Override the Supreme Court?

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

<OGLEBUTT.RemoveThis@Stupid.com> wrote in message
news:u3k7b0dtnrnvb30khgcj2scphv34cupe6j@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 22:41:13 GMT, "David Lentz"
> <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
> >news:jf47b05dsfpj69bf11jbp9o19lvuep6grr@4ax.com...
> >> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> a) YOU don't get to interpret what the constitution "means"
> >> >> b) There is no accepted doctrine of "oringinal intent"
> >> >> c) the "federalist society" is pure bullshit and the federalist
papers
> >> >> are not law
> >> >
> >> >How would it be wrong to impeach the entire court?
> >>
> >> The court has done nothing impeachable.
> >
> >In fact, anything is impeachable.
>
> Bullshit
>
> Either you're dense, or you don't understand the first thing about
> "impeachment"
>
> Impeachment is an ACCUSATION, not a final end
>
> It is the BEGINNING of a process
>
> The FINAL act is Conviction by 2/3rd of the Senate.

It is within the constitutional power of Congress to impeach and remove from
office any official for any reason. Name one good reason why Congress
should not exercise her power to impeach and remove from office the entire
Supreme Court? If you can.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:07:05 GMT, "David Lentz"
<dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>
><OGLEBUTT.RemoveThis@Stupid.com> wrote in message
>news:u3k7b0dtnrnvb30khgcj2scphv34cupe6j@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 May 2004 22:41:13 GMT, "David Lentz"
>> <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
>> >news:jf47b05dsfpj69bf11jbp9o19lvuep6grr@4ax.com...
>> >> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> a) YOU don't get to interpret what the constitution "means"
>> >> >> b) There is no accepted doctrine of "oringinal intent"
>> >> >> c) the "federalist society" is pure bullshit and the federalist
>papers
>> >> >> are not law
>> >> >
>> >> >How would it be wrong to impeach the entire court?
>> >>
>> >> The court has done nothing impeachable.
>> >
>> >In fact, anything is impeachable.
>>
>> Bullshit
>>
>> Either you're dense, or you don't understand the first thing about
>> "impeachment"
>>
>> Impeachment is an ACCUSATION, not a final end
>>
>> It is the BEGINNING of a process
>>
>> The FINAL act is Conviction by 2/3rd of the Senate.
>
>It is within the constitutional power of Congress to impeach and remove from
>office any official for any reason. Name one good reason why Congress
>should not exercise her power to impeach and remove from office the entire
>Supreme Court? If you can.

It would be foolish for them to remove a court so crooked and
complient it appointed George W. as President.
>
>David
>
>

-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"

-- CNN, 4/30/2001.


Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:07:05 GMT, "David Lentz"
<dlentz10 DeleteThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>> >In fact, anything is impeachable.
>>
>> Bullshit
>>
>> Either you're dense, or you don't understand the first thing about
>> "impeachment"
>>
>> Impeachment is an ACCUSATION, not a final end
>>
>> It is the BEGINNING of a process
>>
>> The FINAL act is Conviction by 2/3rd of the Senate.
>
>It is within the constitutional power of Congress to impeach and remove from
>office any official for any reason. Name one good reason why Congress
>should not exercise her power to impeach and remove from office the entire
>Supreme Court? If you can.

Because the ONLY thing "harmed" is YOUR interpretation of the
constitution and law.

That's why the republican impeachment of Clinton failed.


>--------------------------------------------------------

>"Unable to defend his policies in a coherent way and un=
>willing to acknowledge his mistakes, Bush responds to
>criticism with ugliness."

Time Magazine. April 5, 2004
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

On Wed, 26 May 2004, David Lentz wrote:

> > Impeachment is an ACCUSATION, not a final end

> > It is the BEGINNING of a process

> > The FINAL act is Conviction by 2/3rd of the Senate.

> It is within the constitutional power of Congress to impeach and remove from
> office any official for any reason.

Even if "any reason" is used, such as in the case of Clinton, mere
impeachment doesn't remove from office unless the subject is convicted.

> Name one good reason why Congress should not exercise her power to
impeach and remove from office the entire Supreme Court? If you can.>>

Are you suggesting that impeachment be used for the reason that there is
no reason not to?

That's odd.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious
mind cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is
not an old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is
not, and never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is
magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in
a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Jingo" <Jingo RemoveThis @AFreeAmerica.com> wrote in message
news:j058b0dt5gaktojue4nf6p179pne7en8n6@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 22:41:13 GMT, "David Lentz"
> <dlentz10 RemoveThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote in message
> >news:jf47b05dsfpj69bf11jbp9o19lvuep6grr@4ax.com...
> >> "David Lentz" <dlentz10 RemoveThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> a) YOU don't get to interpret what the constitution "means"
> >> >> b) There is no accepted doctrine of "oringinal intent"
> >> >> c) the "federalist society" is pure bullshit and the federalist
papers
> >> >> are not law
> >> >
> >> >How would it be wrong to impeach the entire court?
> >>
> >> The court has done nothing impeachable.
> >
> >In fact, anything is impeachable.
>
> Once again you are wrong, Dave.
>
> The same standard for the impeachment of a Federal Judge applies as
> for other federal officials.

The term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" may be construe by Congress to mean
anything. The Supreme Court has placed no limit on herself in interpreting
the Constitution. It would be foolhardy to attempt to argue that while the
Supreme Court has unlimited authority to interpret the Constitution the
co-equal branch of the federal government as limited authority to interpret
her constitutional duties.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

<Draccus874 DeleteThis @netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ea8aeb4.0405251833.41460991@posting.google.com...

<snip>

> You are to Constitutional scholarship what Dana is to well any thought
> whatsoever. The power of impeachment is limited, or should be, to very
> extreme circumstances. Now that brings us to what impeachment is,
> impeachment is not the removal from office of a person, it is the
> bringing of charges before the Senate for trial and to see if there is

The above author is begging the question. He rightfully assumes that the
power of impeachment should be limited. He then leaps to the wrong
conclusion that Congress' power of impeachment is limited. While limits
are appropriate, there are no such limits contained in the Constitution.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Jingo" <Jingo.RemoveThis@AFreeAmerica.com> wrote in message
news:qi48b092ap57hgc3h2nbtfs03okitokiag@4ax.com...

<snip>

> >> >> THe USSC interprets the legislation if it is found to conflict with
> >> >> established law as an appellate court. Only certain instances do
they
> >> >> have "original jurisdiction"
> >> >
> >> >Congress doesn't have to over ride the Supreme Court's interpretation
of
> >the
> >> >Constitution, all Congress has to do is exercise her due
constitutional
> >> >power and impeach the entire court. It is simple and it should be
done.
> >>
> >> Impeaching an entire court is silly dreaming
> >>
> >> Even if you impeached an entire court, there is no guarantee that
> >> the next banc would interpret constitutional law different.
> >>
> >> Decisions made by the USSC are not wrong simply because you
> >> don't agree with their interpretations.
> >>
> >> Your argument is still centered around two main points:
> >>
> >> 1) Your "reading" of the constitution conflicts with theirs
> >>
> >> 2) "original intent" isn't being followed.
> >>
> >> BOTH are silly beliefs
> >>
> >> a) YOU don't get to interpret what the constitution "means"
> >> b) There is no accepted doctrine of "oringinal intent"
> >> c) the "federalist society" is pure bullshit and the federalist papers
> >> are not law
> >
> >How would it be wrong to impeach the entire court? Please be specific.
>
> You haven't pointed out the impeachable offense/offenses that the
> entire court has committed for one thing, Dave.
>
> >It is within Congress' power. It can be done. It should be done.
>
> Because you are a right wing asshole?
>
> >To illustrate the insane depth to which the Court has sunk, the Court has
> >decided to hear an appeal of an Alabama death row inmate who contends
that
> >due to his history of drug addiction, that lethal injection would be
> >unconstitutional.
>
> Have you ever run across the phrase "checks and balances" Dave?
>
> Does "separation of powers" ring a bell?
>
> Were you home schooled?
>
> >Now no where in the text of the Constitution will you, or even the Court,
> >find any specific language dealing with such minute details. The Court
can
> >not resolve this case using the Constitution. It does not address such
an
> >issue. All the Court can do is so substitute her judgment for that of
the
> >Constitution. Any justice who substitutes his personal belief for the
text
> >of the Constitution should be impeached.
>
> McCulloch v. Maryland negates your entire rant above, Dave.
>
> Do try and not to argue from ignorance on EVERY thread.

Impeachment of the entire sitting Supreme Court would constitute a check and
balance by Congress on the runaway Supreme Court.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

On Wed, 26 May 2004, David Lentz wrote:

> Impeachment of the entire sitting Supreme Court would constitute a check and
> balance by Congress on the runaway Supreme Court.

An allegation you have yet to substantiate.

Do you have any idea how much the impeachment of Clinton cost the
taxpayers?

Perhaps you might want to do some research and get back to us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious
mind cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is
not an old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is
not, and never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is
magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in
a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Carol Lee Smith" <human RemoveThis @csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1040526110927.8773C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004, David Lentz wrote:
>
> > Impeachment of the entire sitting Supreme Court would constitute a check
and
> > balance by Congress on the runaway Supreme Court.
>
> An allegation you have yet to substantiate.
>
> Do you have any idea how much the impeachment of Clinton cost the
> taxpayers?
>
> Perhaps you might want to do some research and get back to us.

I think that the poster you are replying to has been listening to too much
emotionalist talk radio, and has briefly lost touch with reality.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

<OGLEBUTT.DeleteThis@Stupid.com> wrote in message
news:4ck7b0l54mhr9stsnnlm5654um4s3m4nph@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 15:51:33 GMT, "David Lentz"
> <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >The local fish wrapper just spent a week celebrating Brown vs.. Board of
> >Education, a court decision which no constitutional basis.
>
> The "basis" resides in the court (correctly) making a judgement
> concerning legislation, laws and doctrines that supposes "separate"
> means "equal"
>
> It is within the CLEAR mandate of the Court to parse a legislative
> concept and review legislation and the resulting harm that occurs
> when it conflicts with the spirit of the constitution and law of the
> land.
>
> Segregation was inherently "unequal" The preamble and rationale for
> the constitution was being abrogated. "Separate" cannot be "equal" by
> any standard you name.

In terms of Brown v. Board of Education, seperate always meant unequal.
Yet there is no language in the Constitution which precludes seperate but
equal. The difficulty in practice of achieving equal does not show that
the Constitution prohibits the theory of seperate but equal.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court?