Our spineless Republican House members, and their refusal to impeach deserving Justices

Roxiebelle · 2020-06-30T12:46:18.968Z

Well we need to elect politicians with some courage to do that and frankly we are not going to get any Democrat today to do that and barely a few Republicans which is the only political party with a chance of reform because the Democrats are off the far left rails! Maybe if the R’s keep the Senate and get a majority in the House they can put the fear of a possible impeachment into Roberts because he is just a shameless and useless Justice.

johnwk2 · 2020-06-30T15:36:55.240Z

biggestal99:

johnwk2:

You certainly are the remarkable one! “Cowardice” and “judicial pragmatism”? What we are talking about is judicial tyranny!

One mans judicial tyranny is another pragmatism.

Stare decisis is viable.

If we didn’t have precedents the justice systems would run amok.

The case was decided in 2016.

SCOTUS has ruled.

And last time I looked you are nothing more than a layman like I.

Allan

Stare decisis is viable? Give it a freaken break.

Stare decisis is an invention used to perpetuate a fraud upon the people. And, Justice Roberts is a prime candidate for impeachment ___ he has repeatedly violated his oath to support “this Constitution”, has ignored being obedient to that part of our Constitution acknowledging and requiring “the rules of the common law” to be adhered to, and in particular, has refused to enforce the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution’s provisions were adopted, which give context to the constitution’s text, and, in effect, Roberts has participated in tyranny be usurping legislative powers:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

JWK

Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and now pretends our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean.

biggestal99 · 2020-06-30T17:05:58.044Z

johnwk2:

Stare decisis is viable? Give it a freaken break.

Stare decisis is viable until is not.

It’s been in use in US courts for over 150 years.

Stare decisis is roe v Wade, which is still the binding precedent 47 years later.

Allan

Safiel · 2020-06-30T17:17:39.138Z

biggestal99:

johnwk2:

Stare decisis is viable? Give it a freaken break.

Stare decisis is viable until is not.

It’s been in use in US courts for over 150 years.

Stare decisis is roe v Wade, which is still the binding precedent 47 years later.

Allan

I won’t give either side a pass on stare decisis to Judges of any temperament.

I do remember Earl Warren/William Brennan eviscerating 4 long standing precedents in a single day.

Any of the current Justices might stand on stare decisis if it suits them. Any of the current Justices might **** on stare decisis if it suits them.

biggestal99 · 2020-06-30T17:20:44.668Z

Safiel:

I won’t give either side a pass on stare decisis to Judges of any temperament.

I do remember Earl Warren/William Brennan eviscerating 4 long standing precedents in a single day.

Any of the current Justices might stand on stare decisis if it suits them. Any of the current Justices might **** on stare decisis if it suits them.

Well we already have Thomas stating that roe was wrongly decided. Lucky for woman’s right to choose
He’s not gonna last much longer on SCOTUS.

Allan

zantax · 2020-06-30T17:46:13.584Z

biggestal99:

Safiel:

I won’t give either side a pass on stare decisis to Judges of any temperament.

I do remember Earl Warren/William Brennan eviscerating 4 long standing precedents in a single day.

Any of the current Justices might stand on stare decisis if it suits them. Any of the current Justices might **** on stare decisis if it suits them.

Well we already have Thomas stating that roe was wrongly decided. Lucky for woman’s right to choose
He’s not gonna last much longer on SCOTUS.

Allan

What is that supposed to mean?

biggestal99 · 2020-06-30T18:28:26.549Z

zantax:

What is that supposed to mean?

Exact as posted the life expectancy of an black male age 72 is approximately 13 years.

His time on SCOTUS is running out.

Allan

zantax · 2020-06-30T18:29:57.291Z

biggestal99:

zantax:

What is that supposed to mean?

Exact as posted the life expectancy of an black male age 72 is approximately 13 years.

His time on SCOTUS is running out.

Allan

Psst that isn’t how average life expectancy works. Things like infant mortality are included to arrive at that number. How much risk of dying from SIDS do you think he has? As an example a white male who is 65 right now can expect to live on average 18 more years, even though the average life expectancy is lower than that. Which would only give him 13 more.

biggestal99 · 2020-06-30T18:36:01.740Z

zantax:

Psst that isn’t how average life expectancy works. Things like infant mortality are included to arrive at that number. How much risk of dying from SIDS do you think he has

I went by the life expectancy of a black male aged 75 in the United States.

That’s exactly how life expectancy works. It’s a bell curve.

Allan

zantax · 2020-06-30T18:38:19.150Z

Not to mention all the poor lifestyle choices incorporated into the average life expectancy which may or may not be present in any individual.

zantax · 2020-06-30T18:40:39.741Z

biggestal99:

zantax:

Psst that isn’t how average life expectancy works. Things like infant mortality are included to arrive at that number. How much risk of dying from SIDS do you think he has

I went by the life expectancy of a black male aged 75 in the United States.

That’s exactly how life expectancy works. It’s a bell curve.

Allan

Even if you use the life expectancy of his current age, it is still just an average and doesn’t say much about an individual. The average includes people that smoke etc.

markdido · 2020-06-30T18:42:58.937Z

biggestal99:

zantax:

What is that supposed to mean?

Exact as posted the life expectancy of an black male age 72 is approximately 13 years.

His time on SCOTUS is running out.

Allan

Wow, what a ■■■■■■ up post.

TommyLucchese · 2020-06-30T18:43:49.970Z

You know we’ve seen your posts over the years about RBG right.

biggestal99 · 2020-06-30T18:46:51.072Z

zantax:

Even if you use the life expectancy of his current age, it is still just an average and doesn’t say much about an individual. The average includes people that smoke etc

You are correct. Maybe thomas makes it to 100 or maybe he dies shortly.

It’s all averages.

Based upon averages, Thomas time on SCOTUS is just about up.

Allan

markdido · 2020-06-30T18:50:49.321Z

TommyLucchese:

You know we’ve seen your posts over the years about RBG right.

Do tell, what exactly did I say?

Be specific champ.

zantax · 2020-06-30T19:17:46.640Z

biggestal99:

zantax:

Even if you use the life expectancy of his current age, it is still just an average and doesn’t say much about an individual. The average includes people that smoke etc

You are correct. Maybe thomas makes it to 100 or maybe he dies shortly.

It’s all averages.

Based upon averages, Thomas time on SCOTUS is just about up.

Allan

No because you don’t know that he is average, below or above average.

johnwk2 · 2020-07-03T17:01:23.243Z

biggestal99:

Safiel:

I won’t give either side a pass on stare decisis to Judges of any temperament.

I do remember Earl Warren/William Brennan eviscerating 4 long standing precedents in a single day.

Any of the current Justices might stand on stare decisis if it suits them. Any of the current Justices might **** on stare decisis if it suits them.

Well we already have Thomas stating that roe was wrongly decided. Lucky for woman’s right to choose

Allan

Lucky for woman’s right to choose? Yes! Roe vs Wade was decided wrong. And those that say it was, is not an indication of their feelings regarding a “woman’s right to choose”. It is an indication that the majority opinion in Roe does not conform to the defined and limited authority delegated to our federal government.

When Justice Thomas WROTE that Roe v. Wade “created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text”, he was stating a fact! Justice Thomas did not author or help to ratify our Constitution, or any of its amendments. But he did take an oath to support and defend the will of the people as they have expressed it in a written constitution, part of which in, express terms, commands:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. ___ Tenth Amendment.

And, the Tenth Amendment’s very object is stated as follows:

“ The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." ___ Federalist 45

So tell us. Should our Justices take it upon themselves to pretend our Constitution does not mean what its text states, nor was intended by its framers and those who ratified it, and impose their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as the rule of law?

Why have a written constitution adopted by the people, if its defined and limited grants of power can be set aside or altered by the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

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

biggestal99 · 2020-07-03T17:52:23.621Z

johnwk2:

Lucky for woman’s right to choose? Yes! Roe vs Wade was decided wrong

Waiting for roe to be overturn.

Dream on.

Allan

Safiel · 2020-07-03T21:47:02.785Z

johnwk2:

You certainly are the remarkable one! “Cowardice” and “judicial pragmatism”? What we are talking about is judicial tyranny! But hey, your sugar coating of Robert’s actions is the very kind of response I would expect from those who embrace a “living Constitution” susceptible to the whims and fancies of judges and Justices as opposed to being obedient to the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and likewise being respectful of Article V which our wise founders included in our Constitution, and is the only lawful way to accommodate change, for alleged “changing times”.

The above post classically illustrates the dangers of extrapolation, particularly in a non-mathematical context.

Since, Condition A (Safiel opposes impeachment) is true, therefore Condition B (Safiel supports Robert’s actions) and Condition C (Safiel supports a living Constitution) are true.

Conditions B & C do NOT logically follow from Condition A.

Your whole post goes off the rails immediately due to a logical fallacy.

Of course, I ardently oppose a living Constitution. I oppose many of Robert’s rulings.

I oppose impeachment as a violation of the principle of judicial independence, as established by the United States Senate in 1804.

To date, 3759 individuals have served as Article III Judges at all levels. By your exacting standards, it is likely just about all 3759 should have been subject to impeachment. Scalia and Thomas both made rulings that likely would have warranted impeachment.

Impeachment is never going to be a tool to purge the courts of individuals you do not like.

Better choices should be made in the APPOINTMENT process.

If you don’t do that, you can impeach as many as you like, hell, you can impeach all 1500+ individuals currently serving and you will end up with the exact same situation when new individuals take office.

johnwk2 · 2020-07-03T22:57:10.958Z

Safiel:

johnwk2:

You certainly are the remarkable one! “Cowardice” and “judicial pragmatism”? What we are talking about is judicial tyranny! But hey, your sugar coating of Robert’s actions is the very kind of response I would expect from those who embrace a “living Constitution” susceptible to the whims and fancies of judges and Justices as opposed to being obedient to the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and likewise being respectful of Article V which our wise founders included in our Constitution, and is the only lawful way to accommodate change, for alleged “changing times”.

The above post classically illustrates the dangers of extrapolation, particularly in a non-mathematical context.

Since, Condition A (Safiel opposes impeachment) is true, therefore Condition B (Safiel supports Robert’s actions) and Condition C (Safiel supports a living Constitution) are true.

Conditions B & C do NOT logically follow from Condition A.

Your whole post goes off the rails immediately due to a logical fallacy.

Of course, I ardently oppose a living Constitution. I oppose many of Robert’s rulings.

I oppose impeachment as a violation of the principle of judicial independence, as established by the United States Senate in 1804.

To date, 3759 individuals have served as Article III Judges at all levels. By your exacting standards, it is likely just about all 3759 should have been subject to impeachment. Scalia and Thomas both made rulings that likely would have warranted impeachment.

Impeachment is never going to be a tool to purge the courts of individuals you do not like.

Better choices should be made in the APPOINTMENT process.

If you don’t do that, you can impeach as many as you like, hell, you can impeach all 1500+ individuals currently serving and you will end up with the exact same situation when new individuals take office.

You have a very active imagination when you include me in your “A”, “B” and “C” example.

My gut reaction tells me our founders would most certainly consider many of today’s Supreme Court Rulings as an impeachable offense i.e., malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance…at the very least “misdemeanor” offenses. But hey, I could be wrong and our founders could have embraced a total neutering of our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, and our Court’s fraudulent usurpation of powers under a knowing and willing misrepresentation of the meaning of general welfare ___ a phrase intentionally tied to a list of particulars found beneath Article 1, Section,8, Clause 1.

And, with regard to your remark about “Impeachment is never going to be a tool to purge the courts of individuals . . . [I] . . . do not like” that comment is without foundation. My objection are judges and Justices who impose their personal sense of fairness, reasonableness and justice as the rule of law, rather than enforcing the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which its provisions were agreed to, as may be documented from historical records, and gives context to our Constitution’s text.

Why have a written constitution adopted by the people, if its defined and limited grants of power can be set aside or altered by the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

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