QUESTION: What is a Supreme Court Justice’s fundamental job?

You misspelled conservatism.

1 Like

Actually, its pervasive on both sides. If we’re really being honest about it.

YES! Impeachment!

The very people we elect, many who appear to be Fifth Column Republicans, refuse to impeach judges and Justices when their written opinions repeatedly confirm they are not following the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text. And this amounts to malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance ___ all of which are band behavior and grounds for impeachment in my opinion.

SEE: Annotation 18 - Article II

Judges .–Article III, Sec. 1, specifically provides judges with ‘‘good behavior’’ tenure, but the Constitution nowhere expressly vests the power to remove upon bad behavior; it has been assumed that judges are made subject to the impeachment power through being labeled ‘‘civil officers.’’ 755 The records in the Convention make this a plausible though not necessary interpretation. 756 And, in fact, twelve of the fifteen impeachments reaching trial in the Senate have been directed at federal judges. 757 So settled apparently is the interpretation that the major arguments, scholarly and political, have concerned the question whether judges, as well as others, are subject to impeachment for conduct which does not constitute an indictable offense and the question whether impeachment is the exclusive removal device with regard to judges. 758

Also see: History of the Federal Judiciary

Impeachments of Federal Judges

John Pickering, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 2, 1803, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804.

Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.

James H. Peck, U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 24, 1830, on charges of abuse of the contempt power; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on January 31, 1831.

West H. Humphreys, U.S. District Court for the Middle, Eastern, and Western Districts of Tennessee. Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.

Mark W. Delahay, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 28, 1873, on charges of intoxication on the bench; Resigned from office, December 12, 1873, before opening of trial in the U.S. Senate.

Charles Swayne, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, December 13, 1904, on charges of abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate February 27, 1905.

Robert W. Archbald, U.S. Commerce Court. Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 11, 1912, on charges of improper business relationship with litigants; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, January 13, 1913.

George W. English, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, April 1, 1926, on charges of abuse of power; Resigned from office November 4, 1926; Senate Court of Impeachment adjourned to December 13, 1926, when, on request of the House manager, impeachment proceedings were dismissed.

Harold Louderback, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 24, 1933, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on May 24, 1933.

Halsted L. Ritter, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, March 2, 1936, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers and practicing law while sitting as a judge; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, April 17, 1936.

Harry E. Claiborne, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 22, 1986, on charges of income tax evasion and of remaining on the bench following criminal conviction; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 9, 1986.

Alcee L. Hastings, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, August 3, 1988, on charges of perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 20, 1989.

Walter L. Nixon, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 10, 1989, on charges of perjury before a federal grand jury; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, November 3, 1989.

Samuel B. Kent, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, June 19, 2009, on charges of sexual assault, obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, and making false and misleading statements; Resigned from office, June 30, 2009. On July 20, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to a resolution not to pursue further the articles of impeachment, and on July 22, 2009, the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, dismissed the articles.

G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, March 11, 2010, on charges of accepting bribes and making false statements under penalty of perjury; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, December 8, 2010.

Why has the Freedom Caucus not draw up articles of impeachment when judges and Justices write written opinions which are not in harmony with the text of our Constitution and violate its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text? Doing so would, at the very least, would provide the opportunity to define and expose judicial tyranny exhibited by a judge or Justice using their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law while ignoring the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent.

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

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

So which is more likely at this point? I don’t think either are very likely at all.

Interpretation of Our Constitution. Should the people of these UNITED STATES deem it necessary to facilitate a change to the Constitution, there is a legal pathway for the AMENDMENT to be made. SCOTUS, while a group of brilliant minds, they are judicial branch of the government. Changes to the CONSTITUTION shall be voted on by the people.

Huh? I’m not sure what you mean.

JWK

Finagling minds is more appropriate with respect to a number of Justices who are using their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law rather than being obedient to the Constitution’s text and legislative intent which gives context to its text.

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)

To rule on cases according to my ideology and impose my will upon the people.

And there are many cased to prove a majority on the Supreme Court did just that!

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

Not all cases before the Court are constitutional cases. Many of their cases deal with interpreting federal law.

And the same rules apply to statutory construction ___ enforce its plain language and if necessary, discover its legislative intent and enforce it.

In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), our Supreme Court notes the requirement to adhere to 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.”

JWK

Those who reject abiding by 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.

I agree.
I was trying to dispell the myth that SCOTUS deals only in constitutional matters. Most people seem to think that.

I would argue they actually rarely deal with constitutional matters anymore. These days most of their decisions are purely political and have little to nothing to do with the Constitution.

1 Like

Oh, Jesus ■■■■■■■ Christ. You’ll find few people who will disagree with you on this.

On a different note, congratulations for being able to write a post this short! This means you don’t have to bombard us with walls of text whenever you say something.

1 Like

to be the final arbiter on lawsuits with important federal questions in them.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Allan

They think that way because it is that way.

and its no myth. They decide on important federal questions. Nothing more, nothing less.

Allan

Coporations are people. It’s a tax, not a penalty. Money is speech.

Yeah, purely Constitutional considerations. :roll_eyes:

Your opinion is noted but is secondary to a Supreme Court fundamental job which is to support and defend “this Constitution”, and in doing so is required to follow “the rules of the common law” which requires a Justice to be obedient to the text of the Constitution and enforce its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by 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.

1 Like

There is none of this in the constitution. That is you interpretation of it.
there is no requirement of SCOTUS whatsoever.

Allan

This must be National Ignoramus Day.
You’re certainly doing your part, both in this post and your last one.

2 Likes