Override the Supreme Court?

"Jingo" <Jingo RemoveThis @AFreeAmerica.com> wrote in message
news:vkeab0do8nrs4jnm3ecck3kb6v6iv2f73j@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:11:52 GMT, "David Lentz"
> <dlentz10 RemoveThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >"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.
>
> You are the only one making that argument, Dave.
>
> Your strawmen get weaker with each passing post.

What was Clinton being impeached for again.
You guys on the left like to say it was over a Blow Job.
>
> Jingo
>
> The Official Song of the 2004 GOP Convention
>
> "SORRY!"
>
> http://www.waynelammers.com/audio/Sorry_MIX.mp3
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

On Thu, 27 May 2004, Dana wrote:

> What was Clinton being impeached for again.
> You guys on the left like to say it was over a Blow Job.

Whatever it was, they couldn't make it stick, could they?

He was acquited.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Unable to defend his policies in a coherent way and
unwilling to acknowledge his mistakes, Bush responds to
criticism with ugliness." Time Magazine. April 5, 2004
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dM0tc.87996$hY.35756@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> <Draccus874.RemoveThis@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.


The Clinton impeachment comes to mind.
>
> David
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

On Thu, 27 May 2004, Dana Raffaniello <dpraff.DeleteThis@gci.net>
wrote:

> The Clinton impeachment comes to mind.

And his acquital?

Does that come to mind, or do you draw a blank on that one?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:o8r9b0dlit80ifu17krg561esjru779r9s@4ax.com...
> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> ><Draccus874.RemoveThis@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

I think bob, you would find that confidence in Congress is not that high to
begin with.
>
> 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.

That could happen.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Jingo" <Jingo.RemoveThis@AFreeAmerica.com> wrote in message
news:qmeab0tbmm2h9a5nm0gkbpmab9cskocl6u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:15:53 GMT, "David Lentz"
> <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><Draccus874.RemoveThis@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.
>
> Actually, he is wondering how you manage to dress yourself, Dave.
>
> >He rightfully assumes that the power of impeachment should be limited.
>
> Then why have you spent this entire thread arguing just the opposite?
>
> >He then leaps to the wrong conclusion that Congress' power of impeachment
is limited.
>
> In reality Congressional power is limited for legal, political and
> pragmatic reasons, Dave.
>
> You really need to take a basic government course at your local
> Community College.
>
> >While limits are appropriate, there are no such limits contained in the
Constitution.
>
> Lentz really is off his meds this week.

Than point out the limits. And why not address the fact that all 3 branches
of the federal government operate outside of the Constitutional limitations
placed on them by we the people.
>
> Jingo
>
> The Official Song of the 2004 GOP Convention
>
> "SORRY!"
>
> http://www.waynelammers.com/audio/Sorry_MIX.mp3
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:lgr9b0h25hljojg9sd13ddqkgs7ujh030j@4ax.com...
> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.TakeThisOut@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"?

Look at it's decisions.
Look at how some of the Justices say we should look at international law,
and international opinion when they make their decisions.
Their job is to interpret the Constitution by looking at the Constitution,
and writings of the founders when they made the Constitution.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:3kr9b0lnkpmcc8dn1f829a80kelcumnp4c@4ax.com...
> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> ><OGLEBUTT.DeleteThis@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.

Since the Constitution was not Amended or changed in any way, how can the
14th Amendment change in meaning if no change was made to the Amendment.
What changed was the personal view of the Justices, not the Constitution. So
we have unelected Justices making up new laws without being authorized to do
so.
>
> How is interpreting the meaning of words, "ignoring" them.

They ignored the meaning of the Amendment, when they changed it without
going through Article 5 procedures.
>
> >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.

Wrong, the only thing to base our Constitution on is by the writings of the
people who wrote the Constitution and all of the Amendments.
International opinion has nothing to do with the interpretation of the
American Constitution.
>
> 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.

Wrong, Europeans are Not Americans, the decisions are based on what
Americans think, and what the people who wrote the Constitution thought when
they wrote the Constitution.
>
> >Justices talk about evolving standards of justice.

The Constitution does not evolve without going through the Amendment
process. The only way to change the Constitution is through Article 5.
> >In short there is plenty of evidence of the Court ignoring the
Constitution.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Jingo" <Jingo RemoveThis @AFreeAmerica.com> wrote in message
news:s3fab0hvd49mebl1kvn8jjgpmke7eiimuq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:24:54 GMT, "David Lentz"
> <dlentz10 RemoveThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><OGLEBUTT RemoveThis @Stupid.com> wrote in message
> >news:58k7b0pqi4mdfsoutcqmoghj4iu4r3btck@4ax.com...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> 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.
>
> Finally we get to specifics.
>
> And only after 100 posts.
>
> >Sandra Day O'Connor talked about the meaning Fourteenth Amendment
changing
> >in twenty-five years.
>
> So far so good.
>
> That is true.
>
> The Constitution is not a static document.

Yes it is.
If you want change, use the method spelled out in the Constitution to Amend
it.
>
> >Ruth Bader Ginsberg implore the Court to base
> >decisions on internationals, read liberal European, standards of justice.
>
> More details please? Or did you hear it on the shortwave radio?

Nope, it was on all the news.
>
> >Justices talk about evolving standards of justice. In short there is
plenty
> >of evidence of the Court ignoring the Constitution.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

> Jingo <Jingo DeleteThis @AFreeAmerica.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:15:20 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
> ><lojbab DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Draccus874@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 Federalist Papers have no standing what so ever in matters of
> >Constitutional law.


Actually they do.
So much for your knowledge of Constitutional law, that you do not even know
this 6th grade fact.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.TakeThisOut@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZD0tc.87881$hY.43012@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> <OGLEBUTT.TakeThisOut@Stupid.com> wrote in message
> news:u3k7b0dtnrnvb30khgcj2scphv34cupe6j@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 25 May 2004 22:41:13 GMT, "David Lentz"
> > <dlentz10.TakeThisOut@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote in message
> > >news:jf47b05dsfpj69bf11jbp9o19lvuep6grr@4ax.com...
> > >> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.TakeThisOut@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.

Because 7 out of 9 are Republican appointees. Who do you think Bush would
appoint and the Republican Senate would approve?

In other words? Why throw out a perfectly good Supreme Court, set a
dangerous precedent for the next Democratic Senate and President, and
completely ruin any facade still fooling anyone into thinking Republicans
favor democracy?
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"zepp" <zeppnospam.RemoveThis@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:h579b0demjsl9fjr18tc06gsof6u5ngjdo@4ax.com...
> 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.

When 7 of the 9 are already Republican appointees.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 

"Roger" <rogerfx RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KEetc.73367$B81.33564@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> "David Lentz" <dlentz10 RemoveThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ZD0tc.87881$hY.43012@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > <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.
>
> Because 7 out of 9 are Republican appointees.

Who appointed them is not the point. It is how they are legislating from the
bench that is the problem.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court?