Justices Sotomayor and Kagan should be impeached, removed from office, allowing Trump to nominate two new S.C. Justices

[johnwk]

When reviewing the Written Opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which obviously played an essential part in our current Supreme Court refusing to hear Kim Davis’ appeal SOURCE, it becomes self-evident that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan who joined the S.C. majority opinion in Obergefell and are still members of our Supreme Court, have flagrantly abused their office of public trust by:

• substituting their personal views and predilections for the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment;
• subverting the unambiguous legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment,
• subverting the Tenth Amendment which reserves the power to issued marriage licenses exclusively in the hands of the States and people therein;
• subverting Article V of our Constitution, by acting as an unelected, omnipotent constitutional convention, and expanding the limited subject matter under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to while Article V is the only lawful way to approve nation-wide same-sex marriage.

Part of the consequences of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan abusing their office of public trust, as outlined above, have additionally resulted in our current Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal in the Kim Davis case, when such refusal lets stand a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

For the above stated reasons, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan ought to be impeached, removed from office, which would then allow President Trump to nominated two new Justices under the condition they solemnly swear to adhere to the text of our written Constitution, and its documented “legislative intent”, which gives context to its text.

What say you, and why?

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[excalibur]

Never happening, and besides, there is no way even close to 67 Senators would vote to remove either one of them.

 

[1srelluc]

You should get right on that OP......Have fun storming the castle.

 

[Darkwind]

When reviewing the Written Opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which obviously played an essential part in our current Supreme Court refusing to hear Kim Davis’ appeal SOURCE, it becomes self-evident that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan who joined the S.C. majority opinion in Obergefell and are still members of our Supreme Court, have flagrantly abused their office of public trust by:

• substituting their personal views and predilections for the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment;
• subverting the unambiguous legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment,
• subverting the Tenth Amendment which reserves the power to issued marriage licenses exclusively in the hands of the States and people therein;
• subverting Article V of our Constitution, by acting as an unelected, omnipotent constitutional convention, and expanding the limited subject matter under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to while Article V is the only lawful way to approve nation-wide same-sex marriage.

Part of the consequences of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan abusing their office of public trust, as outlined above, have additionally resulted in our current Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal in the Kim Davis case, when such refusal lets stand a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

For the above stated reasons, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan ought to be impeached, removed from office, which would then allow President Trump to nominated two new Justices under the condition they solemnly swear to adhere to the text of our written Constitution, and its documented “legislative intent”, which gives context to its text.

What say you, and why?

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Just apply the Anita Hill solution.

They're minorities. Just feed them bacon and let biology run its course.

 

[Darkwind]

I will say this, however.

Why the hell isn't Thomas retiring while we have Trump in office and control of the Senate?

Bastard is one of the best SC Justices in the past two centuries, but he's getting very long in the tooth.

Retire and let Trump nominate a 40-year-old Justice in his mold.

 

[marvin martian]

I will say this, however.

Why the hell isn't Thomas retiring while we have Trump in office and control of the Senate?

Bastard is one of the best SC Justices in the past two centuries, but he's getting very long in the tooth.

Retire and let Trump nominate a 40-year-old Justice in his mold.

That would be great. He still has 3 more years to do it, so I think we'll likely get Thomas replaced before 2029.

Also, the Democrats have been calling for "packing the court" for years. I'm not sure what President Trump is waiting for?

 

[22lcidw]

I will say this, however.

Why the hell isn't Thomas retiring while we have Trump in office and control of the Senate?

Bastard is one of the best SC Justices in the past two centuries, but he's getting very long in the tooth.

Retire and let Trump nominate a 40-year-old Justice in his mold.

Progs may try to kill him if they come to power next election cycle.

 

[Darkwind]

That would be great. He still has 3 more years to do it, so I think we'll likely get Thomas replaced before 2029.

Also, the Democrats have been calling for "packing the court" for years. I'm not sure what President Trump is waiting for?

The problem is, the electorate is so finicky right now, the Senate may be safe this midterm, but I would NOT put it past the dumb ***** on the left to actually manage to get control of it.

Then it won't matter as any replacement for Thomas will be shot down.

 

[marvin martian]

The problem is, the electorate is so finicky right now, the Senate may be safe this midterm, but I would NOT put it past the dumb ***** on the left to actually manage to get control of it.

Then it won't matter as any replacement for Thomas will be shot down.

Then Thomas would be wise to retire before January, 2027.

 

[Winston]

When reviewing the Written Opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which obviously played an essential part in our current Supreme Court refusing to hear Kim Davis’ appeal SOURCE, it becomes self-evident that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan who joined the S.C. majority opinion in Obergefell and areObergeell still members of our Supreme Court, have flagrantly abused their office of public trust by:

• substituting their personal views and predilections for the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment;
• subverting the unambiguous legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment,
• subverting the Tenth Amendment which reserves the power to issued marriage licenses exclusively in the hands of the States and people therein;
• subverting Article V of our Constitution, by acting as an unelected, omnipotent constitutional convention, and expanding the limited subject matter under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to while Article V is the only lawful way to approve nation-wide same-sex marriage.

Part of the consequences of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan abusing their office of public trust, as outlined above, have additionally resulted in our current Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal in the Kim Davis case, when such refusal lets stand a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

For the above stated reasons, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan ought to be impeached, removed from office, which would then allow President Trump to nominated two new Justices under the condition they solemnly swear to adhere to the text of our written Constitution, and its documented “legislative intent”, which gives context to its text.

What say you, and why?

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

I say you are a flippin dumbass.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
From the SCOTUS, Obergefell v. Hodges.

Under the Due Process Clause of the FourteenthAmendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life,liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Thefundamental liberties protected by this Clause includemost of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. SeeDuncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972);Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

--snip--

As counsel for the respondents acknowledged at argument, if States are required by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the justifications for refusing to recognize those marriages performed elsewhere are undermined. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 44. The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
Your defense of Kim Davis is comical. Damn low level county employee decides she makes the rules, and yet you guys raise hell about district court decisions. She claimed she was religiously prevented from issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Funny, she was't religiously prevented from marrying four times to three husbands. She is, and always will be, the poster child for WHITE TRASH.

You want to discuss the opinion of the court, even the dissents, I am down with it. But you don't get to scream impeachment because you disagree with a legal decision made by the court. Now, taking private vacations on private jets and not claiming them in your financial disclosure forms. Discussing pending cases with interested parties outside the courtroom, Funneling job applicants through in order to enrich your spouse, who is a recruiter--yeah, now all those might warrant an impeachment investigation.

I mean lets look at Robert's dissent,

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

Damn, talk about a drama queen. Yes, this ruling has a basis in the 14th amendment, did Roberts not read the damn opinion. Was he asleep during the oral arguments? We can replay them if you like, there are some compelling stories there. The humility throw out completely uncalled for, childish, and amateurish. No place in a court ruling. And as the opinion documented, multiple appellate cases, and Superior court cases, had already adjudicated the right of same sex couples to get married. This ruling was mostly about state reciprocity

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I say you are a flippin dumbass.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
From the SCOTUS, Obergefell v. Hodges.

Under the Due Process Clause of the FourteenthAmendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life,liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Thefundamental liberties protected by this Clause includemost of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. SeeDuncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972);Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

--snip--

As counsel for the respondents acknowledged at argument, if States are required by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the justifications for refusing to recognize those marriages performed elsewhere are undermined. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 44. The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
Your defense of Kim Davis is comical. Damn low level county employee decides she makes the rules, and yet you guys raise hell about district court decisions. She claimed she was religiously prevented from issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Funny, she was't religiously prevented from marrying four times to three husbands. She is, and always will be, the poster child for WHITE TRASH.

You want to discuss the opinion of the court, even the dissents, I am down with it. But you don't get to scream impeachment because you disagree with a legal decision made by the court. Now, taking private vacations on private jets and not claiming them in your financial disclosure forms. Discussing pending cases with interested parties outside the courtroom, Funneling job applicants through in order to enrich your spouse, who is a recruiter--yeah, now all those might warrant an impeachment investigation.

I mean lets look at Robert's dissent,

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

Damn, talk about a drama queen. Yes, this ruling has a basis in the 14th amendment, did Roberts not read the damn opinion. Was he asleep during the oral arguments? We can replay them if you like, there are some compelling stories there. The humility throw out completely uncalled for, childish, and amateurish. No place in a court ruling. And as the opinion documented, multiple appellate cases, and Superior court cases, had already adjudicated the right of same sex couples to get married. This ruling was mostly about state reciprocity

You nailed it!!

 

[alang1216]

When reviewing the Written Opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which obviously played an essential part in our current Supreme Court refusing to hear Kim Davis’ appeal SOURCE, it becomes self-evident that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan who joined the S.C. majority opinion in Obergefell and are still members of our Supreme Court, have flagrantly abused their office of public trust by:

• substituting their personal views and predilections for the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment;
• subverting the unambiguous legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment,
• subverting the Tenth Amendment which reserves the power to issued marriage licenses exclusively in the hands of the States and people therein;
• subverting Article V of our Constitution, by acting as an unelected, omnipotent constitutional convention, and expanding the limited subject matter under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to while Article V is the only lawful way to approve nation-wide same-sex marriage.

Part of the consequences of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan abusing their office of public trust, as outlined above, have additionally resulted in our current Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal in the Kim Davis case, when such refusal lets stand a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

For the above stated reasons, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan ought to be impeached, removed from office, which would then allow President Trump to nominated two new Justices under the condition they solemnly swear to adhere to the text of our written Constitution, and its documented “legislative intent”, which gives context to its text.

What say you, and why?

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

What a great idea! Since the court already has a conservative majority, removing liberal justices will change nothing. However, should the Dems get a Senate supermajority, those conservative justices could be removed and a replaced with liberal justices.

 

[Cassandro]

Sotomayor and Kagan are two of the most partisan justices the Supreme Court has seen. They take their orders from the DNC and then concoct flimsy arguments to support them. However it would set a terrible precedent to impeach them, and would give the Democrats a plausible excuse for packing the Court if/when they have the opportunity.

 

[johnwk]

I say you are a flippin dumbass.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge

The only ignorant and dumbass is you when it comes to understanding the terms and conditions of the Fourteenth Amendment.


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” or couples, and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person [singular] within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal application of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And, keep in mind, the Fourteenth Amendment's objectives were eloquently summarized by one of its supporters as follows:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

Your turn dumbass

 

[johnwk]

What a great idea! Since the court already has a conservative majority, removing liberal justices will change nothing.

We do not need conservative or liberal Justices. We need Justices on our Supreme Court who actually support and defend our Constitution which means, adhering to the text of our written Constitution, and its documented “legislative intent”, which gives context to its text.

.Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Winston]

The only ignorant and dumbass is you when it comes to understanding the terms and conditions of the Fourteenth Amendment.


The 14th Amendment declares in crystal clear language:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:


1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”


The amendment then goes on to declare:


2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”


This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.


The amendment then continues with:


3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”


Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” or couples, and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.


Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:


4. ”…nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”


This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person [singular] within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal application of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal application of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery.

And, keep in mind, the Fourteenth Amendment's objectives were eloquently summarized by one of its supporters as follows:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

Your turn dumbass

Oh **** off you stupid shit. I mean first of all, why would you give a shit. Seriously, how does it "hurt" you, that two flamers decide to get married. I mean what is your skin in the game?

I mean come on. You got this Kim Davis *****, married four ******* times, to three men. I mean this is a sick ass *****. She gets to call the shots because God somehow appointed her? No, it don't ******* work that way hoss. God sure as hell would n't have appointed her in the first place. White trash skank whore. And that is who you defend. I mean seriously, do you people even think?

 

[johnwk]

Oh **** off you stupid shit. I mean first of all,

What you mean certainly has nothing to do with what you quoted.

 

[Lesh]

When reviewing the Written Opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which obviously played an essential part in our current Supreme Court refusing to hear Kim Davis’ appeal SOURCE, it becomes self-evident that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan who joined the S.C. majority opinion in Obergefell and are still members of our Supreme Court, have flagrantly abused their office of public trust by:

• substituting their personal views and predilections for the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment;
• subverting the unambiguous legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment,
• subverting the Tenth Amendment which reserves the power to issued marriage licenses exclusively in the hands of the States and people therein;
• subverting Article V of our Constitution, by acting as an unelected, omnipotent constitutional convention, and expanding the limited subject matter under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to while Article V is the only lawful way to approve nation-wide same-sex marriage.

Part of the consequences of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan abusing their office of public trust, as outlined above, have additionally resulted in our current Supreme Court refusing to hear the appeal in the Kim Davis case, when such refusal lets stand a $100,000 damages verdict against her, plus $260,000 for attorney’s fees, for allegedly violating the law in 2015 by refusing to issue a marriage license to a Kentucky same-sex couple, when Kentucky’s constitution would be violated by issuing such a license.

For the above stated reasons, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan ought to be impeached, removed from office, which would then allow President Trump to nominated two new Justices under the condition they solemnly swear to adhere to the text of our written Constitution, and its documented “legislative intent”, which gives context to its text.

What say you, and why?

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Good luck with that

Moron

 

[Lesh]

Sotomayor and Kagan are two of the most partisan justices the Supreme Court has seen. They take their orders from the DNC and then concoct flimsy arguments to support them. However it would set a terrible precedent to impeach them, and would give the Democrats a plausible excuse for packing the Court if/when they have the opportunity.

“Two of the most partisan…”

Alito and Thomas…

 

[johnwk]

Good luck with that

Moron

Says the moron who engages in name calling rather than offer a rebuttal .