And its long past time that someone did.
Actually, the RC Church’s problem with the pope got me thinking about this as it the same problem. Perhaps we need a Constitutional admendment mandating a retirement age for Supreme Court justices. Perhaps at 75 or 80.
Actually, the RC Church’s problem with the pope got me thinking about this as it the same problem. Perhaps we need a Constitutional admendment mandating a retirement age for Supreme Court justices. Perhaps at 75 or 80.I doubt that congress can whip up that much anti-supreme court sentiment as the court is now more conservative than liberal but subject to change. So, even though one segment of the population will be pissed off, the other group will be just as supportive. Few know however that a justice can be impeached using the same process used by Congress against the president under Article III, Sct. 1 of the Const. It's only been done once but the weapon is still on the books. If one of them really crosses the line this check can be used. The way we're polarizing in the US today I wonder if that will actually occur sometime in the near future. Cap't Jack
Impeached for crossing the line. What a funny thing to say. They've crossed the line over and over and nothing has been done. The Dems appear as spineless as before the election, Obama included.Actually, the RC Church’s problem with the pope got me thinking about this as it the same problem. Perhaps we need a Constitutional admendment mandating a retirement age for Supreme Court justices. Perhaps at 75 or 80.I doubt that congress can whip up that much anti-supreme court sentiment as the court is now more conservative than liberal but subject to change. So, even though one segment of the population will be pissed off, the other group will be just as supportive. Few know however that a justice can be impeached using the same process used by Congress against the president under Article III, Sct. 1 of the Const. It's only been done once but the weapon is still on the books. If one of them really crosses the line this check can be used. The way we're polarizing in the US today I wonder if that will actually occur sometime in the near future.
Impeached for crossing the line. What a funny thing to say. They’ve crossed the line over and over and nothing has been done. The Dems appear as spineless as before the election, Obama included.Unfortunately "crossing the line" refers To high crimes and misdemeanors, not unpopular decisions that anger either side. The justices have an awesome power to interpret the meaning of the laws but only as an appellate body. As such they can't initiate laws, just judge them against Const. Law. Right now the hot item is the Voting Rights Act. Southern congressmen would like to see it repealed. They claim it's vestigial and should be thrown out as the need is no longer there. I say leave well enough alone if the long lines at the polls and voter registration laws are any indication if what might happen in the future. Justice Roberts may turn out to be just the moderate we need in cases such as this. Cap't Jack
No I know exactly what you mean, high crimes and misdemeanors. That's exactly what I'm talking about, starting with the selection of Bush in 2000. Then more recently when they went way beyond merely adjudicating a case and actually created out of thin air the heart of fascism with the Citizens United case. And you'll notice how the conservatives gave them cover, by lambasting Obama for selecting "extremist radical judicial nominees". (I.e. they used the standard technique they use often...criticize your oponent for exactly what you yourself are guilty of, thereby making anything your oponent says seem like sour grapes.) It's part of the concerted agenda Hillary Clinton spoke of years ago.Impeached for crossing the line. What a funny thing to say. They’ve crossed the line over and over and nothing has been done. The Dems appear as spineless as before the election, Obama included.Unfortunately "crossing the line" refers To high crimes and misdemeanors, not unpopular decisions that anger either side. The justices have an awesome power to interpret the meaning of the laws but only as an appellate body. As such they can't initiate laws, just judge them against Const. Law. Right now the hot item is the Voting Rights Act. Southern congressmen would like to see it repealed. They claim it's vestigial and should be thrown out as the need is no longer there. I say leave well enough alone if the long lines at the polls and voter registration laws are any indication if what might happen in the future. Justice Roberts may turn out to be just the moderate we need in cases such as this.
No I know exactly what you mean, high crimes and misdemeanors. That’s exactly what I’m talking about, starting with the selection of Bush in 2000. Then more recently when they went way beyond merely adjudicating a case and actually created out of thin air the heart of fascism with the Citizens United case. And you’ll notice how the conservatives gave them cover, by lambasting Obama for selecting “extremist radical judicial nominees". (I.e. they used the standard technique they use often…criticize your oponent for exactly what you yourself are guilty of, thereby making anything your oponent says seem like sour grapes.) It’s part of the concerted agenda Hillary Clinton spoke of years ago.Are we talking about the justices here or the Republican Party? It sounds like a conspiracy of conservative judges, appointed by W. by the way to insure that the Constitution is interpreted "their" way. You know, something like the late 19th Century/ early 20th Supreme Court that sustained segregation; a Court dominated by nine old men with only one moderate/liberal I believe. Think Oiver Wendell Holmes Jr. who backed the railroad monopoly and corporations. It ain't fair but it's the spoils system and not illegal. Remember that Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court with liberals if the sitting justices struck down his public assistance programs. So being ultraconservative and backing big business may be unethical to liberals like us, but it isn't a crime. What the Prez. needs to do is replace those soon to resign conservatives with liberals; that's no crime either!
And its long past time that someone did. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-sotomayor-kagan-ready-for-battles/2013/02/27/ee1fa09e-812f-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html?hpid=z2Sweet ! that's the first whiff of good news I've heard about Washington in a long time. :-) You go ladies!!! er ... :red: YOU GO JUSTICES ! ! ! It's about time someone tells those hubristic jerks what's what. PS, for old time sake ;-) Reflections On Justice Sotomayor’s Confirmation Process http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2009/08/reflections-on-justice-sotomayors.html Why is the right wing scared of Sonia Sotomayor? http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-is-right-wing-scared-of-sonya.html
It ain't fair but it's the spoils system and not illegal.That's just wonderful, so besides fraud being accepted standard operating procedures for big business. Now using the Supreme Court to steal the presidency is supposed to be accepted as normal operating procedures. I know, they can get away with it, but boy oh boy are we going to have to pay hell for standing by and letting it happen.
That’s just wonderful, so besides fraud being accepted standard operating procedures for big business. Now using the Supreme Court to steal the presidency is supposed to be accepted as normal operating procedures. I know, they can get away with it, but boy oh boy are we going to have to pay hell for standing by and letting it happen.We shout fraud; they rely SOP. We can sway the Court's opinion if enough Ameicans pressure their congressmen to complain. The only problem here is average Joe's continued apathy, unless it's a hot button issue like abortion or stem cell research. Of course the Prez. does have the power to ignore the Court's decision if backed by the will of the people, but that could backfire too. The only hope is for him to appoint enough moderate/liberal justices to reverse the decision that is if congress doesn't block the appointments as they have been doing to the secretarial appointees. Personally I'm more worried about the polarization of the House and Senate where the bills become law than the Supreme Court.
The only problem here is average Joe's continued apathy,You'll get no argument from me on that one. :grrr: