Newt...Impeach Judges

[billvon 3,132]

>see, try and twist my words . . .

Dude, it was a joke to follow up on your joke.

[Tink1717 2]

I'd debate you on the substance of what he said, but he didn't say anything that wasn't simply whining. His claims of socialist are total bullshit even if he would get specific, but he never does, nor does anyone on the right. You got a point? Go for it.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ah

his impeachment was because he perjured himself.

he perjured himself to avoid an embarrassing trial of sexual harassment, to be precise. When that gambit blew up, he ultimately paid off the plaintiff to again avoid the trial.

The adultery, otoh, employed comedians for years.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Ah

his impeachment was because he perjured himself.

That is what you like to forget

RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT... It's all toooooo telling how you and others of the fringe right actually believe that shit

[skyrider 0]

Quote

>see, try and twist my words . . .

Dude, it was a joke to follow up on your joke.

I drink a lot, what can I say, mia copa, (or however da fuck that is said)

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

>see, try and twist my words . . .

Dude, it was a joke to follow up on your joke.

I drink a lot, what can I say, mia copa, (or however da fuck that is said)

Mea culpa.

[billvon 3,132]

>Mea culpa.

That's my-a cuppa! Getta yo hands offa there!

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>see, try and twist my words . . .

Dude, it was a joke to follow up on your joke.

I drink a lot, what can I say, mia copa, (or however da fuck that is said)

Mea culpa.

I always thought it was just "I fucked up, sorry dude" then some college punk told me I was wrong...when he woke up, he explained what he meant...after that, I tried to start" listening" with less "reacting"!

[skyrider 0]

Quote

>Mea culpa.

That's my-a cuppa! Getta yo hands offa there!

THAT I can relate to!

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Ten minute clip , well worth the listen...even good for a few laughs..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtjfMjjce2Y

I 100% agree. We need to get rid of the 9th circuit judges. I got a problem with judges to begin with, but wack job life time appointed judges need to go. How do you get rid of a problem like that?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[wmw999 2,603]

You change the Constitution. They serve as long as they "behave." Behaving does not mean ruling in a popular manner. If that were the case, the judiciary wouldn't be independent.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

You change the Constitution. They serve as long as they "behave." Behaving does not mean ruling in a popular manner. If that were the case, the judiciary wouldn't be independent.

Wendy P.

I agree with your popular statement

Unfortuantly there have been many un-constitutional rullings dating back decades

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You change the Constitution. They serve as long as they "behave." Behaving does not mean ruling in a popular manner. If that were the case, the judiciary wouldn't be independent.

Wendy P.

I agree with your popular statement

Unfortuantly there have been many un-constitutional rullings dating back decades

(I haven't seen the video - I don't do yahootube for politics. A single text paragraph beats 5 minutes of vid)

Judges don't make unconstitutional rulings. They make decisions that the SC overrules. And unless the SC does that with a 9-0 decision, it's hard to make the case that the 9th Circuit (or any other) acted inappropriately.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

You change the Constitution. They serve as long as they "behave." Behaving does not mean ruling in a popular manner. If that were the case, the judiciary wouldn't be independent.

Wendy P.

I agree with you statement about there rulings are not always popular. But what constitutes "behaving"? And what is the process for judges that don't "behave" on the bench?

My problem is in the court room judges have absolute power. I'm fine with that. Being in the navy, a captain has absolute power over his ship.

The problem comes when the judges abuse their power and rule in contrast to the rule of law, justice, or even common sense. The ship's captain will eventually be held accountable for his actions, a life time appointed judge won't. I strongly believe they should be. There are some bad ones out there.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

They make decisions that the SC overrules. And unless the SC does that with a 9-0 decision, it's hard to make the case that the 9th Circuit (or any other) acted inappropriately.

From some of there current rulings, there are some wack jobs on the supreme court also.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[wmw999 2,603]

From Wikipedia

Quote

A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (hence the term good behavior); this has occurred fourteen times. Three other judges, Mark W. Delahay,[2] George W. English,[3] and Samuel B. Kent[4] resigned rather than go through the impeachment process.

Some of the most important rulings are unpopular when they're made.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

I agree with you statement about there rulings are not always popular. But what constitutes "behaving"?

Not committing crimes or egregiously gross misconduct while in office. If you think about what's required to impeach a president, that's pretty much what's required to impeach a federal judge.

Quote

And what is the process for judges that don't "behave" on the bench?

Re: federal judges: Impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Some of the most important rulings are unpopular when they're made.

Some are, most are not.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,603]

Quote

Some are, most are not.

By the time something has made it to a federal court, I believe it's already been disagreed on. The decision is going to be unpopular with someone.

I'd bet that most of the not-unpopular ones are really just so limited in their scope that they don't apply to most people, and only piss off a few targeted people.

The problem is when something is done to disenfranchise or discriminate against a class of people -- then what do the judges do? Piss off the class being discriminated against, or piss off the people with the power? What does the Constitution say (or what do previous rulings and implications say) is generally the answer. When they rule against the discriminated-against, it's generally not unpopular. When they rule against the people who thought they had the power, it's unpopular.

Nothing sucks like finding out one isn't as special as one thought one was.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,132]

>Some are, most are not.

I'd have to agree with Wendy. Absolutely the most important rulings judges make - and indeed a primary reason for the existence of the judiciary in the government - are to enforce unpopular parts of the US Constitution.

For popular decisions, we pass laws in a representative government. We don't need judges for that. We _do_ need judges to tell us that a popular law (like, say, one that prohibits interracial marriages) is unconstitutional.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>Some are, most are not.

I'd have to agree with Wendy. Absolutely the most important rulings judges make - and indeed a primary reason for the existence of the judiciary in the government - are to enforce unpopular parts of the US Constitution.

For popular decisions, we pass laws in a representative government. We don't need judges for that. We _do_ need judges to tell us that a popular law (like, say, one that prohibits interracial marriages) is unconstitutional.

Ok - yeah - I was wrong - I see it that way now.

But only because you agree with Wendy.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun