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

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

You sound as though you think the democrats need an excuse to undermine the constitution and the country.

 

[excalibur]

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.

He probably will, after SCOTUS releases their final decisions of the term that ends in June 2026.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Can’t remove them…. Especially Sotomayor. She said the mission of the Court is to make Law. Without her, what would the Democrats do?

 

[Dante]

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)

Fascinating. Do you live in a facility?

 

[johnwk]

She said the mission of the Court is to make Law. Without her, what would the Democrats do?

Yes. Make law by interpretation.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan have subverted Article V of our Constitution by acting as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and arbitrarily expanded the limited subject matter under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, and did so without consent of the governed.

Why do democrats have a problem with adhering to the terms and conditions of our Constitution, under which the States and people therein ratified it?

 

[theHawk]

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)

Kentaji needs to go. She can’t even define what a woman is.

 

[johnwk]

Kentaji needs to go. She can’t even define what a woman is.

That's because she probably stands up when taking a piss.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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)

So, this is a "you didn't do what we want you to do, so you should be replaced by people who will do whatever we want them to do" nonsense?

 

[johnwk]

So, this is a "you didn't do what we want you to do, so you should be replaced by people who will do whatever we want them to do" nonsense?

According to you, its about, "you didn't do what we want you to do, so you should be replaced by people who will do whatever we want them to do" .

What its really about is Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan having subverted Article V of our Constitution by acting as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and arbitrarily expanding the limited subject matter under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, and did so without consent of the governed.

Do you have a problem with adhering to the terms and conditions of our Constitution, under which the States and people therein ratified it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

According to you, its about, "you didn't do what we want you to do, so you should be replaced by people who will do whatever we want them to do" .

What its really about is Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan having subverted Article V of our Constitution by acting as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and arbitrarily expanding the limited subject matter under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, and did so without consent of the governed.

Do you have a problem with adhering to the terms and conditions of our Constitution, under which the States and people therein ratified it?

Consent of the governed? What a joke. When have the desires of the US people ever been taken into account. You don't have democracy. You vote and the system decides which one of two shit parties gets to rule.

The Supreme Court especially is not the will of the people.

The longest serving Justice is Clarance "I'll take your bribes" Thomas, who was appointed by Bush senior.

Since Bush left office, Republicans have had 3 1/4 terms in office. Dubya and Trump.
Democrats had five, Clinton, Obama and Biden.

So, five to three. Of those, the Republicans only won the popular vote two out of eight times.

But the Republicans got five out of ten of those justices. You're telling me that's the will of the people?

Of those still serving, Republicans have six to three. So, from three times in 9 elections getting the popular vote, or 33%, the Republicans have 66% of the justices and you come on here and complain that the Democrats are getting more power than the will of the people. **** me.

 

[johnwk]

Consent of the governed? What a joke. When have the desires of the US people ever been taken into account. You don't have . . . [cut for brevity]

Your deflection from my question is noted.

Do you have a problem with adhering to the terms and conditions of our Constitution, under which the States and people therein ratified it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your deflection from my question is noted.

Do you have a problem with adhering to the terms and conditions of our Constitution, under which the States and people therein ratified it?

******* hell. I can't be bothered to play these games. Either you want a proper conversation, or you don't. You don't. So, bye

 

[johnwk]

******* hell. I can't be bothered to play these games. Either you want a proper conversation, or you don't. You don't. So, bye

Give it a freaken break, pal.

The fact remains, those who support the Written Opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, refuse and continue to avoid quoting the passages from the case in which the majority opinion quotes from the Congressional debates of the 39th Congress, which framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, to substantiate their interpretations of the amendment.

The fact is, the Fourteenth Amendment does not, and was not, adopted to forbid state laws making distinctions based on "sex". And that is why the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment {ERA} continued being promoted after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is specifically designed to forbid distinctions being made based upon "sex" ____ the wording of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment being:

"Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex."

In the 1970s, Congress set a seven year deadline for the ratification of the ERA which was later extended by three years to 1982. But despite efforts to secure ratification of the amendment, a sufficient number of States wisely refuse to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment. Some of the reasons for its rejection were, it would lead to women being drafted into the military, unisex bathrooms, and even legalization of homosexual marriages.

So, having reviewed the historical evidence, it becomes obvious why those who support the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, avoid quoting any passages from the case which actually establishes the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to forbid distinctions based upon sex, or forbid the State of Kentucky from issuing marriage licenses based on the sex of the applicants.

The majority’s WRITTEN OPINION in Obergefell v. Hodges, authored by Justice Kennedy and joined in by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, is not based upon the rule of law, but rather, it

• subjugates Article V, our Constitution’s only lawful way to accommodate the desire to protect and allow nation-wide same-sex marriages;
• defies and distorts historical facts concerning the Fourteenth Amendment;
• and that it knowingly subverts the State of Kentucky’s reserved power, guaranteed by our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, to issue marriage licenses based upon the applicants’ sex.

In short, the majority’s opinion adopts the Humpty Dumpty theory of language and imposes its personal feelings and predilections as the rule of law.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,

“it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

JWK

“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[Independent thinker]

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)

It's easier just to expand the court now. Democrats are in favor of expanding the court anyway.

 

[sartre play]

You want us to get even farther away from an impartial court?

 

[johnwk]

It's easier just to expand the court now. Democrats are in favor of expanding the court anyway.

Expanding the court does not address the problem. Why have a written Constitution, approved by the States and people therein, if its defined and limited subject matter can be altered by those entrusted to support and defend it?

Our wise founding fathers intentionally put Article V in our federal Constitution to accommodate for changing times, but requiring consent of the governed by requiring three-fourths of the States' approval to alter our Constitution.

Article V is the only lawful way to add a new subject matter into our Constitution. What has happened is, a majority of the members on our Supreme Court, in essence, set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to. That is the problem we are confronted with.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[Dagoth-Ur]

Just apply the Anita Hill solution.

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

Is there anything bacon can’t do?

 

[Lesh]

You want us to get even farther away from an impartial court?

They do

 

[Oddball]

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

Would be easier to invalidate KBJ, based upon being the nominee of an illegitimately seated prez.

 

[Oddball]

What a great idea! Since the court already has a conservative majority

Only marginally.

Roberts is a wind sock, Coney-Barrett has NFI, and Kavanaugh has a shitty civil liberties record.