Should Congress Remove Judges who Rule for Gay Marraige?

[JakeStarkey]

Do you agree with Ben Carson?

"When judges do not carry out their duties in an appropriate way, our Congress actually has the right to reprimand or remove them," Carson said. Any law on marriage should be decided by a popular referendum, and any decisions made by courts are "unconstitutional," justifying dismissal of judges, he added.
Later on in the interview, Carson agreed with Deace that ongoing spread of legalized gay marriage would make it “open season on Christians

Ben Carson Congress Should Remove Judges Who Rule For Gay Marriage

So, guys, what do you think about popular referendum? In my opinion it's a good idea because we are proud of American democracy and we can demonstrate our will and consciousness to the whole World. Hm? Is it possible?

Yes! Activist Judges (with poor judgment) should be removed from positions of power when their single word rules over popular vote and the general will of a nation. The Constitution does not give "special rights" to the mentally ill or to sexual deviants so Federal Judges have no business brushing the Constitution aside in favor of the demands of a "special interest group."

So you'd have impeached the justices who ruled that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional? Those were hugely popular nation wide.

I think all such issues should be determined at the State level.

Then amend the Constitution if you can.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you agree with Ben Carson?

"When judges do not carry out their duties in an appropriate way, our Congress actually has the right to reprimand or remove them," Carson said. Any law on marriage should be decided by a popular referendum, and any decisions made by courts are "unconstitutional," justifying dismissal of judges, he added.
Later on in the interview, Carson agreed with Deace that ongoing spread of legalized gay marriage would make it “open season on Christians

Ben Carson Congress Should Remove Judges Who Rule For Gay Marriage

So, guys, what do you think about popular referendum? In my opinion it's a good idea because we are proud of American democracy and we can demonstrate our will and consciousness to the whole World. Hm? Is it possible?

Yes! Activist Judges (with poor judgment) should be removed from positions of power when their single word rules over popular vote and the general will of a nation. The Constitution does not give "special rights" to the mentally ill or to sexual deviants so Federal Judges have no business brushing the Constitution aside in favor of the demands of a "special interest group."

So you'd have impeached the justices who ruled that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional? Those were hugely popular nation wide.

I think all such issues should be determined at the State level.

Then amend the Constitution if you can.

The judges, however, are to make sure that an unbalanced, insane populace does not torture the minorities with which they disagree or dislike.

The courts are a restraint against the mob of majority tyranny.

 

[Skylar]

Do you agree with Ben Carson?

"When judges do not carry out their duties in an appropriate way, our Congress actually has the right to reprimand or remove them," Carson said. Any law on marriage should be decided by a popular referendum, and any decisions made by courts are "unconstitutional," justifying dismissal of judges, he added.
Later on in the interview, Carson agreed with Deace that ongoing spread of legalized gay marriage would make it “open season on Christians

Ben Carson Congress Should Remove Judges Who Rule For Gay Marriage

So, guys, what do you think about popular referendum? In my opinion it's a good idea because we are proud of American democracy and we can demonstrate our will and consciousness to the whole World. Hm? Is it possible?

Yes! Activist Judges (with poor judgment) should be removed from positions of power when their single word rules over popular vote and the general will of a nation. The Constitution does not give "special rights" to the mentally ill or to sexual deviants so Federal Judges have no business brushing the Constitution aside in favor of the demands of a "special interest group."

So you'd have impeached the justices who ruled that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional? Those were hugely popular nation wide.

I think all such issues should be determined at the State level.

And if its the State that is violating rights? The 'tyranny of government' need not be at the federal level to be terrible. And as our history has demonstrated, the States are more than willing to wipe their collective asses with the rights and freedoms of their population if it suits them.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The court didn't write law. It struck down an unconstitutional law.

.

Where does the constitution give anyone authority to repeal laws they think are unconstitutional? Answer is the constitution never gives anyone such authority which means, by the tenth amendment, the power rests with the states or the people. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

The courts are a restraint against the mob of majority tyranny.

Majority tyranny.?? That's called democracy. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
And if its the State that is violating rights? The 'tyranny of government' need not be at the federal level to be terrible. And as our history has demonstrated, the States are more than willing to wipe their collective asses with the rights and freedoms of their population if it suits them.

Of course the states can be as bad as the feds. Nevertheless , the federal constitution gives the states not the feds the authority to repeal unconstitutional laws. The states need to say that. THINK

 

[Skylar]

[
And if its the State that is violating rights? The 'tyranny of government' need not be at the federal level to be terrible. And as our history has demonstrated, the States are more than willing to wipe their collective asses with the rights and freedoms of their population if it suits them.

Of course the states can be as bad as the feds. Nevertheless , the federal constitution gives the states not the feds the authority to repeal unconstitutional laws. The states need to say that.

The constitution grants the judiciary jurisdiction over all issues that arise under the constitution. With the Federalist papers making it ludicrously clear that the role of interpretation the constitution belonged to the Judiciary:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton

And with the 14th amendment, the authority of the Federal Government to apply the Bill of Rights to the States allowed the Federal Judiciary authority over constitutional interpretations of State law as well. If a state government violates the privileges and immunities of a Federal Citizen, the US federal government can intercede and overturn the offending State law.

And occasionally does.

THINK

You genuinely don't get why you posting that makes everyone laugh, do you? That's probably one of the reasons its so funny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The court didn't write law. It struck down an unconstitutional law.

.

Where does the constitution give anyone authority to repeal laws they think are unconstitutional? Answer is the constitution never gives anyone such authority which means, by the tenth amendment, the power rests with the states or the people. THINK

You are unthinking, you fool. The tenth does no such think . . er . . thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[

The courts are a restraint against the mob of majority tyranny.

Majority tyranny.?? That's called democracy. THINK

Yup, you have part of it. A democracy without an independent judiciary to protect civil rights is the Palestinian Authority or Iran. Stop UNTHINKING, shoots.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[
And if its the State that is violating rights? The 'tyranny of government' need not be at the federal level to be terrible. And as our history has demonstrated, the States are more than willing to wipe their collective asses with the rights and freedoms of their population if it suits them.

Of course the states can be as bad as the feds. Nevertheless , the federal constitution gives the states not the feds the authority to repeal unconstitutional laws. The states need to say that. THINK

You are UNTHINKING again, shoots.

 

[bodecea]

The Court isn't "independent." It's answerable to the Constitution and the People (true government) of the USA. Rogue Judges have no business foisting their personal whims upon the whole of the United States and its citizens. Catering to the demands of a small "special interest group" isn't what they're hired to do.

You don't seem to realize the US is a republic, NOT a democracy subject to the whims of mob rule.

Exactly! However, the People have a "representative" government that answers to their collective will in matters of law. As a result, the Constitution has been amended on more than one occasion based on the collective will of the People. But YOU don't seem to realize that individual, activist Judges can't write laws based on the whims of the special interest groups that they belong to and represent. That's completely un-Constitutional.

No they can't. Kindly give an example of when judges wrote laws.

 

[Vigilante]

They shouldn't remove them, just transfer them to Iran!

 

[bodecea]

They shouldn't remove them, just transfer them to Iran!

Ah...that's right. Viggie doesn't like our Constitution the way it is written.

 

[Vigilante]

They shouldn't remove them, just transfer them to Iran!

Ah...that's right. Viggie doesn't like our Constitution the way it is written.

Point out in the Constitution the words QUEER, FAG, or Lesbian....

 

[Skylar]

They shouldn't remove them, just transfer them to Iran!

Ah...that's right. Viggie doesn't like our Constitution the way it is written.

Point out in the Constitution the words QUEER, FAG, or Lesbian....

How about 'citizen'?

 

[bodecea]

They shouldn't remove them, just transfer them to Iran!

Ah...that's right. Viggie doesn't like our Constitution the way it is written.

Point out in the Constitution the words QUEER, FAG, or Lesbian....

It's right next to the words "STRAIGHT" and "HETEROSEXUAL" and "BREEDER"

 

[Vigilante]

They shouldn't remove them, just transfer them to Iran!

Ah...that's right. Viggie doesn't like our Constitution the way it is written.

Point out in the Constitution the words QUEER, FAG, or Lesbian....

How about 'citizen'?

So Queer, Fag and Lesbian AREN'T in there! I presume you believe the little diseased immigrants escaping through Obumbles E.O.'s are citizens?

 

[Vigilante]

They shouldn't remove them, just transfer them to Iran!

Ah...that's right. Viggie doesn't like our Constitution the way it is written.

Point out in the Constitution the words QUEER, FAG, or Lesbian....

It's right next to the words "STRAIGHT" and "HETEROSEXUAL" and "BREEDER"

Those aren't in the Constitution either, Carpet Muncher!

 

[Skylar]

They shouldn't remove them, just transfer them to Iran!

Ah...that's right. Viggie doesn't like our Constitution the way it is written.

Point out in the Constitution the words QUEER, FAG, or Lesbian....

How about 'citizen'?

So Queer, Fag and Lesbian AREN'T in there! I presume you believe the little diseased immigrants escaping through Obumbles E.O.'s are citizens?

Nor would they need to be if 'citizen' is part of the constitution. As that's the only designation necessary for anyone in the US to expect their rights to be protected.

 

[Vigilante]

They shouldn't remove them, just transfer them to Iran!

Ah...that's right. Viggie doesn't like our Constitution the way it is written.

Point out in the Constitution the words QUEER, FAG, or Lesbian....

How about 'citizen'?

So Queer, Fag and Lesbian AREN'T in there! I presume you believe the little diseased immigrants escaping through Obumbles E.O.'s are citizens?

Nor would they need to be if 'citizen' is part of the constitution. As that's the only designation necessary for anyone in the US to expect their rights to be protected.

Rights protected is one thing, to ACT and BEHAVE like a SPECIAL CLASS OF CITIZEN, is NOT covered!