Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[Unkotare]

We are all waiting for Peg and QWB to come up with something substantiative. Their belief is not evidence. Come on, guys, stay to the point, please, and answer clearly, concisely, and conclusively.

Most of us are not waiting for any such thing because we already read the thread. If you go back and read my posts you will see specific references to Congress impeaching judges for no other reason than they handed down the wrong decision. Roosevelt was so pissed at the Supreme Court shooting down his plans to save the world he packed the court in order to get his New Deal legislation through. I am pretty sure you are one of the statist idiots that point to that as a perfect example of how the government is supposed to work, so you should have no problem with Newt doing essentially the same thing.

By the way, I loved the joke in your post about staying on point and answering clearly, rdean does it better though.

Roosevelt never packed the court.

He sure as hell tried. Part of a pattern of dictatorial behavior by the most dangerous President in US history.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Consider also the fact that Article III doesn’t exist in a ‘Constitutional vacuum’:

A more holistic approach looks to other constitutional rights and
provisions, noting that any jurisdiction-stripping bill must be constitutionally
valid not only under Article III, but under other constitutional
provisions as well. For example, it is obvious that a bill taking federal
jurisdiction away from a case filed by any member of a particular race
would be unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. Similarly,
even in less extreme cases, Congress’s ability to limit the jurisdiction
of federal courts must comply with due process concerns, among
other constitutional protections. Supreme Court precedent supports
this argument: in United States v. Klein, the Court struck down a jurisdiction-
stripping law because the law abridged the President’s pardon
power under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Some scholars therefore contend that congressional curtailment
of federal court jurisdiction solely for substantive political issues would
run afoul of one or more constitutional provisions, arguing, for example,
that the jurisdictional law would be enacted with a motive to
cause an unconstitutional result.

http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/l...153/issue5/Weiman153U.Pa.L.Rev.1677(2005).pdf

Consider that I was right, again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We are all waiting for Peg and QWB to come up with something substantiative. Their belief is not evidence. Come on, guys, stay to the point, please, and answer clearly, concisely, and conclusively.

Most of us are not waiting for any such thing because we already read the thread. If you go back and read my posts you will see specific references to Congress impeaching judges for no other reason than they handed down the wrong decision. Roosevelt was so pissed at the Supreme Court shooting down his plans to save the world he packed the court in order to get his New Deal legislation through. I am pretty sure you are one of the statist idiots that point to that as a perfect example of how the government is supposed to work, so you should have no problem with Newt doing essentially the same thing.

By the way, I loved the joke in your post about staying on point and answering clearly, rdean does it better though.

Roosevelt never packed the court.

I bet you think Obama didn't raise the deficit, don't you?



Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To the readers, who are not galactical Windbags...

Consider this: In our entire history, a grand total of Fifteen federal judges have been impeached.

• Four were acquitted.
• Seven were convicted.
• Two resigned, resulting in a dismissal and no impeachment trial.
• One resigned, resulting in a impeachment, but no trial to convict.
• One is awaiting an impeachment trial in the United States Senate.

Look at the charges of those convicted, and tell me what you notice:

Federal judges who have been impeached - Judgepedia

I notice this: Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Chase was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.
And this: Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.

Obviously neither of those is politically motivated. Want to tell me again that the only way to impeach a judge is if he actually breaks a law, or that no one has ever impeached a judge over politics or their decisions from the bench?

 

[paperview]

To the readers, who are not galactical Windbags...

Consider this: In our entire history, a grand total of Fifteen federal judges have been impeached.

• Four were acquitted.
• Seven were convicted.
• Two resigned, resulting in a dismissal and no impeachment trial.
• One resigned, resulting in a impeachment, but no trial to convict.
• One is awaiting an impeachment trial in the United States Senate.

Look at the charges of those convicted, and tell me what you notice:

Federal judges who have been impeached - Judgepedia

I notice this: Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Chase was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.
And this: Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.

Obviously neither of those is politically motivated. Want to tell me again that the only way to impeach a judge is if he actually breaks a law, or that no one has ever impeached a judge over politics or their decisions from the bench?

The ONLY one WAS Samuel Chase. Duh. Everyone knows about him. (I don't think you can consider the rebellion impeachment to have any relevancy)

-- so back to Chase.

I made this post a week ago:

I think you need to look into the politically-motivated attempt to impeach Justice Samuel Chase, back when Thomas Jefferson was president.

That sealed the deal on using the blunt tool of congress to remove judges[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Inquests-Historic-Impeachments-President/dp/product-description/0688171710"] "whose views they considered to be unwise or out of keeping with the times"-[/ame] as much as Marbury v Madison.

Delve into that little foray. Really.

Let us know how it worked out.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Bottom line is, when one is curious as to what a particular part of our Constitution was intended to mean, their most reliable method to satisfy the curiosity would be to research contemporary source material during which time our Constitution was being framed and ratified, e.g., the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers; Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787; and Elliot’s debates (State ratification debates) which are some of the primary sources from which to documented the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted!

And if you think that the courts don't do this already and to this very day, then you are more ignorant than a 5 year old pissing on electric fences.

 

[paperview]

Bottom line is, when one is curious as to what a particular part of our Constitution was intended to mean, their most reliable method to satisfy the curiosity would be to research contemporary source material during which time our Constitution was being framed and ratified, e.g., the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers; Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787; and Elliot’s debates (State ratification debates) which are some of the primary sources from which to documented the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted!

And if you think that the courts don't do this already and to this very day, then you are more ignorant than a 5 year old pissing on electric fences.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To the readers, who are not galactical Windbags...

Consider this: In our entire history, a grand total of Fifteen federal judges have been impeached.

• Four were acquitted.
• Seven were convicted.
• Two resigned, resulting in a dismissal and no impeachment trial.
• One resigned, resulting in a impeachment, but no trial to convict.
• One is awaiting an impeachment trial in the United States Senate.

Look at the charges of those convicted, and tell me what you notice:

Federal judges who have been impeached - Judgepedia

I notice this: Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Chase was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.
And this: Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.

Obviously neither of those is politically motivated. Want to tell me again that the only way to impeach a judge is if he actually breaks a law, or that no one has ever impeached a judge over politics or their decisions from the bench?

The ONLY one WAS Samuel Chase. Duh. Everyone knows about him. (I don't think you can consider the rebellion impeachment to have any relevancy)

-- so back to Chase.

I made this post a week ago:

I think you need to look into the politically-motivated attempt to impeach Justice Samuel Chase, back when Thomas Jefferson was president.

That sealed the deal on using the blunt tool of congress to remove judges[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Inquests-Historic-Impeachments-President/dp/product-description/0688171710"] "whose views they considered to be unwise or out of keeping with the times"-[/ame] as much as Marbury v Madison.

Delve into that little foray. Really.

Let us know how it worked out.

The only thing I have said in this thread regarding impeaching judges has been true. I said that it happened in the past, something you now claim you admitted a week ago even though you were cheering on Jones who said it never happened. You can delve into that if you like, I prefer to conclude that you were lying somewhere in the mix.

I also said that impeachment is a very broad power, and completely unreviewable by the courts because it is reserved solely to Congress. I even provided links to court cases that supported that position. That essentially means that, if Congress decides they want to impeach a judge because he parts his hair wrong, that is completely within their power.

I also pointed out it is a really stupid idea, just the type of thing you expect to come from Newt. That means that, unlike all the idiots you have been cheering on, I have been completely correct. (To be fair, my assertion that is a stupid idea is just an opinion, and open to debate, but I still happen to be right about it being a stupid idea.) That means that, unlike most posters in this thread, I have nothing to delve into.

By the way, if you think the impeachment of James Hawkins Peck was not politically motivated, you are really desperate.

 

[paperview]

I notice this: Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Chase was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.
And this: Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.

Obviously neither of those is politically motivated. Want to tell me again that the only way to impeach a judge is if he actually breaks a law, or that no one has ever impeached a judge over politics or their decisions from the bench?

The ONLY one WAS Samuel Chase. Duh. Everyone knows about him. (I don't think you can consider the rebellion impeachment to have any relevancy)

-- so back to Chase.

I made this post a week ago:

I think you need to look into the politically-motivated attempt to impeach Justice Samuel Chase, back when Thomas Jefferson was president.

That sealed the deal on using the blunt tool of congress to remove judges[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Inquests-Historic-Impeachments-President/dp/product-description/0688171710"] "whose views they considered to be unwise or out of keeping with the times"-[/ame] as much as Marbury v Madison.

Delve into that little foray. Really.

Let us know how it worked out.

The only thing I have said in this thread regarding impeaching judges has been true. I said that it happened in the past, something you now claim you admitted a week ago even though you were cheering on Jones who said it never happened. You can delve into that if you like, I prefer to conclude that you were lying somewhere in the mix.

I also said that impeachment is a very broad power, and completely unreviewable by the courts because it is reserved solely to Congress. I even provided links to court cases that supported that position. That essentially means that, if Congress decides they want to impeach a judge because he parts his hair wrong, that is completely within their power.

I also pointed out it is a really stupid idea, just the type of thing you expect to come from Newt. That means that, unlike all the idiots you have been cheering on, I have been completely correct. (To be fair, my assertion that is a stupid idea is just an opinion, and open to debate, but I still happen to be right about it being a stupid idea.) That means that, unlike most posters in this thread, I have nothing to delve into.

By the way, if you think the impeachment of James Hawkins Peck was not politically motivated, you are really desperate.

I do not recall anywhere where Jones said "it didn't happen." Show me.

He seems quite well versed in the legal, political and historical, so I doubt he would not know about Samuel Chase. It's a pretty well known instance to anyone with even a passing interest in the subject. I'm surprised you didn't. Well, not really.

I not only know of Samuel Chase through my study of decades long business of history, I actually had some original letters from him in my archives.

To say I am lying here is just...well, absurd.

On your last note blowhard, you really need to pay attention to words.

Words mean things.

You know, like impeachment and conviction.

You can take your James Hawkins Peck attempt at a slam to me and stuff it. His case had nothing to do with legislation.

And acquaint yourself with this word: Acquitted!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do not recall anywhere where Jones said "it didn't happen." Show me.

How about here? He is saying it is impossible because it violates the seperation of powers

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-to-appear-before-congress.html#post4577801

Or here, where he says that the only impeachable offenses are high crimes and misdemeanors.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-to-appear-before-congress.html#post4578423

Or here, where he flat out stated that it is outrageous and unconstitutional.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-to-appear-before-congress-3.html#post4584182

Or pretty much any fucking post he made in this thread.

He seems quite well versed in the legal, political and historical, so I doubt he would not know about Samuel Chase. It's a pretty well known instance to anyone with even a passing interest in the subject. I'm surprised you didn't. Well, not really.

He seems that way? To whom? He certainly doesn't seem that way to me, and I just provided numerous examples of him misstating everything you admire about him. I think the problem here is you are easily impressed by Google Fu.

I not only know of Samuel Chase through my study of decades long business of history, I actually had some original letters from him in my archives.

To say I am lying here is just...well, absurd.

It is even more absurd that you think Jones knows anything about history, yet you do. Can you explain why you chose to applaud a man who is so easily demonstrated to be ignorant about the law, history, and the Constitution itself?

On your last note blowhard, you really need to pay attention to words.

Words mean things.

You know, like impeachment and conviction.

You can take your James Hawkins Peck attempt at a slam to me and stuff it. His case had nothing to do with legislation.

And acquaint yourself with this word: Acquitted!

Where did I say anything about legislation? My contention from the beginning is that Congress has the power to impeach a judge for just about anything, and has actually impeached judges for nothing more than politics. Seriously? Impeachment for abuse of contempt of court? Can that be anything but politics?

By the way, I know the difference between being impeached and convicted, which is why I never used the word until this post. There are a bunch of idiots in this thread that are trying to argue that Newt has no understanding of the Constitution when he insists that Congress has the power to do exactly what he is advocating. Every fucking one of them, including Jones, is wrong. You trying to parse words and argue that it is harder to convict a judge than impeach him only proves me right.

By the way, a conviction is not an automatic removal from the bench. If you look at that site you linked to it should show that one judge was convicted, but he still sat on the bench because the Senate did not vote to remove him from it.

 

[johnwk]

To the readers, who are not galactical Windbags...

Consider this: In our entire history, a grand total of Fifteen federal judges have been impeached.

• Four were acquitted.
• Seven were convicted.
• Two resigned, resulting in a dismissal and no impeachment trial.
• One resigned, resulting in a impeachment, but no trial to convict.
• One is awaiting an impeachment trial in the United States Senate.

Look at the charges of those convicted, and tell me what you notice:

Federal judges who have been impeached - Judgepedia

I notice this: Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Chase was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.
And this: Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.

Obviously neither of those is politically motivated. Want to tell me again that the only way to impeach a judge is if he actually breaks a law, or that no one has ever impeached a judge over politics or their decisions from the bench?

Seems rather obvious it would not be politically motivated to remove a judge or Justice who violates fundamental rules of constitutional law in arriving at his/her decisions, and likewise constantly renders decisions which are not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. An example of these infractions being the Kelo decision which I cited at the top of the thread.

It is so disappointing that political partisanship is suggested to be the only reason for hauling judges and Justices before Congress and impeaching them, especially when our courts, including our Supreme Court and as far back as the Warren Court, have been handing down decisions which have nothing to do with political partisanship and everything to do with consolidating power in Washington and subjugating our constitutionally limited system of government, including federalism, and in its place create a dictatorial authority in Washington which ignores and trespasses upon powers reserved by the people of the States. And what is most remarkable is the leadership of both political parties are complicit in this ongoing act of sedition and which more than likely explains why there has not been a long list of judges and Justices impeached for their repeated assaults upon our very system of government.

Why is it so difficult for all to understand that to not follow the fundamental rules of constitutional law and enforce our Constitution’s documented legislative intent, is to render our constitutionally limited system of government meaningless and inferior to those appointed to preserve and protect it? If one is content over a Court’s decision because of political partisanship and the ruling ignores the fundamental rules of constitutional law and is an obvious act of tyranny, and in the process their neighbor is deprived in a just cause, would they not be as guilty as the Court itself which engaged in this act of judicial tyranny?

Is it not obvious that to follow a path allowing judicial opinions to be based upon the whims and fancies of the Court’s majority membership, and in degradation of the fundamental rules of constitutional law and our Constitution’s legislative intent, is to nourish a monster which eventually will sap the very foundations of the protections written into our Constitution which were designed to preserve and protect our individual liberties?


Shouldn’t we all, without reference to political party, be offended when judicial tyranny takes place?

JWK.

America we have a problem! We have a group of domestic enemies who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the circumvention of our Republican Form of Government which is now replaced with a 12 member committee vested with power to make law; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the transferring of America’s technology to hostile foreign nations; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the interference with our ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, to fuel our economy; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Impeaching a judge is constitutional, as is SCOTUS ruling legislation unconstitutional.

This was not the thrust of the OP, which is fail.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clearly the doctrine of comprehensive constitutionality overrules any argument in favor of ‘jurisdictional-stripping,’ it is supported as Constitutional case law by the Supreme Court and comports with the tenets of judicial review and the rule of law; ‘jurisdictional-stripping’ also runs counter to the principle of substantive due process and incorporation doctrine as established by the 14th Amendment. Indeed, the idea that an American’s Constitutional rights might be jeopardized simply as a consequence of his jurisdiction or state of residence is anathema to the concept of a person’s inalienable rights as acknowledged and codified by the Constitution, its case law, and centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition.

The individual and his God-given rights as a person are paramount, subject to no law or government conceived of by man, as men are clearly incapable of ruling justly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Clearly the doctrine of comprehensive constitutionality overrules any argument in favor of ‘jurisdictional-stripping,’ it is supported as Constitutional case law by the Supreme Court and comports with the tenets of judicial review and the rule of law; ‘jurisdictional-stripping’ also runs counter to the principle of substantive due process and incorporation doctrine as established by the 14th Amendment. Indeed, the idea that an American’s Constitutional rights might be jeopardized simply as a consequence of his jurisdiction or state of residence is anathema to the concept of a person’s inalienable rights as acknowledged and codified by the Constitution, its case law, and centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition.

The individual and his God-given rights as a person are paramount, subject to no law or government conceived of by man, as men are clearly incapable of ruling justly.

Clearly the court disagrees with you, big surprise.

Ex Parte McCardle

We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.... It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal; and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer

The Francis Wright.

While the appellate power of this Court extends to all cases within the judicial power of the United States, actual jurisdiction is confined within such limits as Congress sees fit to describe. What these powers shall be, and to what extent they shall be exercised, are, and always have been, proper subjects of legislative control.

The Francis Wright (1881)

National Insurance Company v Tidewater.

Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred.

I especially like this one.

See also, the quite useful transcripts of the panel discussion during "Symposium Proceedings" held at Villanova on "Congressional Limits on Federal Court Jurisdiction," Villanova Law Review, May 1982 ed., pp. 1042-1076, where Charles E. Rice quotes former Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts as follows [at 1043]: ‘“I do not see any reason why Congress cannot, if it elects to do so, take away entirely the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States over state supreme court decisions.’” [A.B.A. Journal 35(1949): 4.]

Please, keep spouting stuff that is so wrong I do not even have to think to prove you are an idiot.

 

[johnwk]

Bottom line is, when one is curious as to what a particular part of our Constitution was intended to mean, their most reliable method to satisfy the curiosity would be to research contemporary source material during which time our Constitution was being framed and ratified, e.g., the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers; Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787; and Elliot’s debates (State ratification debates) which are some of the primary sources from which to document the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted!

And if you think that the courts don't do this already and to this very day, then you are more ignorant than a 5 year old pissing on electric fences.

Your adolescent “ignorant" comment is not very becoming. Aside from that, go read the Kelo decision and get back to me. And while you’re at it see the Steward Machine Co. Case in which the Court ignored the meaning of general welfare as stated during the framing and ratification debates and upheld the Social Security Act. The fact is, there are countless S.C. cases in which the fundamental rules of constitutional law are ignored.


JWK

 

[JakeStarkey]

johnwk does not argue well. SCOTUS interpretation and definition of constitutional issues "strip" johnwk of anything more than his opinion on these matters. For the record, johnwk has been wrong from the start on his arguments.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

johnwk does not argue well. SCOTUS interpretation and definition of constitutional issues "strip" johnwk of anything more than his opinion on these matters. For the record, johnwk has been wrong from the start on his arguments.

Anytime you say "For the record" I know the other guy is almost certainly right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anytime you try to rebut me, you are almost always wrong, QWB.

You far right reactionaries need to understand that the world has moved on constitutionally since 1791.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anytime you try to rebut me, you are almost always wrong, QWB.

You far right reactionaries need to understand that the world has moved on constitutionally since 1791.

You are deluded.

You need to actually make points before anyone can rebut you, all you do is pop in a troll threads, accusing people who are arguing against the federal government having unlimited power of being statists and far right reactionaries, which, as I pointed out to Jones, just proves you do not know what the word means either.

By the way, how does the world move on constitutionally? Is everyone in the world taking walks for their health now, or are you just stringing words together in the hope that no one will notice they don't actually mean anything the way you use them?

 

[Cecilie1200]

johnwk does not argue well. SCOTUS interpretation and definition of constitutional issues "strip" johnwk of anything more than his opinion on these matters. For the record, johnwk has been wrong from the start on his arguments.

Anytime you say "For the record" I know the other guy is almost certainly right.

It takes you that long? Every time Jake TALKS, I just assume the other person is right, unless that person is in any way agreeing with Jake.