Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 9:12AM #1
voice-crying
Posts: 7,222
In the year 2000 we found out what it really means to be a surpreme court justice.
Some of them are there "interpreting the law of the land" (the constitution), while others (it appears) are selfishly using their position to sway elections and get a little financial help from their "friends." Tomorrow will make their agenda clear. Will they uphold the law, or will they (again) give the finger to: we the people? I'm more interested is reading their "opinions" (on Thursday) than I am hearing their decision.

So my question is: can we impeach a surpreme court justice if he or she ignores the law in exchange for "party" favor?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_o...

www.supremecourt.gov/
"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 10:19AM #2
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

SCOTUS job is to determine whether what Congress does falls in line with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Overturning something for missing that mark is hardly the end of the world as we know it. Of course the left always cheers when the court makes up a living Constitution to justify whatever the left supports, but if it affirms gun rights as an indivdual right, not a collective one, the world is over.


Tomorrow could go either way. The court has historically been reluctant to limit the power of the Congress with regard to commerce, and seems to understand that, as the unelected branch, they should limit themselves. Still, the case rests on the incredibly stupid idea that health insurance is a unique product in the marketplace, unlike any other, so can't be treated like any other. If you buy that lie, then there is no limit on the Congressional power, from forcing you to buy vegetables (better health=lower insurance costs!) to buying a Volt (smaller cars=less greenhouse gas=better health=lower insurance costs!).


I know which way I wish they vote, but if a court can allow a Kelo vs New London, ie the theft of peoples property on the basis of higher tax collections=improvement in the "public good", they can vote for anything.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 10:23AM #3
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Jun 27, 2012 -- 9:12AM, voice-crying wrote:

In the year 2000 we found out what it really means to be a surpreme court justice.
Some of them are there "interpreting the law of the land" (the constitution), while others (it appears) are selfishly using their position to sway elections and get a little financial help from their "friends." Tomorrow will make their agenda clear. Will they uphold the law, or will they (again) give the finger to: we the people? I'm more interested is reading their "opinions" (on Thursday) than I am hearing their decision.

So my question is: can we impeach a surpreme court justice if he or she ignores the law in exchange for "party" favor?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_o...

www.supremecourt.gov/



The answer would be no. I don't know if there is any impeachment mechanism with the Supreme Court.


To your attempted point however, you would never impeach a justice, as they decide what the law of the land is.


But if there is a way, if we can get rid of Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, as they vote with their party, ignoring both common sense and what the Constitution actually says, I would be willing to sign up for their impeachment.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 10:26AM #4
voice-crying
Posts: 7,222

How can a person love healthcare in their own State but hate it for the other 49? Romney loves the individual mandateSmileI don't! I'd rather have universal health care.


www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-...


news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-pushe...


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_m...


 

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 10:33AM #5
voice-crying
Posts: 7,222

Jun 27, 2012 -- 10:23AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Jun 27, 2012 -- 9:12AM, voice-crying wrote:

In the year 2000 we found out what it really means to be a surpreme court justice.
Some of them are there "interpreting the law of the land" (the constitution), while others (it appears) are selfishly using their position to sway elections and get a little financial help from their "friends." Tomorrow will make their agenda clear. Will they uphold the law, or will they (again) give the finger to: we the people? I'm more interested is reading their "opinions" (on Thursday) than I am hearing their decision.

So my question is: can we impeach a surpreme court justice if he or she ignores the law in exchange for "party" favor?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_o...

www.supremecourt.gov/



The answer would be no. I don't know if there is any impeachment mechanism with the Supreme Court.


To your attempted point however, you would never impeach a justice, as they decide what the law of the land is.


But if there is a way, if we can get rid of Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, as they vote with their party, ignoring both common sense and what the Constitution actually says, I would be willing to sign up for their impeachment.




You might get your wish if Romney wins the election...because we know that they are known for doing whatever their hearts desire, and they won't let the constitution get in their way.


"Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1804, but was acquitted at his Senate trial in early 1805. Chase is the only US Supreme Court justice to have been impeached, but a few have had close calls."





"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 11:07AM #6
voice-crying
Posts: 7,222

Jun 27, 2012 -- 10:19AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


SCOTUS job is to determine whether what Congress does falls in line with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Overturning something for missing that mark is hardly the end of the world as we know it. Of course the left always cheers when the court makes up a living Constitution to justify whatever the left supports, but if it affirms gun rights as an indivdual right, not a collective one, the world is over.



Are you thinking about those pesky amendments such as: the 13th, the 14th, the 15th and the 24th? (Now the NRA is vowing to grade any democrat who votes against railroading Holder.)


Jun 27, 2012 -- 10:19AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Tomorrow could go either way. The court has historically been reluctant to limit the power of the Congress with regard to commerce, and seems to understand that, as the unelected branch, they should limit themselves. Still, the case rests on the incredibly stupid idea that health insurance is a unique product in the marketplace, unlike any other, so can't be treated like any other. If you buy that lie, then there is no limit on the Congressional power, from forcing you to buy vegetables (better health=lower insurance costs!) to buying a Volt (smaller cars=less greenhouse gas=better health=lower insurance costs!).


I know which way I wish they vote, but if a court can allow a Kelo vs New London, ie the theft of peoples property on the basis of higher tax collections=improvement in the "public good", they can vote for anything.




I guess good health is not important to those who think they're superman.

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 11:35AM #7
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,156

Supreme court justices  can be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office  for the same offenses as enumerated  in  articles  I and II  of the constitution.


Interpreting the constitution is not the only function of the supreme court ;  It is the highest court therefore the final appeal on any judgment.


Marbury v Madison  established judicial review but did limit the court to constitutional   questions only. 

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 11:50AM #8
loveontheair
Posts: 4,057

Hello,



While I am interested in this *decision and I am for health care for all but *this plan is bad and needs to go down. Looking back I remember how the Dems tried to force this before Christmas. I remember Nancy Pelosi's commit. Just the way this was handled upsets me. They had to get it through before the Lame duck congress--and now we wait. We can do better.



love

Good works will never produce faith, but faith will always produce good works. loveontheair
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 12:30PM #9
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Jun 27, 2012 -- 10:26AM, voice-crying wrote:


How can a person love healthcare in their own State but hate it for the other 49? Romney loves the individual mandateSmileI don't! I'd rather have universal health care.


www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-...


news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-pushe...


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_m...


 




Who is saying they hate healthcare? No one that I have ever heard. I hate forcing people to buy a product they probably don't need at this time, and may not want.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 12:31PM #10
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Jun 27, 2012 -- 11:07AM, voice-crying wrote:


Jun 27, 2012 -- 10:19AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


SCOTUS job is to determine whether what Congress does falls in line with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Overturning something for missing that mark is hardly the end of the world as we know it. Of course the left always cheers when the court makes up a living Constitution to justify whatever the left supports, but if it affirms gun rights as an indivdual right, not a collective one, the world is over.



Are you thinking about those pesky amendments such as: the 13th, the 14th, the 15th and the 24th? (Now the NRA is vowing to grade any democrat who votes against railroading Holder.)


No. Those amendments were duly voted on in the manner proscribed by the Constitution. Roe v Wade, was not.


Jun 27, 2012 -- 10:19AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Tomorrow could go either way. The court has historically been reluctant to limit the power of the Congress with regard to commerce, and seems to understand that, as the unelected branch, they should limit themselves. Still, the case rests on the incredibly stupid idea that health insurance is a unique product in the marketplace, unlike any other, so can't be treated like any other. If you buy that lie, then there is no limit on the Congressional power, from forcing you to buy vegetables (better health=lower insurance costs!) to buying a Volt (smaller cars=less greenhouse gas=better health=lower insurance costs!).


I know which way I wish they vote, but if a court can allow a Kelo vs New London, ie the theft of peoples property on the basis of higher tax collections=improvement in the "public good", they can vote for anything.




I guess good health is not important to those who think they're superman.
I don't think I am Superman, nor does anyone I know think that way. Healthcare has little to do with good health, rather the opposite, though there are certainly exceptions such as vacinations.





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook