11 Responses to “Q and A on impeachment of federal judges”

1. Concerned
   November 6th, 2011 @ 8:39 am

   Judith – Can you identify the “high crimes and misdemeanors” committed, by these judges that at least 218 members of the House of Representatives, can agree upon in voting articles of impeachment?

   I respectfully, look forward to your response.

2. Barb
   November 6th, 2011 @ 10:03 am

   The term of a federal judge is for the length of good behavior. They do not need to commit high crimes in order to be impeached. Usurping the Constitution is not good behavior. The people have the right to petition the house to impeach any federal judge for lack of good behavior. The petition should state the reason for impeachment. The house has the final say so. That said, maybe it is time we start petitions to impeach federal judges (the the entire 9th circuit communist court of appeals) and maybe they will start to change their ways. Their decisions are routinely overturned by the SCOTUS

3. Blabby
   November 6th, 2011 @ 11:09 am

   What behavior are the judges guilty of, other than following the law?

4. Barb
   November 6th, 2011 @ 12:34 pm

   @Blabby,

   The issue is that judges making their decisions are making on case law (previous cases tried) rather than on the constitution. Previous cases, based on case law, can still be wrong (as far as not basing the case on the Constitution) A good example is separation of church and state. Those words are no where to found in the Constitution, yet some supreme court decided to interpret the constitution accord to what they thought, instead of applying the principles of the Constitution to the case at hand. The Constitution does not need to be interpreted; it is not written in Chinese.

5. outraged
   November 6th, 2011 @ 12:36 pm

   Are we talking about that Royce Lambeth here?

6. Troy
   November 6th, 2011 @ 1:03 pm

   Orly, anything you do will always fail. You don’t want to pursue him the dirty way. Dirty but legal. Communists couldn’t care less about the law. You should know better as you were born in the crib of communism. Use your head and start doing something that matters. Start organizing an Occupy the White House movement. Something that really counts, not these silly court cases which you know well will go nowhere. You have the power to organize a movement. Get together with Pastor Manning, Wnd, The post and email, the retired generals, and other influential people and do something about it!

7. MichaelN
   November 6th, 2011 @ 2:38 pm

   Blabby said
   “What behavior are the judges guilty of, other than following the law?”
   ——————————

   Maybe this will answer for you.

   (Remove the spaces between the h t t p to use the url link)

   h t t p://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

   Quoting Justice Scalia:
   “Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did.

   We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time.

   But the difference is that prior to the last 50 years or so, prior to the advent of the “Living Constitution,” judges did their distortions the good old fashioned way, the honest way — they lied about it.

   They said the Constitution means such and such, when it never meant such and such.

   It’s a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution.

   And the judge can simply say, “Oh yes, the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now.”

   We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes.

   I have grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: “The Constitution is a living document.” You know, it morphs.

   Well, let me first tell you how we got to the “Living Constitution.”

   You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it.

   The road is not that complicated. Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn’t have when they were adopted”

   .

8. Concerned
   November 6th, 2011 @ 5:10 pm

   MichaelN – Very impressive for an Aussie. Are you planning on coming to the U.S.? Or are you just going to tell us how we should run our lives from Downunder?

   God bless.

9. jones
   November 6th, 2011 @ 9:18 pm

   nothing

10. Paul Jackson
    November 7th, 2011 @ 4:37 am

    Justice Scalia’s conclusion:

    “To come back to the beginning, this is new — 50 years old or so — the Living Constitution stuff. We have not yet seen what the end of the road is. I think we are beginning to see. And what it is should really be troublesome to Americans who care about a Constitution that can provide protections against majoritarian rule. Thank you.”

11. john
    November 9th, 2011 @ 3:10 am

    Antonin Scalia is a intellectual midget (my apologies to all little people) and a dangerous idealogue. His basic position is that if you don’t agree with what he says the Constitution means, you’re wrong. One can only hope he continues hunting with his good friend Dick Cheney.

Leave a Reply