Congress Goes After Supreme Court
Anybody watching the (National Socialist) Democrat Party’s attempt to covertly usurp the way our founding fathers set up our government?
The (NS)DP has made an attempt to bring in the chief justice of the Supreme Court to testify before a Senate committee on Supreme Court ethics reform. Because the chief justice has refused to appear in front of them, they’re talking about taking action on their own.
Look at this from this angle … Dick (The Turban) Durbin, someone who has made it no secret about his alignment in the past, wants to dictate to the Supreme Court how they should conduct themselves. This committee is undoubtedly majority Democrat or Democrat leaning RINOs and they want to begin the process of undermining and eventually being able to control the court. The (NS)DP has been having kittens ever since they lost control of the court because of their comrades being in a major minority and therefore cannot push their liberal/socialist agenda onto the American people
The three branches of our government were established in such a way as to be able to ensure no one branch was more powerful than any other. Those that consider themselves our lords and ladies have grown bold to the point of deciding they need to do whatever is necessary to enact their agenda and rework the system of government put into place by the founding fathers to suit them. This is, IMHO, the nose of the camel under the tent that could, could lead to a loss of control of our government and put it in the hands of those that claim to know what they know is best for us. The Dems have, in the past, tried to conceal their attempts to change government to suit them and their puppet masters. Now that they have doddering Uncle Joe in place for cover, they’re becoming more blatant about their intentions. This also shows how a lack of teaching U.S. history and government is coming back to bite us.
Chris, chris, and all their other aliases along with their “friends” will be screaming conspiracy theory and other such things. Again, look deep into my eyes and see if you see a little man jumping up and down screaming “I care.”
“Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many.” Alexander Hamilton
Carpe diem & molon labe,
Article III of the Constitution governs the appointment, tenure, and payment of Supreme Court justices and has a process for congress to impeach Federal judges…including Supreme Court judges. So their ask was not completely out of line.
Alan doesn’t really care about facts when fear mongering about how much he hates democrats I guess.
Chris clearly does not understand the Constitution or separation of powers……….the appointment, tenure and payment of SCOTUS justices along with the impeachment of Federal justices is in the purview of Congress – those powers are given to it by the Constitution. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, can rule ANY law passed by Congress and signed by the President as being unconstitutional…….period. This is what is called checks and balances. The Congress does NOT have any constitutional authority to tell the Supreme Court how to manage its house any more than the Supreme Court can tell Congress how to manage its house…….follow that Chris? That’s your social studies lesson for the day. Always willing to help you.
supreme court justices are considered Article III judges and therefore grants power to impeach. Sorry that facts get in the way of your point of view.
It would help your argument if it were not gibberish.
Do try harder, otherwise you just look stupid…
I literally quote the constitution and you call it gibberish. Says a lot about you Austin.
No Einstein, you MISQUOTED the Constitution.
Re-read your own rubbish, genius.
The only Justice to be impeached was Justice Samuel Chase in 1805
There is never one so blind as one who cannot see Chris and I believe that you fit into that category.
Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.
Section 1 of Article Three vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, as well as inferior courts established by Congress. Along with the Vesting Clauses of Article One and Article Two, Article Three’s Vesting Clause establishes the separation of powers between the three branches of government. Section 1 authorizes the creation of inferior courts, but does not require it; the first inferior federal courts were established shortly after the ratification of the Constitution with the Judiciary Act of 1789. Section 1 also establishes that federal judges do not face term limits, and that an individual judge’s salary may not be decreased. Article Three does not set the size of the Supreme Court or establish specific positions on the court, but Article One establishes the position of chief justice.
Section 2 of Article Three delineates federal judicial power. The Case or Controversy Clause restricts the judiciary’s power to actual cases and controversies, meaning that federal judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Section 2 states that the federal judiciary’s power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, federal treaties, controversies involving multiple states or foreign powers, and other enumerated areas. Section 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction when ambassadors, public officials, or the states are a party in the case, leaving the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction in all other areas to which the federal judiciary’s jurisdiction extends. Section 2 also gives Congress the power to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction, and establishes that all federal crimes must be tried before a jury. Section 2 does not expressly grant the federal judiciary the power of judicial review, but the courts have exercised this power since the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.
Section 3 of Article Three defines treason and empowers Congress to punish treason. Section 3 requires that at least two witnesses testify to the treasonous act, or that the individual accused of treason confess in open court. It also limits the ways in which Congress can punish those convicted of treason.
Hmmmmm, where in Article III is the part about …a process for congress to impeach Federal judges…including Supreme Court judges. So their ask was not completely out of line.”
Please educate me oh Constitutional Scholar. I’m being serious, please cut and paste the section with all references.
Section 1 of Article 3 of the Constitution says:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
This means that the justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment. The only Justice to be impeached was back in 1805, when Associate Justice Samuel Chase—who was appointed by President George Washington—was accused of allowing his political views to interfere with his decisions and “tending to prostitute” the court and his position.
OH LOOK>>>>>Not only does Article III state this clearly….there is precedent!!
Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
This means that any federal official, including Supreme Court Justices, can be impeached and removed from office if they are found to have committed a serious offense such as treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Very good chris/Chris. I stand corrected. But your point was it could be done under Article III, not II. Granted a minor point, but at least it got you do some real research.
Maybe there is some hope for you.
Article III holds the statement ‘good Behavior’ that opens the court to ethics standards that are the point of relevance in this case.
It is so asinine how Alan is trying to use this as some sort of good deed on his part to trick Chris into doing “research” instead of acknowledging that Chris is actually an intelligent and reasonable person with a different viewpoint.
Alan, I don’t understand. Is “carpe diem” a fish you caught today?
So “carpe diem” is from the Latin – Seize the Day! Now Miller, that’s your Latin lesson for the day – always willing to help you buddy. Just wanted to be sure that while you fish this weekend you are not searching for a carpe diem….there is a fish called carp……but no relation to carpe diem.
Is that where the term “hard as a carp” comes from?
Carpe diem is a Latin phrase that can be translated literally as “pluck the day,” though It is more widely translated as “seize the day.”
And molon labe is Ancient Greek for “come and take them,” or literally: “Come! Take!”
I prefer the Latin phrase “Non est valde sapientis’ when reading Alan’s letters.
This is too much for me. I’ll stick to El Spanisherino.
I really try to ready these openly to learn something from someone with differing viewpoints but am consistently astounded by the rhetoric of name calling and stirring strong emotional responses in lieu of persuasion based on a line of thinking.
I’m open to the day one of you all can explain your views over a beer without demanding that you are right and the other side is wrong or bad. May tomorrow’s call to arms will be more open to dialogue. Here’s hoping. Cheers.
I’m always more then willing to do that. I love a good discussion (note ‘discussion’, not a screaming, name calling, argument). When I am PROVEN wrong I have and will admitted it.
And a good Moosehead is always a great delight
Still waiting for you to demonstrate that civility in a letter, Alan. You’re requirement to be “PROVEN wrong” is really just personal subjectivity. In the same way you or I cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher being, yes cannot prove or disprove matters of human behavior. Your statements really only demonstrate to me how closed minded you are and how you are open to conflict, not resolution.
I’m sorry you feel (as I perceive) my “requirement to be proven wrong is really just personal subjectivity.” I am also sorry you perceive me as being closed minded. If you are making these assumptions purely on my positions in my letters then so be it but do you feel it’s right to do so? We have never sat down face to face and had a open, real time dialog.
You say my statements demonstrate how closed minded I am but you base this on only a limited knowledge of me and my beliefs. How can you judge the whole without learning about the whole. I will deny I am only open to conflict, not resolution because if I had the space, I would discuss possible resolutions, but I believe even those would draw the same opinion…only speculating there.
I respect your position and opinions , but to paraphrase P.T. Barnum, ‘you can please all of the people some of the time, and all of the people all the time, but you can’t please all the people all of the time’.
Let us agree to disagree and continue to do so respectively.
Moosehead? This one is too easy.
Well that’s rich coming from someone who just recently called me “such a douche” – with no accompanying argument.
Just name calling.
Can you say “hypocrite”?
It’s called talking smack and i do with my friends while debating while drinking beer as well…it is even more raucous over beers than here….