Impeaching a Federal Judge.

[jillian]

Every time there is a judicial decision, one side is going to be happy and the other unhappy.

The unhappy side will always fault the judge and make accusation that the judge is a political activist or such.

The vast majority of judicial decisions are made in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

then follow the constitution. that's all. when will that happen here?

says someone who hasn't a clue what the constitution says or how it's been construed for over 200 year.

 

[jc456]

Its Time.

Impeachment of Federal Judges


By way of example, the only Supreme Court Justice to ever have been impeached (though not convicted) was Samuel Chase, in 1805. Chase had criticized a decision made by President Jefferson (the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, effectively eliminating many newly created federal judgeships held by Federalists, a political party opposed by Jefferson). Jefferson led the charge to have Chase impeached. Officially, the articles of impeachment also included several other actions taken by Chase as a lower court judge, accusing him of mishandling his job. However, though the House voted to impeach, the Senate acquitted. More recent examples provide better illustrations of how impeachment is used in the modern era. For example, Walter Nixon (no relation to the former U.S. President), a federal judge in Mississippi, was impeached and convicted in 1989. Nixon had committed perjury by lying under oath to investigators, falsely denying his involvement in helping the son of a business partner get out of being prosecuted for a drug-related charge.

why do you hate this country?

its to white.

that would be "too:.

so which justice should be impeached dearie?

Anyone will do. Needs to be a loooong and protracted character assassination, followed immediately with heaps of scorn. Think of them as a scapegoat for the others.

doesn't work that way, snooks. you have to have a reason to impeach a federal judge. it isn't about flexing your muscles because it's supposed to be non-political.

let us know when you come up with one.

but you don't need anything to impeach a president. hmmm you have strange beliefs.

 

[jc456]

Every time there is a judicial decision, one side is going to be happy and the other unhappy.

The unhappy side will always fault the judge and make accusation that the judge is a political activist or such.

The vast majority of judicial decisions are made in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

then follow the constitution. that's all. when will that happen here?

says someone who hasn't a clue what the constitution says or how it's been construed for over 200 year.

sure I do and the SCOTUS will back the president. want to bet?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Every time there is a judicial decision, one side is going to be happy and the other unhappy.

The unhappy side will always fault the judge and make accusation that the judge is a political activist or such.

The vast majority of judicial decisions are made in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

While I agree with your comment overall, you cannot deny that many very important decisions are based on political opinions, not on the Constitution and laws.

As an example, NOTHING about the TROs on Trump's travel ban were based on the Constitution or laws. The complaintants didn't even meet the irreparable harm standard. Whether you agree with Trump or not, he has the authority to ban travel from any country he deems necessary.

Those judges granted TROs solely for political reasons, having no basis in law or fact. A fucking LAW CLERK would have recognized the impropriety of those decisions.

That should be grounds for immediate dismissal. We can't have that sort of legal uncertainty on the bench.

 

[busybee01]

So what charges are you using to bring about the impeachment? That you disagree with them? That you don't like them?

It's not about disagreeing with them. It's about them acting improperly.

Judges and Justices are asked to make tough decisions that they may not personally agree with.

Judge Napolitano said that on Scalia's desk, he had a plaque that stated "Stupid, but Constitutional." That is the mind set all judges and justices should have.

The SCOTUS' job is not to save us from the stupidity of the legislators, but to determine whether laws are constitutional on their face or as applied, without regard to the harsh results. It's not their duty to make political or legislative decisions. Leave that to elected officials.

This judge made the right call. It is entirely consistent with past court decisions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This judge made the right call. It is entirely consistent with past court decisions.

Entirely consistent with past WRONG decisions. Stare Decisis does not apply to bullshit rulings.

 

[busybee01]

This judge made the right call. It is entirely consistent with past court decisions.

Entirely consistent with past WRONG decisions. Stare Decisis does not apply to bullshit rulings.

Yes it does apply The Supreme Court said they did not see any legislative records that Congress wanted the President to have the power to allow the President to impound the budgeted money that was in question. The Constitution gives the Congress and specifically the House the power of the purse. A President could use the military to attack a country but Congress can defund it. The Congress did not give the Executive Branch to put strings on the grants in question.

 

[Timmy]

I thought this thread was about Clarence Thomas ? Ya know , with harassment being all the rave.

 

[eagle7_31]

Its Time.

Impeachment of Federal Judges


By way of example, the only Supreme Court Justice to ever have been impeached (though not convicted) was Samuel Chase, in 1805. Chase had criticized a decision made by President Jefferson (the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, effectively eliminating many newly created federal judgeships held by Federalists, a political party opposed by Jefferson). Jefferson led the charge to have Chase impeached. Officially, the articles of impeachment also included several other actions taken by Chase as a lower court judge, accusing him of mishandling his job. However, though the House voted to impeach, the Senate acquitted. More recent examples provide better illustrations of how impeachment is used in the modern era. For example, Walter Nixon (no relation to the former U.S. President), a federal judge in Mississippi, was impeached and convicted in 1989. Nixon had committed perjury by lying under oath to investigators, falsely denying his involvement in helping the son of a business partner get out of being prosecuted for a drug-related charge.

Look up Alcee Hastings from Florida.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Its Time.

Impeachment of Federal Judges


By way of example, the only Supreme Court Justice to ever have been impeached (though not convicted) was Samuel Chase, in 1805. Chase had criticized a decision made by President Jefferson (the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, effectively eliminating many newly created federal judgeships held by Federalists, a political party opposed by Jefferson). Jefferson led the charge to have Chase impeached. Officially, the articles of impeachment also included several other actions taken by Chase as a lower court judge, accusing him of mishandling his job. However, though the House voted to impeach, the Senate acquitted. More recent examples provide better illustrations of how impeachment is used in the modern era. For example, Walter Nixon (no relation to the former U.S. President), a federal judge in Mississippi, was impeached and convicted in 1989. Nixon had committed perjury by lying under oath to investigators, falsely denying his involvement in helping the son of a business partner get out of being prosecuted for a drug-related charge.

why do you hate this country?

its to white.

that would be "too:.

so which justice should be impeached dearie?

Anyone will do. Needs to be a loooong and protracted character assassination, followed immediately with heaps of scorn. Think of them as a scapegoat for the others.

doesn't work that way, snooks. you have to have a reason to impeach a federal judge. it isn't about flexing your muscles because it's supposed to be non-political.

let us know when you come up with one.

any judge that claims the president does not have the authority to set limits on immigration quotas needs to be impeached.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes it does apply The Supreme Court said they did not see any legislative records that Congress wanted the President to have the power to allow the President to impound the budgeted money that was in question. The Constitution gives the Congress and specifically the House the power of the purse. A President could use the military to attack a country but Congress can defund it. The Congress did not give the Executive Branch to put strings on the grants in question.

You are too dumb to insult.

 

[Crixus]

why do you hate this country?

its to white.

that would be "too:.

so which justice should be impeached dearie?

Anyone will do. Needs to be a loooong and protracted character assassination, followed immediately with heaps of scorn. Think of them as a scapegoat for the others.

doesn't work that way, snooks. you have to have a reason to impeach a federal judge. it isn't about flexing your muscles because it's supposed to be non-political.

let us know when you come up with one.

any judge that claims the president does not have the authority to set limits on immigration quotas needs to be impeached.

Or an attempt made. It wouldn't be hard to find either.