Are you telling me you didnt already know the process for removing a SCOTUS judge? Wow.
Who knew removing judges was so hard?
Good lord do they actually teach Civics at schools you went to
1 Like
Wow if ever this was a case to think someone was a Russia Bot you sure are racking up points. Do even have any idea of how US government works?
Not like they teach US civics classes in Russian schools.
There is no legal barrier its simply in bad taste.
Peter Strozk…is that you?
We are not talking about me asking “someone” what the constitution means. We are talking about a judge or Justice charged with a duty to “support this Constitution.
If a judge or Justice, by the terms of our Constitution, is granted authority to “interpret” the instrument, it is then susceptible to alterations by interpretation. Are there not countless interpretations of Shakespeare’s Sonnets? If ten people are asked to “interpret” a picture hanging on a wall, is it not probable ten different “interpretations” will be given?
Indeed, nowhere in the Constitution will you find wording vesting a power in our Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution. In fact, our Constitution is explicitly clear when it comes to a Justice’s authorized duty:
Article VI, last Clause:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The Constitution also directs the Court to abide by “the rules of the common law”. And, under the rules of the common law, adhering to “legislative intent” is a primary directive! As I previously pointed out, Chief Justice Marshall, in a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, emphatically stated he could cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation.
In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our Supreme Court also notes the supremacy of legislative intent:
”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”
So, the duty of a judge or Justice, when asked what a provision of the Constitution means, or asked if a legislative act runs afoul of our Constitution, their job is to document, with a preponderance of evidence, the meaning and legislative intent of the provisions as it was understood during the time our Constitution was framed and ratified. This, of course, requires researching some of the following documents: Madison’s Notes on the Convention, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, Elliot’s debates which contains some of the State Ratification debates, etc.
The bottom line is, there are fundamental rules which must be followed when trying to determine what our Constitution means. And to allow these rules to be set aside in favor of a judges or Justices personal interpretation is to allow our constitution to be dismantled and re-write one provision at a time.
JWK
If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?___ Justice Story
So, the bottom line with you seems to be that you can’t defend your assertion that judges and Justices, by the terms of the Constitution, are vested with a power to “interpret” the Constitution.
The fact is, there is a vast difference between interpreting what the framers and those who ratified the Constitution intended, from actually determining their intentions from the framing and ratifying debates ___ the former being the mere beliefs and speculations of the interpreter, while the latter actually documents the meaning of our Constitution as stated by those who framed and ratified the instrument
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, 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.
Correct. I looked up to see whether and how a US SC justice could be fired, and based my comments on what I learned. I was directed to the wrong country’s SC information. I don’t know everything. I learn stuff by discussing and debating, and I do make mistakes. Perhaps you don’t do any of these things. Regardless, there is no sensible reason for the MSM and Dems to be outraged at POTUS criticising judges and justices. Any citizen can do so, or any non-citizen. It’s called freedom of speech, a God-given right. Obama did so. Schumer has done so. Why the theatrics over the present US President doing so?
1 Like
In your opinion it is bad taste. To others it is not bad taste. Regardless, one has to raise an eyebrow at the MSM making some sort of Federal case (figure of speech) against POTUS out of what may to some appear to be bad taste and trying to convince their audience that it is inexcusable. That’s seems not to be balanced reporting.
Please point out where it says we can’t.
How the 9th Circuit lied in the same sex marriage case, and reviewing Justice Roberts’ dissenting opinion when same sex marriage reached the Supreme Court
About the case:
”Both Idaho and Nevada passed statutes and enacted constitutional amendments preventing same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere. The panel held that the Idaho and Nevada laws at issue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they deny lesbians and gays who wish to marry persons of the same sex a right they afford to individuals who wish to marry persons of the opposite sex, and do not satisfy the heightened scrutiny standard the Court adopted in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014).”
On page 44 we find:
Because defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. ___ REINHARDT, Circuit Judge
Note Reinhardt’s premise that defendants “failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose”. This, of course, is not within the Court’s assigned duty ___ a duty which is exclusively lodged in the legislative branch of government. For Judge Reinhardt to second guess the wisdom of a Legislature, and in this case several Legislatures, is to violate our system of government’s fundamental separation of powers and assume the exclusive power lodge in a Legislature.
Now, the lie which the 9th Circuit asserts is, the Fourteenth Amendment, its “Equal Protection Clause”, is violated by a state making a law which makes a distinction based upon sex.
The Fourteenth Amendment declares:
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.
First note the words in the last clause of the first Section of the Fourteenth Amendment, “nor deny to any person”, is a reference to a “person” and not a group or couple. In fact, the 14th Amendment declares whatever laws are adopted by a state, the state may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those laws. The amendment does not say that laws containing distinctions based upon sex are forbidden. It only declares whatever laws are adopted by a state, they must be enforced equally with respect to “any person”.
The irrefutable fact is, the 14th Amendment does not prohibit by its text, nor was it intended by those who framed and ratified the amendment, to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex. The idea that it does prohibit distinctions based upon sex was wrongly asserted by Justice Ginsburg who engaged in judicial tyranny in the Virginia Military Academy (VMI) case.
The obvious question which goes unanswered is: Why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex?
Now, on to Chief Justice Roberts dissent in the same sex marriage dispute LINK
”Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.”
”But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).”
” Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.”
The bottom line is, there are fundamental rules which must be followed when trying to determine what our Constitution means. And to allow these rules to be set aside in favor of a judges or Justices personal beliefs as to what the Constitution means, and without a preponderance of evidence from the framing and ratification debates to support those beliefs, is to allow our Constitution to be dismantled and rewritten one provision at a time.
And, with respect to President Trump’s comment about the 9th Circuit, Justice Roberts own words in the same sex marriage dispute prove Trump was telling the truth about the 9th Circuit!
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, 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.
Reading is hard.
And I agreed he had the right to express his opinion.
And we have the right to push back when he does with our own opinion.
It’s two on one. Chucky is on Trump’s side.
Good line!
We can’t what?
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 ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Interpret the constitution.
If your task is to decide if something is or is not constitutional, you must interpret the constitution to do so. I don’t know why that idea causes him such trouble but it does.
Your argument is ■■■■ and it is that simple.
