SCOTUS impeachment

[David S]

If you think the Kelo v. New London decision was a horrible violation of the constitution, here is your chance to do something about it.

To: U. S. Congress
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES

We the People of the United States, do hereby demand that our duly elected representatives in both houses of Congress, initiate impeachment proceedings against the following Supreme Court Justices:

John Paul Stevens
Anthony Kennedy
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer

We, the undersigned, consider the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, 04-108, rendered June 23, 2005, not only unacceptable, but to be in criminal violation of the Justice's oaths to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Be advised that We the People regard elected officials to be our public servants. Failure to take action against the Justices specified shall be considered support for the decision rendered in the aforementioned case, and will result in our resolve to ensure your defeat in the next election.

Being from myriad political and ideological spectra, we are united in our belief that our right to own property is inalienable.
Sincerely,
Click on link to sign petition http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html

[Richard]

Any chance of this going through?  I'd love to see Bush appoint 5 judges.

[Defarge]

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been impeached before?

[David S]

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been impeached before?

Not that I know of, but then we never had the internet before either.

[Richard]

Which liberal here would be opposed to the impeachment of these judges and support them in their decision on Kelo?  jfern?

[KEmperor]

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been impeached before?

Not that I know of, but then we never had the internet before either.

Internet petitions are a waste of time, especially with something this big.

[David S]

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been impeached before?

Not that I know of, but then we never had the internet before either.

Internet petitions are a waste of time, especially with something this big.

Do you have a better idea? In my opinion the courts decision in Kelo v. New London dealt a serious blow to property rights, which the American people should reject. If we allow this kind of thing to occur we will simply sit back and watch as all of our rights are gradually eroded away until we are no longer a free people. This peition is a way to begin taking action.

Before I came across this petition I sent an e-mail to President Bush saying that the 5 justices should be impeached for violating their oath to uphold the constitution. I also sent e-mails to my state Rep and senator asking that they enact state laws to protect property rights. What have you done?

We can either stand up for our rights or watch them die. Which do you prefer?

[KEmperor]

I agree that this was a horrible ruling.  No question.  I'm just saying that neither the President or Congressmen are going to care about some "internet petition."

[John Dibble]

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been impeached before?

Not that I know of, but then we never had the internet before either.

Internet petitions are a waste of time, especially with something this big.

Do you have a better idea?

A real petition, signed by registered voters in your area, sent to your congressmen. Get other people to make their own similar petitions for their area as well.

[A18]

That was the correct ruling.

[David S]

Has a Supreme Court Justice ever been impeached before?

Not that I know of, but then we never had the internet before either.

Internet petitions are a waste of time, especially with something this big.

Do you have a better idea?

A real petition, signed by registered voters in your area, sent to your congressmen. Get other people to make their own similar petitions for their area as well.

Have you done that yet?

I would agree that what you propose is a more formal way of doing it, but congress is not required to act on a written petition either. The idea is to impress upon them the need to do this. There are people in congress who already believe something must be done. Let's give them more reason to believe that.

[David S]

That was the correct ruling.

If you believe that maybe you should start a petition to impeach the dissenting justices. Lets through them all out and start fresh.

[A18]

Um, I'm sorry, but I don't go around signing petitions to impeach judges just because they disagree with me on one ruling. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from taking private property for commercial development.

The dissenters are better on most issues, anyway.

[The Dowager Mod]

The congress does not have the power to impeach Supreme court justices.

[A18]

The congress does not have the power to impeach Supreme court justices.

Yes, they do, just like any other judges.

[The Dowager Mod]

Try reading the constitution.

[A18]

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[The Dowager Mod]

Article III of the Constitution provides that the Justices, and all other federal judges, hold their offices "during good Behaviour." (and while they serve, their pay cannot be cut.) They may resign at any time, or retire when eligible. Once confirmed, however, they may be removed—in accordance with Article II—only by "Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In effect they serve for life.

[A18]

I'm sorry, but treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors do not qualify as good behavior.

Samuel Chase was charged with eight articles of impeachment. In fact, the Jeffersonian Republicans impeached a whole slate of Federalist-appointed judges.

[Richard]

Article III of the Constitution provides that the Justices, and all other federal judges, hold their offices "during good Behaviour." (and while they serve, their pay cannot be cut.) They may resign at any time, or retire when eligible. Once confirmed, however, they may be removed—in accordance with Article II—only by "Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In effect they serve for life.

I'd say this is a high crime.  They did violate their oath, afterall.

[A18]

I actually didn't see that last sentence of her post. First she says judges can't be impeached, then she admits they can.

Note that the requirements she lists are the exact same requirements as for any other federal official. There is no difference.

Failure of a judge to faithfully interpret the Constitution is no different from the failure of a president to faithfully execute the laws of the country. Both are an impeachable offense, as is supported by precedent.

[opebo]

Are we talking about that emminent domain decision here?  Sheesh, why on earth do you people care about that?  I can think of plenty of other rights and freedoms that are under threat that you might actually effect you.

[Everett]

Are we talking about that emminent domain decision here?  Sheesh, why on earth do you people care about that?  I can think of plenty of other rights and freedoms that are under threat that you might actually effect you.

affect*

[opebo]

Are we talking about that emminent domain decision here?  Sheesh, why on earth do you people care about that?  I can think of plenty of other rights and freedoms that are under threat that you might actually effect you.

affect*

What does this * mean?

[patrick1]

Are we talking about that emminent domain decision here?  Sheesh, why on earth do you people care about that?  I can think of plenty of other rights and freedoms that are under threat that you might actually effect you.

affect*

What does this * mean?

He was pointing out your usage error.  I mess this one up all of the time.