Override the Supreme Court?

"David Lentz" <dlentz10 DeleteThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Name one good reason why Congress
>should not exercise her power to impeach and remove from office the entire
>Supreme Court?

None of them have committed anything that can be called a "high crime"
or a "misdemeanor".

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"David Lentz" <dlentz10 DeleteThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>> >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.

Oh, Congress COULD impeach and remove a court justice for getting out
of bed tomorrow morning.

But your later question was why they shouldn't. The obvious answer is
that they don't want to be thrown out of office for acting like
idiots.

The secondary answer is that they don't want to throw the entirety of
jurisprudence in this country into chaos.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
><Draccus874.DeleteThis@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:ea8aeb4.0405251833.41460991@posting.google.com...
>> 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.

The limits are those of tradition and common sense. If impeachment
becomes even slightly more a political tool than it was in the last
administration, then the public confidence in Congress will drop
through the floor

Furthermore, every time one party got into power, their first step
would be to impeach everyone of the wrong party at any level of
government.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.DeleteThis@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Impeachment of the entire sitting Supreme Court would constitute a check and
>balance by Congress on the runaway Supreme Court.

Evidence that the Supreme Court is "runaway"?

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.TakeThisOut@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
><OGLEBUTT.TakeThisOut@Stupid.com> wrote in message
>news:58k7b0pqi4mdfsoutcqmoghj4iu4r3btck@4ax.com...
>> Are you so dense you don't "get it"
>>
>> There is NO evidence that the "court is ignoring the constitution"
>
>There is plenty of evidence that the Court simply ignores the Constitution.
>Sandra Day O'Connor talked about the meaning Fourteenth Amendment changing
>in twenty-five years.

How is interpreting the meaning of words, "ignoring" them.

>Ruth Bader Ginsberg implore the Court to base
>decisions on internationals, read liberal European, standards of justice.

The choice of "standards of justice" does not contradict the
constitution. It indicates how some phrases are to be understood.

What constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment"? The constitution
does not say; the court decides. On what basis? All else being
equal, what Europeans think is a worthwhile consideration.

>Justices talk about evolving standards of justice.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the Constitution, which is a
standard of LAW, not a standard of justice.

>In short there is plenty of evidence of the Court ignoring the Constitution.

You have yet to introduce any at all.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.TakeThisOut@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>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.

Read the decision, idiot.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.TakeThisOut@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>The constitutional role of the Supreme Court is to act on the laws of the
>United States.

No. The role is to adjudicate cases arising under the Constitution.

>The Court has no constitutional role as the keeper of the nation's morals.

Court has the constitutional role of ensuring justice.

The branch most responsible to the nation's morality is
>the branch directly elected by the people, the legislative.

The nation has no morality. Individuals have morality (sometimes),
but yours and mine clearly do not agree.

>If is for legislators to judge morality,

It is for God to judge morality, and no human being.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:53:33 GMT, "David Lentz"
<dlentz10 RemoveThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:


>> The USSC has the power, ethically, morally and legally, to "read" laws
>> passed by states and "judge" that they are in conflict with
>> constitutional law, or at least the intent of the framers and the
>> philosophical underpinnings of our society
>
>The constitutional role of the Supreme Court is to act on the laws of the
>United States.

The USSC is an appellate court, the highest in the Nation. It only
has original jurisdiction in about 4 specific instances.(such as
conflicts between states, laws dealing with treaties, etc)

ALl other cases arising before the USSC judges,come from lower
courts, and THEIR application of law. The USSC role is to ascertain
whether laws are held in compliance with the constitution.

ONLY the USSC gets to make a determination as to "what the
constitution means"----which negates ANY rationale for individuals or
groups calling the court "wrong"

What you simply do not understand is that YOU (or any other rightwing
loony), don't get to make a judgment as to what the "constitution
means".

It's simply a basic case of you not comprehending your beliefs aren't
sufficient reason to call the USSC wrong. You're using the
"Federalist Society" logic of trying to apply "federalist papers" as a
standard by which all cases arising should be judged.

>The Court has no constitutional role as the keeper of the
>nation's morals.

The USSC makes determinations as to whether or not laws are in
compliance with the "morals" and "principles" set forth in the
constitution and the declaration.

By ruling whether or not laws (such as segregation/Jim Crow laws) are
"morally" acceptable (constitutionally) in keeping with the principles
which the declaration and constitutions were established under, they
effectively become a "keeper of morals" More properly principles.

But the issue before the court in Brown, was that of STATES RIGHTS,
not morality.






========================================================================================================

>From: danaraffaniello RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net (danaraffaniello@worldnet.att.net)Subject: golden/brown showers

>View this article only

>Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersportsDate: 1997/03/30

>swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
>no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
>satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
>showers. will worship feet and ass. trampling and smothering ok
>also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.

>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Scott Erb" <scotterb RemoveThis @maine.edu> wrote in message
news:c92h9q$kqu$1@murdoch.unet.maine.edu...
>
> "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.

Given the Supreme Court abrogating her constitutional duty by ignoring the
Constitution, impeachment, and removal from office, are appropriate.

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

"David Lentz" <dlentz10 RemoveThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Given the Supreme Court abrogating her constitutional duty by ignoring the
>Constitution

That is not a given.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab RemoveThis @lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

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


Becarefull what you wish for. Bush is in office because of the liberal
abstract thinking of the the living constitution.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

On Wed, 26 May 2004 19:12:19 GMT, "Russell Keller"
<524design.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>> Because the ONLY thing "harmed" is YOUR interpretation of the
>> constitution and law.
>>
>
>
>Becarefull what you wish for. Bush is in office because of the liberal
>abstract thinking of the the living constitution.

That logic escapes me.

Bush is in the white house because Democrats get out spent 3 to 1


========================================================================================================

>From: danaraffaniello.TakeThisOut@worldnet.att.net (danaraffaniello@worldnet.att.net)Subject: golden/brown showers

>View this article only

>Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersportsDate: 1997/03/30

>swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
>no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
>satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
>showers. will worship feet and ass. trampling and smothering ok
>also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.

>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<e828b0di8j91nee02la6ljp7bhbe4kggc5.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>...
> Draccus874.TakeThisOut@netscape.net wrote:
> >The fact is that just
> >because the Court has ruled in such a way as to be unpopular with some
> >or even most people is not an impeachable offense.
>
> The problem with this claim is that one of the Founders, Hamilton,
> pretty much expressly said the opposite in the Federalist Papers 81



The Constitution also spells out and defines an impeachable offense as
High Crimes and Misdemeanors thus being unpopular is not either.


> http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed81.htm
> >It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of
> > judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been
> > upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular
> > misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature
> > may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to
> > amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the
> > order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty,
> > from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to
> > which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its
> > comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its
> > usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the
> > consideration of the important constitutional check which the power
> > of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and
> > of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon
> > the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete
> > security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of
> > deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would
> > hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while
> > this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption,
> > by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all
> > apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent
> > argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of
> > impeachments.
>
> Meanwhile of course, Federalist 78 thoroughly backs up the power of
> the courts to make the sorts of rulings that they make, interpreting
> the law, and sometimes ruling laws unconstitutional.
> http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed78.htm
>
> lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court?