Should Judges Be Impeached?

[Reagan]

Question:  If Judges consistently show that their decisions are purely political, meaning not upholding the Constitution, should these Judges be impeached?  Thoughts?

[LumRaiderFan]

Yes

[BLUEDOVE3]

See, this is why you can't take you people serious. Your administration is ...oh nevamind, the blind leading the blind. LOL

[baddog]

2 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

See, this is why you can't take you people serious. Your administration is ...oh nevamind, the blind leading the blind. LOL

Lmao....is that all you got?

[Tigers2010]

2 hours ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

See, this is why you can't take you people serious. Your administration is ...oh nevamind, the blind leading the blind. LOL

Racist.

[Reagan]

3 hours ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

See, this is why you can't take you people serious. Your administration is ...oh nevamind, the blind leading the blind. LOL

There' s reason why Washington St. filed the lawsuit against Trump with this Judge Robart. He's a flaming liberal.  They knew the outcome.  They also knew if Robart's decision was challenged that it would go to the 9th Circuit (AKA 9th Circus).  Another bunch of flaming libs.  The commie-libs knew what the outcome would be before they started.  Why didn't they challenge it in a Texas court??!!  The 9th Circus has been overturned 80-90% of the time.  If they are wrong that many times, well, in any other world they would be fired. 

[Hagar]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

There' s reason why Washington St. filed the lawsuit against Trump with this Judge Robart. He's a flaming liberal.  They knew the outcome.  They also knew if Robart's decision was challenged that it would go to the 9th Circuit (AKA 9th Circus).  Another bunch of flaming libs.  The commie-libs knew what the outcome would be before they started.  Why didn't they challenge it in a Texas court??!!  The 9th Circus has been overturned 80-90% of the time.  If they are wrong that many times, well, in any other world they would be fired. 

Exactly.  The SCOTUS overturns 80% of 9th Circuits decisions.  What would happen in the private sector with that kind of record?  For example, a bank teller's balance was off 80% of the time!  An Engineer who designs bridges, 80% that fall!  A Production Mgr who lets production fall off 80%!  Actually, no one working in the private sector would stay employed if they were that inept at their job.  Judges who interpret the laws of the land, should be held to a higher standard, but it appears to me that they have no standards whatsoever.   

The prosecution rest.

[bullets13]

5 hours ago, Reagan said:

Question:  If Judges consistently show that their decisions are purely political, meaning not upholding the Constitution, should these Judges be impeached?  Thoughts?

No.  Judges are elected based on their political affiliation, and they should rule on decisions based on their affiliation, and the wishes of the constituents that elected them.  While the insinuation here is that liberal judges are abusing their positions, in truth the vast majority of conservative judges make their rulings on just as obvious of political lines.  Both sides consistently "interpret" the constitution in ways that benefit their political party.  That just comes with the territory.  THAT BEING SAID, there is no way that a judge in Podunk, Washington should have the power to make a ruling that can affect the entire country (Or a judge from Bumpkin, Tx, for that matter).  The scope of power that these judges has must be reduced to the area in which they are elected, because a judge from Washington State damn sure doesn't represent me or my beliefs.

[1989NDN]

Federal judges are not elected.  They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  Some state court judges are elected, e.g., Texas.  Others are appointed by the state's governor, and others have a hybrid system for appointing/electing judges.

Too much of a knee-jerk reaction to call for impeachment of a judge because you disagree with his or her ruling or the opinion of a court.  If you disagree, then appeal.  Argue the flaws of your opponent's case and the merits of your case.  If we attacked the judiciary and impeached every judge that did not agree with the then-existing/prevailing majority, then we would still be stuck with separate-but-equal, Jim Crow laws, limited protections for free speech, limited rights of privacy, etc.  Things balance out.  The Warren Court was countered by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts...ebb and flow of life.

Go Indians.  Peace. 

 

[Hagar]

21 minutes ago, 1989NDN said:

Federal judges are not elected.  They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  Some state court judges are elected, e.g., Texas.  Others are appointed by the state's governor, and others have a hybrid system for appointing/electing judges.

Too much of a knee-jerk reaction to call for impeachment of a judge because you disagree with his or her ruling or the opinion of a court.  If you disagree, then appeal.  Argue the flaws of your opponent's case and the merits of your case.  If we attacked the judiciary and impeached every judge that did not agree with the then-existing/prevailing majority, then we would still be stuck with separate-but-equal, Jim Crow laws, limited protections for free speech, limited rights of privacy, etc.  Things balance out.  The Warren Court was countered by the Burger and Rehnquist Courts...ebb and flow of life.

Go Indians.  Peace. 

 

If you are referring to The fact the 9th Circuit Court has an 80% overturn rate by the SCOTUS, I wouldn't refer to that as a "knee jerk" reaction for impeachment.  I'd think it was a prudent move based on incompetence.  But alas, I'm far from an attorney, and I regret to say that it will never happen anyway.

Btw, I do agree with Bullets that an individual obscure Judge should not be able to dictate what our President may, or may not do.  Our three branches of Govt have served us well, in balance.  Jmo, but the judicial branch has now usurped power from the President and Congress.

[LumRaiderFan]

I'll answer the original question again...yes.

[westend1]

Please disregard the fact that  a Judge who ruled against this EO were Republican appointed.

[tvc184]

No, they should not be impeached on rulings. That is nonsensical crap. 

A judge removed for playing politics is ....well.... politics. 

What happens like 8 years ago when Obama had almost a super majority in both houses of Congress? All conservative judges are removed for playing politics? You have a 9-0 Supeme Count siding with Ginsburg and Sotomayor? 

There is a good reason that federal judges are appointed for life. To think otherwise would have allowed the Dems to completely ban handguns 8 years ago and have a 9-0 ruling from the SC saying it was legal. 

No thanks. I completely disagree with some rulings but the system otherwise would be a mockery of laws. 

[Hagar]

Since I know very little of the law, I have a question.  Are virtually all our laws based on the Constitution (the rare exception being safety, i.e. Hollering fire in a theater when there is none)?  

That has been my understanding, although I could be wrong.  I spent about ten minutes researching Federal Judges that have been impeached.  Just glancing through, everyone I read about was impeached for taking money, or outright bribes.  It appears that being competent is not a requirement once you reach this position.  Weird.  

So in my feeble brain, here's what I see:  To conservatives, The Constitution, as written, is the law of the land.  Liberals want to interpret it to fit modern society.  The liberal interpretation is a slippery slope imco.

[tvc184]

42 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Since I know very little of the law, I have a question.  Are virtually all our laws based on the Constitution (the rare exception being safety, i.e. Hollering fire in a theater when there is none)?  

That has been my understanding, although I could be wrong.  I spent about ten minutes researching Federal Judges that have been impeached.  Just glancing through, everyone I read about was impeached for taking money, or outright bribes.  It appears that being competent is not a requirement once you reach this position.  Weird.  

So in my feeble brain, here's what I see:  To conservatives, The Constitution, as written, is the law of the land.  Liberals want to interpret it to fit modern society.  The liberal interpretation is a slippery slope imco.

 Almost no laws are based on the Constitution.  That document mainly lists both authorities and limitations by the government. 

 I think mainly goes back to the time around the Magna Carta in the early 1200's in old England.  That led to the forming of the British Parliament or limiting the Kings at the time almost unlimited power.  After the Revolutionary War, that evolved into our current constitution. 

 What the Constitution does is give the authority to make laws but those laws are limited both in the Constitution and the later constitutional amendments.  Basically, if the Constitution does not say that the government cannot do it, then they like we can.  You will not find laws in there like traffic laws, marriage laws, disturbing the peace (yelling fire), drug laws, etc. 

 So, probably 99.9% of the laws in this country are not based on the United States Constitution. The authority to make those laws is however. Much of it goes to the 10th amendment which guarantees state's rights. That is, if it is not specifically listed in the Constitution, a state could be what it wants. 

[westend1]

55 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Since I know very little of the law, I have a question.  Are virtually all our laws based on the Constitution (the rare exception being safety, i.e. Hollering fire in a theater when there is none)?  

That has been my understanding, although I could be wrong.  I spent about ten minutes researching Federal Judges that have been impeached.  Just glancing through, everyone I read about was impeached for taking money, or outright bribes.  It appears that being competent is not a requirement once you reach this position.  Weird.  

So in my feeble brain, here's what I see:  To conservatives, The Constitution, as written, is the law of the land.  Liberals want to interpret it to fit modern society.  The liberal interpretation is a slippery slope imco.

The constitution is not a very long document.  Every Supreme Court decision is an interpretation of its meaning, whether liberal or conservative 

[LumRaiderFan]

4 hours ago, tvc184 said:

No, they should not be impeached on rulings. That is nonsensical crap. 

A judge removed for playing politics is ....well.... politics. 

What happens like 8 years ago when Obama had almost a super majority in both houses of Congress? All conservative judges are removed for playing politics? You have a 9-0 Supeme Count siding with Ginsburg and Sotomayor? 

There is a good reason that federal judges are appointed for life. To think otherwise would have allowed the Dems to completely ban handguns 8 years ago and have a 9-0 ruling from the SC saying it was legal. 

No thanks. I completely disagree with some rulings but the system otherwise would be a mockery of laws. 

Here's the original question:

 If Judges consistently show that their decisions are purely political, meaning not upholding the Constitution, should these Judges be impeached?

If the answer is an absolute no, is there any standard for a judge to be guided by?

[westend1]

14 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Here's the original question:

 If Judges consistently show that their decisions are purely political, meaning not upholding the Constitution, should these Judges be impeached?

If the answer is an absolute no, is there any standard for a judge to be guided by?

The question is flawed.  What do you mean " not upholding the constitution "?  Is any decision that you don't like purely political.   These justices are vetted extensively and have to be confirmed.   That is the standard you are looking for 

[LumRaiderFan]

21 minutes ago, westend1 said:

The question is flawed.  What do you mean " not upholding the constitution "?  Is any decision that you don't like purely political.   These justices are vetted extensively and have to be confirmed.   That is the standard you are looking for 

The question is not flawed...here is the judges oath:

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

; 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, § 404, Dec. 1, 1990, 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.)

 

So should judges be able to dismiss what the Constitution says and rule simply on their own opinion without any consequences.

 

What is the reason for the oath if it means nothing?

 

I realize there can be different interpretations based on the Constitution, but that was not what the original question was.

 

Here it is again:

 

 If Judges consistently show that their decisions are purely political, meaning not upholding the Constitution, should these Judges be impeached?

[tvc184]

6 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

The question is not flawed...here is the judges oath:

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

; 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, § 404, Dec. 1, 1990, 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.)

 

So should judges be able to dismiss what the Constitution says and rule simply on their own opinion without any consequences.

 

What is the reason for the oath if it means nothing?

 

I realize there can be different interpretations based on the Constitution, but that was not what the original question was.

 

Here it is again:

 

 If Judges consistently show that their decisions are purely political, meaning not upholding the Constitution, should these Judges be impeached?

If you  read appeals court decisions, they never dismiss anything.  They bring up prior constitutional cases to back up their belief.  Court rulings do not just simply say I believe XY and Z in that's it.  You might not see eye to eye with them, and I can guarantee that I do not in all cases, but they back it up with other constitutional rulings. 

[Kountzer]

I was looking for a thread to put the comment in.  This country is headed to a dictatorship.  I am not saying that to just to throw shade at Trump.  To me this goes beyond partisan bickering.   You or we can kiss all the personal freedoms goodbye.  Freedom of the press, frerdom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly.  Probably even freedom of 2nd amendment rights.  They're not gonna let a bunch of good old boys take pock shots at the storm troopers.  It should be interesting, to say the least.

[tvc184]

9 minutes ago, Kountzer said:

I was looking for a thread to put the comment in.  This country is headed to a dictatorship.  I am not saying that to just to throw shade at Trump.  To me this goes beyond partisan bickering.   You or we can kiss all the personal freedoms goodbye.  Freedom of the press, frerdom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly.  Probably even freedom of 2nd amendment rights.  They're not gonna let a bunch of good old boys take pock shots at the storm troopers.  It should be interesting, to say the least.

Huh?

Care to explain that in English?

[Kountzer]

It is english and good english at that.  Better than yours anyway.

[Reagan]

2 hours ago, Kountzer said:

I was looking for a thread to put the comment in.  This country is headed to a dictatorship.  I am not saying that to just to throw shade at Trump.  To me this goes beyond partisan bickering.   You or we can kiss all the personal freedoms goodbye.  Freedom of the press, frerdom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly.  Probably even freedom of 2nd amendment rights.  They're not gonna let a bunch of good old boys take pock shots at the storm troopers.  It should be interesting, to say the least.

Obama wanted to be the dictator!!  But for that pesky Constitution!  How would Trump be a dictator??  Because he wants to uphold the law?  Something obama rarely cared about!

[Kountzer]

59 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Obama wanted to be the dictator!!  But for that pesky Constitution!  How would Trump be a dictator??  Because he wants to uphold the law?  Something obama rarely cared about!

Obama is just a man.  Jesus Christ is coming back to set up the perfect kingdom.  Soon.  Sooner than many people think.  Hitler, trump, the pope...I think the Pope will succeed but only for a short time. 

I agree with Steve Bannon on one thing.  i believe in the apocalypse.  I don't think it is going to totally happen as he does.  And the constitution is going to be totally repudiated.  That is happening right now.   There are powers, man made institutions, that has thought to change God's law (dan 7:25).  They even try to change His word, the bible.  This same institution hates the us constitution.  If they can fool most people in regards to God's law what chance do you think the constitution has?