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

[johnwk2]

@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