while.

 

[DMF]

Still no one wants to touch my question?

ksnecktieman???

 

[cracked butt]

Judges should not be impeached. Judges are permanent fixtures and can resist pop culture, even radical liberal throwbacks from the 60s and 70s have their place at the bench in keeping our Republic on an even keel. Nothing could be worse than congressmen or a President who is elected because or his/her nice hair being able to control the entire system of government.

 

[GT]

without trying to hijack the thread...

DMF you are playing semantic games.

Evidence that is illegally obtained is fruit from the poisoned tree.

If you are then allowed to use that evidence despite the illegitimacy of its provenance then you have endorsed an illegal act.

QED: if it's illegal it's illegal, no "sorry dude my bad".


G

 

[ksnecktieman]

Sorry for the delay, DMF, I was gone to work.

If you are asking if I am a lawyer, or a scholar, and can cite case numbers, and names, then no, I can not. What I can say is that if someone commits a crime you punish him. When you do it, you do not let him keep his "ill gotten gains". The evidence is suppressed, in the same manner as if it were stolen (it WAS). If you reward the cop by letting him have the fruits of his illegal activity (his arrest record, conviction record, his promotion and or citation for good police work), you will create a real class of "jack booted thugs" that we have no choice but to shoot.
If I embezzle a million bucks, and you send me to jail for a year, and let me keep the money? Have I been punished?

YES, I hate to see criminals go free. Yes, I support the police doing their job. If a cop walks up to me and says he will pay me double for a shotgun I have for sale, if I will cut the barrel off to sixteen inches, that is entrapment. He should be punished, and I should go free, if I do it.

Did I answer the question that you do not seem to be able to make clear to me yet?

 

[Fletchette]

The constitution doesn't need interpeting. The laws passed by congress and signed by the president need interpeted to see if they agree with what the constitution authorizes. This doesn't happen today and has been neglected for quite a while.

Bingo!

 

[DMF]

Aah, now we see that both ksnecktieman & GT, and probably many others who are afraid to speak up, actually do want the courts to "set policy" or "make laws."

You see I'm not playing semantics games, and I'm not off topic. I am asking about the precise topic of this thread.

How about a history lesson, starting with a concept known as "the exclusionary rule," which led us to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" concept (GT you got the two confused).

So here we go:

Prior to the case of Weeks v. US, 1914, there was no consideration given to whether or not a search to obtain evidence was done legally or not. However, the Supreme Court decided on it's own to deter bad searches, by creating the exclusionary rule. It's not in the Constitution, it's not in the US Code, the Supreme Court made it up, as some here would say "set policy, or made law do something congress did not intend."

So after Weeks the problem was the evidence was thrown out, but information derived from that evidence was being used as leads to find more evidence. So in 1920, in the case of Silverthorne Lumber Company v. US, the Supreme Court decided the government may not use illegally obtained evidence to obtain more evidence. Thus they again, "set policy, or made law do something congress did not intend," by creating the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine." See GT the "fruit . . . " refers to evidence obtained by legal methods, but derived from the original illegal evidence, which was suppressed through the exclusionary rule. This concept was again, expanded in 1939, not by Constitutional amendment or legislative action by Congress, but again by the Court alone, in the case of Nardone v. US.

Now hold onto your hats, the courts were still not bound to suppress evidence illegally obtained by local or state LEOs until 1961, when again, the Courts applied their earlier "policy" or "law" to the states, in Mapp v. Ohio.

So if you like the exclusionary rule and the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, then you also support the courts being able to "set policy, or made law do something congress did not intend."

I for one like the decisions in Weeks, Silverthorne Lumber, and Mapp. How about you?

So here's another relevant question for you:

If a FEDERAL law enforcement officer violates your rights, do you think you should be allowed to sue that Fed LEO for damages in civil court?

Think about that and get back to me.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Sorry guys but I coulda swore.....

Somewhere in that document called the Constitution, it states the citizens are prtotected from unreasonable search and seazure.......Which I take to mean the illegal search of a person and/or his/her belongings .......It's called the Constitution, read about it and get back to me !

 

[DMF]

TMC, it sure does say something about all that, however, the Constitution and US Code did NOT create "the policy" or "make law" concerning suppression of illegally obtained evidence. You see I have read the Constitution so I know things like that.

However, there are laws to punish people for committing a variety of crimes that Congress, and various state legislatures did create. An illegal search and seizure would be addressed by those, and bad cops could be punished. However, as I pointed out anyone who supports the suppression of illegally obtained evidence, or the "fruits" of that evidence, is supporting the concept that the Courts can "set policy" or "make law," because those concepts created by the Court in addition to what laws already existed to punish cops who do bad searches.

Slice it any way you want, but anyone that supports the "exclusionary rule," or the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, also supports the notion that the Courts can make rulings on issues not explicitly defined in the Constitution or statutes created by the Legislature.

So, no one wants to take a crack at my question about suing a fed LEO for damages if they violate your rights?

Paging Mr. Bivens . . . Mr. Bivens you have a call at THR.

 

[Byron Quick]

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainte

An earlier poster said that a judge should be tried for treason. I don't think what that poster was complaining about the judge doing fits the constitutional definition of treason. It seems as if most of the times when I hear treason this and treason that...that the person screaming treason has never read the pertinent part of the Constitution.

Article II, Section 4 The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I don't think that federal judges ruling in ways of which we disapprove fits the criteria for impeachment listed in the Constitution.

I don't think it would be constitutional

Oh, and just to remind everyone: impeachment is only one half of the removal process. Remember, Clinton was impeached by the House. But, upon trial by the Senate, the 2/3 majority to convict was not achieved. The Constitution requires the same trial by the Senate to remove federal judges.

Byron, I don't care if the clowns read piglatin I'm ticked off that they can't apply plain english interpretations of a document written in 1780's

it is not rocket science

'cong shall make no law,'

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

etc, etc.

woerm,
from reading your reply, I get the sense that you thought I was referring to the education of the judges. I was not. I was referring to the breadth of knowledge achieved by the writers of the Constitution, many of whom were legislators both before and after the writing of the Constitution and several of whom were later elected president. I am not aware of any who had major reputations as judges.

 

[DMF]

. . . the constitutional definition of treason. It seems as if most of the times when I hear treason this and treason that...that the person screaming treason has never read the pertinent part of the Constitution.

Now Byron, don't you know some people think it's rude to use facts to refute an illogical, blinded by emotion, and with complete disregard for the facts, rant?

 

[taliv]

Byron, it's not such a stretch anymore, since we've redefined "War" with the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror" ... clearly, some of the courts have levvied War on the 2A


but seriously, our judiciary is in a sad state

 

[Byron Quick]

No, I didn't realize that the use of facts in the face of flagrant misuse of various terms was considered to be rude in some quarters.

While I have always attempted to retain civility even, to paraphrase Churchill; "when I have to kill someone," under the considerations of such persons...I'll just have to be considered rude.

It's amazing though, just how many people who raise cain about unconstitutional this and unconstitutional that, whose arguments make readily apparent that they have never bothered to actually read the document in its entirety. It's not very long, folks.

but seriously, our judiciary is in a sad state

I would not differ in opinion with you. However, I do not believe the solution to a group of people running roughshod over the Constitution is to get our own group of people together to run roughshod over the Constitution in order to stop them.

 

[Fletchette]

An earlier poster said that a judge should be tried for treason. I don't think what that poster was complaining about the judge doing fits the constitutional definition of treason. It seems as if most of the times when I hear treason this and treason that...that the person screaming treason has never read the pertinent part of the Constitution.

Ummm, that would be me. And I can assure you that I have read at least two pertinent parts of the Constitution.

I stand by my claim. Justice Breyer admitted that he often uses foreign laws instead of the Constitution to make his judgements. In doing so, he is usurping the Constitution because he is a) ignoring it, and b) picking whichever country he wants to use as his model in order to justify his personal bias.

This clearly is a violation of his oath of office. That is most certainly an impeachable offense. Why? Because intentionally neglecting to uphold and defend the Constitution IS "adhering to their Enemies" of the United States.

 

[ksnecktieman]

DMF? The court did not declare improper search and siezure illegal........ they declared the punishment for it, to include the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine to be a portion of the punishment.

Do you want the constitution and the bill of rights to be expanded to forty million pages to cover all legal circumstances, and all punishments?

I yield to your hair splitting. I agree that someone has to make laws, and someone has to decide the proper punishment.

 

[c_yeager]

I'm all for impeachment based on doing a bad job. And for a judge, making rulings for political reasons is a bad job. However, do you REALLY want congress to make that decision? There is no a more politically motivated bunch of individuals who will allow any personal belief no matter how wacky to influence them than our congress. Seriously these guys arent QUALIFIED to determine objectivity or justice, as both are foreign concepts to them.*

*allong with honesty, decency, and common sense.

 

[Rebar]

However, do you REALLY want congress to make that decision?

Irrelivent. The Constitution gives them that power and duty.

 

[DMF]

I agree that someone has to make laws, and someone has to decide the proper punishment.

According to your approach it would be OK if the Court decided the death penalty was appropriate for Social Security fraud, even though the statutes, as passed by Congress regarding Social Security fraud, do not list the Death Penalty as a possible punishment. I for one am not ready to accept your logic on that one.


Actually it is the job of Congress to define the punishments for breaking the law. For example, 18USC241 Conspiracy Against Rights, states the punishment as, ". . . They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

The same is true of every other law, Congress defines both what is illegal, and what the possible punishments are for violating the law.

Again, I'm not playing semantics games, or splitting hairs. I'm talking about what this thread purports to address. The Courts invented that "policy" or "law" when it did not exist in the Constitution or the US Code.

Do you want the constitution and the bill of rights to be expanded to forty million pages to cover all legal circumstances, and all punishments?

Funny how now you want to talk about excessive expansion of the Constitution when up till now it was both about the Constitution AND laws passed by Congress. Your original question included this language,

. . . or be held to "the letter of the law", as congress (or the constitution) intended it to read?

Why the backpedalling to take "the letter of the law as Congress intended" out of the equation?

Anyway, how come no one wants to discuss civil torts against fed LEOs?

 

[dloken]

Actually, "judicial activism" seems to mean "I disagree with the court's ruling". I haven't read the term being used this much since reading up on the civil rights movement. Seems like lots of people were slinging the term "judicial activism" around when those nefarious left-wingers on the Supreme Court ruled on Brown vs. Board of Education.

So you want Congress to be both the law-making branch, and the branch that interprets those laws? Wouldn't that be a bit self-serving?

Never mind that all would be hunky-dory with you until there's a Blue majority in House and Senate, and they decide that judges upholding the Second Amendment are "activists"...then all the "judicial activism" criers would scream "Checks and Balances! Checks and Balances!"

It all depends on whose ox gets gored.

I love you Marko.

Personally whenever I hear someone use the term "activist judge" or "judicial activism" I immediately dismiss them as being a moron unable to do anything but repeat the blowhard talking points.

The mere notion of impeaching (Or as a few of our esteemed members suggested; hanging them) judges simply because they ruled in a manner that upset you or went against your morals (Lets see, the Schiavo case which had about 7 years or so of court rulings supporting her husband) is terrifying.

Don't get me started on Tom Delay (Man is he becomming an embarassment to the Republicans with all of his ethical issues) blathering about how he was upset that judges didn't do what congress told them to do.

You have to remember that not all gun owners are conservative. I want my machineguns (really regretting having to miss Knob Creek) but no morals or jesusland bull???? being forced upon me (Case in point: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1499643/20050406/index.jhtml?headlines=true).

I believe we as gun owners would really further our cause if we would drop all the right wing politics from our fine hobby and focus on you know preserving our rights as gun owners and introducing new people to the sport. It really disheartens me when I go to the range and hear people talking about those evil liberal traitors.

If I were new to shooting and it were my first time such talk would probably convince me never to try it again. But alas I love firearms and shooting so I just keep quiet about politics.

 

[c_yeager]

Irrelivent. The Constitution gives them that power and duty.

Congress does not have the authority to impeach judges because they deem the judges decision to be activist, which is what we are talking about here.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

DMF I would sue the Jack boots off that thug!!!!!!!!!

You happy now .....And no one wants to play with you 'cause it is thread drift bordering on thread hijack !!Start a new thread and I will talk on that point till I run out of insults !