I think it is time to impeach the Supreme Court justices

[Avatar4321]

[

The States are crippled in standing up to the Federal government because the states gave up their check on the Federal government when the 17th amendment was passed.

Uranimbecile. All the 17A did was provide popular election of senators. think

Be nice, Avatar knows that he meant the 16thA. Give a guy a break, hmmmm.

No. I meant the 17th. And I've detailed multiple times on this board why. Removing the Check the State had on the Federal government has much greater consequences than giving them the power to tax income.

Though, to be fair we should eliminate the 16th amendment. Especially considering it was passed based on the lie that it would never go above 5% and it' treats people unequally based on their income level.

 

[Avatar4321]

All justices that have made rulings that do not align with the constitution of the United States and follow more a political ideology need to be impeached by congress. By bypassing the constitution and the vote of the people, the justices are committing treason. The Supreme Court justices are not the end all be all of the constitution, the congress and states are the end all be all of the constitution. A Supreme Court Justice cannot just change the will of the states and the congress just because it thinks it should. They are meant to merely interpret the constitution and the laws not change them as they see fit. For far too long the Supreme Court has become the United States ruling council not much different than the ruling clerics in Iran. To be honest I could care less about Gay Marriage whether it is allowed or dis-allowed but it should be up to the states and its citizens whether or not to give a certain group of people benefit rights from the government. It is not as if they could not marry. They just could not legally do so and get tax breaks and benefits in a marriage outside of marrying the opposite sex partner. This ruling and the ruling on allowing the federal government to fine people for not purchasing health insurance are signs that the Supreme Court is no longer interpreting laws but deciding what laws it likes and does not like based on ideology.

I think it comes down to this...

Who has more Authority to decide what is or what's not Constitutional; an officially appointed Supreme Court Justice or a random internet poster person?

Ultimately, it's the former.

.

The reason we have a written Constitution is specifically so every citizen can read it and know for themselves their rights and the limits the government has in interfering with their lives.

 

[Avatar4321]

That is going to break ShootSpeeders' heart.

People of different races getting along breaks his heart too. I doubt this will be the last time his heart is broke. Though I hope someday his heart changes.

 

[miami_thomas]

2nd you are entitled to your opinion, nothing more, and you must abide by the law of We the People.

If you disagree, then you legislate and agitate.

You don't get stupid about it is the point.

So you are saying that the Supreme Court is the end all and can basically rule over the people as a dictatorship and to act against justices that are obviously not making decisions based on constitution but rather political ideology is not an option? I think for far too long the Supreme Court has been too powerful and that power needs to be contained. If the Supreme Court is going to start legislating law then they should answer to the public same as the legislature. The reason the Supreme Court did not have to answer to the public is because they were meant to just interpret not re-write laws as they see fit.

 

[bodecea]

[

Show us exactly where it says the 10th can nullify federal laws.

The 10A says a power not given to the feds is retained by the states. The C never says who has the authority to nullify laws so the states have it. think

"Power not given to the feds." So, if the feds pass a law, that's their power....until such a point that some state takes them to the Supreme Court who says no. Other than that, the state does NOT have the right to arbitrarily ignore (nullify) a federal law.

Think, indeed.

 

[Avorysuds]

I think it is time to impeach the Supreme Court justices

The irony is that the current majority of Supreme Court Justices are conservatives appointed by Republican presidents.

Impeaching Supreme Court justices because you disagree with their decisions is in itself unconstitutional.

All of whom manage to expand the powers of Government... Making them anti conservative, appointed by anti conservative Republicans. But that's been the issue forever, the word "conservative" means giant ass fucking deficit running Government if the people who call themselves conservatives (Representatives) and their actual policies are used to define the word.

There was little to nothing "conservative" about Bush, or his congress... Yet people would call them conservative. It's like calling a field of dead brow grass lush and green....

 

[JakeStarkey]

2nd you are entitled to your opinion, nothing more, and you must abide by the law of We the People.

If you disagree, then you legislate and agitate.

You don't get stupid about it is the point.

So you are saying that the Supreme Court is the end all and can basically rule over the people as a dictatorship and to act against justices that are obviously not making decisions based on constitution but rather political ideology is not an option? I think for far too long the Supreme Court has been too powerful and that power needs to be contained. If the Supreme Court is going to start legislating law then they should answer to the public same as the legislature. The reason the Supreme Court did not have to answer to the public is because they were meant to just interpret not re-write laws as they see fit.

False premise: there is no SCOTU dictatorship.

You are entitled to your opinion, yes.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[ If the Supreme Court is going to start legislating law then they should answer to the public same as the legislature. The reason the Supreme Court did not have to answer to the public is because they were meant to just interpret not re-write laws as they see fit.

Interpretation inevitably leads to re-writing. What we need is for the states to refuse to accept SC rulings that involve rewrites. The constitution is on the states side.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[The 10A says a power not given to the feds is retained by the states. The C never says who has the authority to nullify laws so the states have it. think

"Power not given to the feds." So, if the feds pass a law, that's their power....until such a point that some state takes them to the Supreme Court who says no. Other than that, the state does NOT have the right to arbitrarily ignore (nullify) a federal law.

.

Why should the states take the issue to the supreme court.? Where does the constitution mandate that.? Why do you insist that the SC have final say on everything? It's not in the constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[The 10A says a power not given to the feds is retained by the states. The C never says who has the authority to nullify laws so the states have it. think

"Power not given to the feds." So, if the feds pass a law, that's their power....until such a point that some state takes them to the Supreme Court who says no. Other than that, the state does NOT have the right to arbitrarily ignore (nullify) a federal law.

.

Why should the states take the issue to the supreme court.? Where does the constitution mandate that.? Why do you insist that the SC have final say on everything? It's not in the constitution.

No one insists, SS, it's a fact. Your tiny faction can't win by the rules so you want to change them. Guess what?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All justices that have made rulings that do not align with the constitution of the United States and follow more a political ideology need to be impeached by congress. By bypassing the constitution and the vote of the people, the justices are committing treason. The Supreme Court justices are not the end all be all of the constitution, the congress and states are the end all be all of the constitution. A Supreme Court Justice cannot just change the will of the states and the congress just because it thinks it should. They are meant to merely interpret the constitution and the laws not change them as they see fit. For far too long the Supreme Court has become the United States ruling council not much different than the ruling clerics in Iran. To be honest I could care less about Gay Marriage whether it is allowed or dis-allowed but it should be up to the states and its citizens whether or not to give a certain group of people benefit rights from the government. It is not as if they could not marry. They just could not legally do so and get tax breaks and benefits in a marriage outside of marrying the opposite sex partner. This ruling and the ruling on allowing the federal government to fine people for not purchasing health insurance are signs that the Supreme Court is no longer interpreting laws but deciding what laws it likes and does not like based on ideology.

Obviously the OP is unaware of the idiocy of this statement.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[The 10A says a power not given to the feds is retained by the states. The C never says who has the authority to nullify laws so the states have it. think

"Power not given to the feds." So, if the feds pass a law, that's their power....until such a point that some state takes them to the Supreme Court who says no. Other than that, the state does NOT have the right to arbitrarily ignore (nullify) a federal law.

.

Why should the states take the issue to the supreme court.? Where does the constitution mandate that.? Why do you insist that the SC have final say on everything? It's not in the constitution.

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

The doctrines of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts predate the Constitution, they were already part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition as practiced by Colonial American a century before the advent of the Foundation Era.

The mistake you make is perceiving the Constitution as something conjured from thin air by the Framers, when in fact the Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition which included judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts:

The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.

After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Although a few Framers worried about the power, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, “A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.” In fact, the word “Constitution” in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase observed that although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the Constitution void, this authority was acknowledged by general opinion, the entire Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court Justices.

The Yale Law Journal Online - Why We Have Judicial Review

Consequently, the doctrines of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts are indeed in the Constitution, both with regard to its text and case law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All justices that have made rulings that do not align with the constitution of the United States and follow more a political ideology need to be impeached by congress. By bypassing the constitution and the vote of the people, the justices are committing treason. The Supreme Court justices are not the end all be all of the constitution, the congress and states are the end all be all of the constitution. A Supreme Court Justice cannot just change the will of the states and the congress just because it thinks it should. They are meant to merely interpret the constitution and the laws not change them as they see fit. For far too long the Supreme Court has become the United States ruling council not much different than the ruling clerics in Iran. To be honest I could care less about Gay Marriage whether it is allowed or dis-allowed but it should be up to the states and its citizens whether or not to give a certain group of people benefit rights from the government. It is not as if they could not marry. They just could not legally do so and get tax breaks and benefits in a marriage outside of marrying the opposite sex partner. This ruling and the ruling on allowing the federal government to fine people for not purchasing health insurance are signs that the Supreme Court is no longer interpreting laws but deciding what laws it likes and does not like based on ideology.

Our problem is CONGRESS. A corrupt congress will never correct a corrupt court.

Actually more to the point our problem is an ignorant electorate

Not unless these judges are subject to elections, just like the congress, senate and president are. However, there's still that problem of an ignorant electorate.

 

[Avatar4321]

All justices that have made rulings that do not align with the constitution of the United States and follow more a political ideology need to be impeached by congress. By bypassing the constitution and the vote of the people, the justices are committing treason. The Supreme Court justices are not the end all be all of the constitution, the congress and states are the end all be all of the constitution. A Supreme Court Justice cannot just change the will of the states and the congress just because it thinks it should. They are meant to merely interpret the constitution and the laws not change them as they see fit. For far too long the Supreme Court has become the United States ruling council not much different than the ruling clerics in Iran. To be honest I could care less about Gay Marriage whether it is allowed or dis-allowed but it should be up to the states and its citizens whether or not to give a certain group of people benefit rights from the government. It is not as if they could not marry. They just could not legally do so and get tax breaks and benefits in a marriage outside of marrying the opposite sex partner. This ruling and the ruling on allowing the federal government to fine people for not purchasing health insurance are signs that the Supreme Court is no longer interpreting laws but deciding what laws it likes and does not like based on ideology.

Our problem is CONGRESS. A corrupt congress will never correct a corrupt court.

Actually more to the point our problem is an ignorant electorate

Not unless these judges are subject to elections, just like the congress, senate and president are. However, there's still that problem of an ignorant electorate.

Ignorant and corrupt electorate.

 

[jgarden]

I think it is time to impeach the Supreme Court justices

I'm conservative, but I'm not a nut about it.
- George H. W. Bush

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/conservative_3.html#FdhP1zyP8yrZJDrm.99

 

[TemplarKormac]

Our problem is CONGRESS. A corrupt congress will never correct a corrupt court.

Actually more to the point our problem is an ignorant electorate

Not unless these judges are subject to elections, just like the congress, senate and president are. However, there's still that problem of an ignorant electorate.

Ignorant and corrupt electorate.

Well, yes, I guess you can say they are corrupt.

 

[auditor0007]

All justices that have made rulings that do not align with the constitution of the United States and follow more a political ideology need to be impeached by congress. By bypassing the constitution and the vote of the people, the justices are committing treason. The Supreme Court justices are not the end all be all of the constitution, the congress and states are the end all be all of the constitution. A Supreme Court Justice cannot just change the will of the states and the congress just because it thinks it should. They are meant to merely interpret the constitution and the laws not change them as they see fit. For far too long the Supreme Court has become the United States ruling council not much different than the ruling clerics in Iran. To be honest I could care less about Gay Marriage whether it is allowed or dis-allowed but it should be up to the states and its citizens whether or not to give a certain group of people benefit rights from the government. It is not as if they could not marry. They just could not legally do so and get tax breaks and benefits in a marriage outside of marrying the opposite sex partner. This ruling and the ruling on allowing the federal government to fine people for not purchasing health insurance are signs that the Supreme Court is no longer interpreting laws but deciding what laws it likes and does not like based on ideology.

Of course you think that; most nutters do.

 

[buckeye45_73]

We could start with Scalia. Next would be Thomas. Then we could get rid of Alito and Roberts.

or the four liberals that never suprise anyone with their rulings of libtard fantasies.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

You guys sound off just as Jefferson and Jackson did about the court. They were wrong then, as you are wrong now.

 

[miami_thomas]

You guys sound off just as Jefferson and Jackson did about the court. They were wrong then, as you are wrong now.

Look the Supreme courts job is to interpret yet we know pretty much how a judge is going to decide based on ideology and not based on the constitution. That is the sign that things have gone way wrong when it comes to the court. Ideology should not matter. Either it is or is not constitutional but many judgments are completely based on ideology. That means the judge is attacking the government and breaking their oaths of office.

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.