Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 49
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,595
    Thanks (Given)
    23844
    Thanks (Received)
    17371
    Likes (Given)
    9625
    Likes (Received)
    6080
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475522

    Default Democrat Leaders Warn SCOTUS

    This is truly bizarre. Even stranger, seems to me that NYT and WaPo are hoping something changes, I cannot find 1 story from any MSM.

    https://ijr.com/senate-democrats-sup...-restructured/


    Senate Dems Issue Ominous Warning to SCOTUS: ‘Heal’ or Be ‘Restructured’


    Houston Keene
    August 13, 2019, 4:15 pm

    Several Democrats in the Senate delivered an ominous warning to the Supreme Court in a case brief regarding a gun law in New York City.


    In a case brief filed on Monday, five Senate Democrats — Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) — wrote that the Supreme Court was “not well” and needed to be “heal[ed]” before “the public” demands the institution be “restructured.”


    The group of senators also brought up rulings by the court, where there is a 5-4 conservative majority.


    “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”


    The senators quoted a Quinnipiac poll in May that found 55 percent of Americans thought that the Supreme Court was mainly motivated by politics. The same poll found 51 percent of Americans were in favor of restructuring the Supreme Court.


    The case the briefing accompanied was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York and dealt with the legal limitations on where unloaded, locked, and licensed firearms can be taken by gun owners.


    An overhaul of the Supreme Court has taken its place among the policy proposals for many of the prominent Democratic presidential primary candidates.


    As IJR Red previously reported, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-Ind.) proposed that he wanted as many as 15 justices on the bench and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) gave his support to an 18-year term limit proposal.


    Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said that she was “absolutely open” to a dialogue on packing the court. She was joined on this idea by Gillibrand as well as Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.


    The idea of packing the court did not strike a chord with current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who trashed it as a “bad idea” and that she was “not at all in favor of that solution to what I see as a temporary situation” during an interview with NPR.


    Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — the self-described “Grim Reaper” of progressive policies in the upper chamber — blasted the talk of packing the courts as being from “out of the ash heap of history.”
    This has been rumbling around for a few months, but this is outright intimidation. RBG warned them:

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/06...court-packing/

    Watch For Democrats To Completely Ignore RBG’s Warning Against Court Packing
    Ginsburg’s advice against such schemes was sound, but her liberal fans will stop at nothing should they get the chance to change the Supreme Court.


    By Jonathan S. Tobin


    AUGUST 6, 2019


    Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a rock star to liberals, who regard her as the living embodiment of feminist empowerment and a commitment to using the courts to rewrite the Constitution to accommodate their big-government agenda. But although they lionize her in hagiographic feature films and made her a popular meme as the #notoriousRBG, it’s not likely many will follow her advice about one of the most popular proposals both Democratic grassroots activists and the party’s presidential candidates are circulating: court packing.


    In an interview with NPR’s Nina Totenberg that centered mostly on Ginsburg looking back on her career as well as her battles with cancer, the justice made it clear she took a dim view of Democratic plans to alter the federal judiciary should they reclaim control of the White House and the Senate in 2020.




    Ginsburg pointed out that most of the “reforms” proposed by the likes of South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and endorsed by other leading Democrats are both impractical and highly unlikely to be adopted no matter which party is in charge in 2021. These reforms include putting term limits on the tenure of Supreme Court and federal appellate judges, as well as changing the manner in which they are selected.


    Pushing for Partisanship
    Although Buttigieg and rivals such as Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Beto O’Rourke who have endorsed such schemes claim they want to make the courts less partisan, Ginsburg sees right through such pretensions. While pointing out that changing the manner in which justices are nominated and confirmed and altering their lifetime tenure will never fly because it would require a constitutional amendment, she also made it clear that changing the way the courts have operated since 1789 would be seen as making them more partisan rather than less so.


    Nevertheless, she conceded that the number of Supreme Court justices could be altered, since the Constitution does not state a specific number. The number varied in the republic’s first decades. The passage of the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number at nine, but another act of Congress could change that.


    That’s exactly what President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to do in 1937 with his infamous court-packing proposal, the purpose of which was to stop conservatives on the Supreme Court from ruling some of his New Deal legislation unconstitutional. Although FDR’s Democratic Party had overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate, the public outcry against his brazen attempt to politicize the judiciary caused enough Democrats to abandon him, thwarting his plan.




    Given the current conservative majority on the court — and the chance President Donald Trump and the Republican majority in the Senate could add to it should there be a vacancy in the next 16 months — many Democrats have vowed that if they get the power to do so, they won’t wait for one of the five conservative justices to die or retire but will negate their votes by adding enough new seats on the bench.


    Court Packing Has Always Been a Bad Idea
    But while Ginsburg is unhappy about many of the decisions of her conservative colleagues, she takes a dim view of any notions about court packing: “Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”


    Ginsburg believes the Supreme Court is still essentially a nonpartisan institution, where 5-4 votes are the exception rather than the rule and all of its members cooperate and work well together. Moreover, she thinks any attempt to circumvent normal procedure to render the current 5-4 conservative majority obsolete would undermine the independence of the judiciary and harm its ability to operate.


    These observations coming from someone so venerated on the left ought to constrain the enthusiasm of Democrats for court-packing schemes. But Ginsburg, whose anti-Trump credentials were burnished by her critical comments about the president during the 2016 presidential election (which she subsequently conceded were inappropriate), shouldn’t be under the delusion that Democrats are listening to her.


    The Cold Logic of Judicial Politics


    While the nine justices on the high court may think they are above politics or may vote, as Chief Justice John Roberts has, in a manner they think will keep the judiciary out of the partisan fray, most Republicans and Democrats have a firmer grasp on political reality.


    Most observers on both sides of the political aisle see the court as having become an essentially partisan institution that acts as a superlegislature in an era in which gridlock and the growth of the administrative state have sidelined the legislative branch. Control of the Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts is not so much an option as a prerequisite for any chance at political power.


    Although Roberts’ diffidence about enforcing constitutional norms is rooted in his desire to preserve the illusion that the courts operate outside the partisan scrum, the days when confirmations will be about legal qualifications rather than party loyalties are long gone. If, as I wrote here, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has become the conservative movement’s most valuable asset in Washington outside of the White House, it is because he understands the cold logic of judicial politics in the 21st century.


    McConnell’s decision to deny Judge Merrick Garland the courtesy of a hearing, let alone a vote in 2016 after President Barack Obama nominated him to take the chair of Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, was not a case of a “stolen” seat, nor illegal. But it was unprecedented and based on the calculation that in this day and age, allowing a president to flip a Supreme Court seat from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other was political malpractice.




    The same applies to McConnell ending the filibuster rule on Supreme Court nominees and the end of the “blue slip” rule that allowed senators a veto over judicial nominees from their state. On the filibuster, McConnell was merely following in the footsteps of Harry Reid, his Democratic predecessor, who ended the filibuster on lower-court nominations.


    The Stakes Are High
    Both parties now understand that the stakes involved in control of the judiciary are just too high to play by the gentlemanly rules of a bygone era. If Republicans now understand that defense of constitutional norms and any restraint on liberals’ ability to impose their ideological agenda rests on preserving a conservative high court majority, Democrats have come to similar conclusions.


    Democratic presidential candidates are talking about court packing, and not just because it’s the red meat for liberal activists who are bitter about Garland’s defeat and the ability of the GOP to confirm Neil Gorsuch and especially Brett Kavanaugh in the last two years. It’s also because they know their plans for a vast expansion of entitlements and executive power to implement schemes such as “Medicare for All” or a Green New Deal are predicated on their control of the courts.


    In this sense, Ginsburg’s advice against court packing isn’t just a throwback to notions of political civility and respect for the rules. It’s also a refusal to let partisan control of the courts determine the nation’s political and legal future.

    That’s a lesson Trump, McConnell, and the GOP have already learned. Should leftists win big next year, anyone who thinks the weight of Ginsburg’s opinion or the pull of tradition will restrain Democrats from doing whatever they can to pack the courts hasn’t been paying attention to the political facts of life in 2019.


    Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org and a contributing writer for National Review. Follow him on Twitter.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  2. Thanks SassyLady thanked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    This is truly bizarre. Even stranger, seems to me that NYT and WaPo are hoping something changes, I cannot find 1 story from any MSM.

    https://ijr.com/senate-democrats-sup...-restructured/




    This has been rumbling around for a few months, but this is outright intimidation. RBG warned them:

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/06...court-packing/

    Watch For Democrats To Completely Ignore RBG’s Warning Against Court Packing
    Ginsburg’s advice against such schemes was sound, but her liberal fans will stop at nothing should they get the chance to change the Supreme Court.


    By Jonathan S. Tobin


    AUGUST 6, 2019


    Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a rock star to liberals, who regard her as the living embodiment of feminist empowerment and a commitment to using the courts to rewrite the Constitution to accommodate their big-government agenda. But although they lionize her in hagiographic feature films and made her a popular meme as the #notoriousRBG, it’s not likely many will follow her advice about one of the most popular proposals both Democratic grassroots activists and the party’s presidential candidates are circulating: court packing.


    In an interview with NPR’s Nina Totenberg that centered mostly on Ginsburg looking back on her career as well as her battles with cancer, the justice made it clear she took a dim view of Democratic plans to alter the federal judiciary should they reclaim control of the White House and the Senate in 2020.




    Ginsburg pointed out that most of the “reforms” proposed by the likes of South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and endorsed by other leading Democrats are both impractical and highly unlikely to be adopted no matter which party is in charge in 2021. These reforms include putting term limits on the tenure of Supreme Court and federal appellate judges, as well as changing the manner in which they are selected.


    Pushing for Partisanship
    Although Buttigieg and rivals such as Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Beto O’Rourke who have endorsed such schemes claim they want to make the courts less partisan, Ginsburg sees right through such pretensions. While pointing out that changing the manner in which justices are nominated and confirmed and altering their lifetime tenure will never fly because it would require a constitutional amendment, she also made it clear that changing the way the courts have operated since 1789 would be seen as making them more partisan rather than less so.


    Nevertheless, she conceded that the number of Supreme Court justices could be altered, since the Constitution does not state a specific number. The number varied in the republic’s first decades. The passage of the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number at nine, but another act of Congress could change that.


    That’s exactly what President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to do in 1937 with his infamous court-packing proposal, the purpose of which was to stop conservatives on the Supreme Court from ruling some of his New Deal legislation unconstitutional. Although FDR’s Democratic Party had overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate, the public outcry against his brazen attempt to politicize the judiciary caused enough Democrats to abandon him, thwarting his plan.




    Given the current conservative majority on the court — and the chance President Donald Trump and the Republican majority in the Senate could add to it should there be a vacancy in the next 16 months — many Democrats have vowed that if they get the power to do so, they won’t wait for one of the five conservative justices to die or retire but will negate their votes by adding enough new seats on the bench.


    Court Packing Has Always Been a Bad Idea
    But while Ginsburg is unhappy about many of the decisions of her conservative colleagues, she takes a dim view of any notions about court packing: “Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”


    Ginsburg believes the Supreme Court is still essentially a nonpartisan institution, where 5-4 votes are the exception rather than the rule and all of its members cooperate and work well together. Moreover, she thinks any attempt to circumvent normal procedure to render the current 5-4 conservative majority obsolete would undermine the independence of the judiciary and harm its ability to operate.


    These observations coming from someone so venerated on the left ought to constrain the enthusiasm of Democrats for court-packing schemes. But Ginsburg, whose anti-Trump credentials were burnished by her critical comments about the president during the 2016 presidential election (which she subsequently conceded were inappropriate), shouldn’t be under the delusion that Democrats are listening to her.


    The Cold Logic of Judicial Politics


    While the nine justices on the high court may think they are above politics or may vote, as Chief Justice John Roberts has, in a manner they think will keep the judiciary out of the partisan fray, most Republicans and Democrats have a firmer grasp on political reality.


    Most observers on both sides of the political aisle see the court as having become an essentially partisan institution that acts as a superlegislature in an era in which gridlock and the growth of the administrative state have sidelined the legislative branch. Control of the Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts is not so much an option as a prerequisite for any chance at political power.


    Although Roberts’ diffidence about enforcing constitutional norms is rooted in his desire to preserve the illusion that the courts operate outside the partisan scrum, the days when confirmations will be about legal qualifications rather than party loyalties are long gone. If, as I wrote here, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has become the conservative movement’s most valuable asset in Washington outside of the White House, it is because he understands the cold logic of judicial politics in the 21st century.


    McConnell’s decision to deny Judge Merrick Garland the courtesy of a hearing, let alone a vote in 2016 after President Barack Obama nominated him to take the chair of Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, was not a case of a “stolen” seat, nor illegal. But it was unprecedented and based on the calculation that in this day and age, allowing a president to flip a Supreme Court seat from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other was political malpractice.




    The same applies to McConnell ending the filibuster rule on Supreme Court nominees and the end of the “blue slip” rule that allowed senators a veto over judicial nominees from their state. On the filibuster, McConnell was merely following in the footsteps of Harry Reid, his Democratic predecessor, who ended the filibuster on lower-court nominations.


    The Stakes Are High
    Both parties now understand that the stakes involved in control of the judiciary are just too high to play by the gentlemanly rules of a bygone era. If Republicans now understand that defense of constitutional norms and any restraint on liberals’ ability to impose their ideological agenda rests on preserving a conservative high court majority, Democrats have come to similar conclusions.


    Democratic presidential candidates are talking about court packing, and not just because it’s the red meat for liberal activists who are bitter about Garland’s defeat and the ability of the GOP to confirm Neil Gorsuch and especially Brett Kavanaugh in the last two years. It’s also because they know their plans for a vast expansion of entitlements and executive power to implement schemes such as “Medicare for All” or a Green New Deal are predicated on their control of the courts.


    In this sense, Ginsburg’s advice against court packing isn’t just a throwback to notions of political civility and respect for the rules. It’s also a refusal to let partisan control of the courts determine the nation’s political and legal future.

    That’s a lesson Trump, McConnell, and the GOP have already learned. Should leftists win big next year, anyone who thinks the weight of Ginsburg’s opinion or the pull of tradition will restrain Democrats from doing whatever they can to pack the courts hasn’t been paying attention to the political facts of life in 2019.


    Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org and a contributing writer for National Review. Follow him on Twitter.
    Dem party showing its true colors. As it stands against this nation as it was founded, against the Constitution and now openly declaring it wants to turn the judicial branch into its subservient slave. We have three branches of government 1. Executive, 2. Legislative and 3. Judicial....
    Dem party wants government to be one branch--one branch totally subservient to the dem party and its socialist/dictatorial agenda-- a sad, tragic and very dangerous reality, yes-- it is just that simple..

    I am dead on the mark--when I declare the dem party to be a great danger to this nation-- when I openly, boldly and so truthfully, declare that it engages in treason on a daily basis. as did its beloved messiah-- the obama-- who did so and got away with it--setting the standard..
    Truth that so many hate, deny and want to be shut up... A very sad and a most tragic fact....
    What is going on now-- is not politics as usual-- it hasnt been that for a long time.. --Tyr

    Edit-- by the way- it is not -- "warns "-- it is openly , brazenly and boldly dem party ""threatens"" SCOTUS.. lets be precise ON THAT...
    Those making that threat should be brought up on charges-, IMHO....
    Of course totally disregarding their sworn oath of office is now and has long been par for course from dems.. Another sad fact.. -Tyr
    Last edited by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot; 08-14-2019 at 12:14 AM.
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post
    Dem party showing its true colors. As it stands against this nation as it was founded, against the Constitution and now openly declaring it wants to turn the judicial branch into its subservient slave. We have three branches of government 1. Executive, 2. Legislative and 3. Judicial....
    Dem party wants government to be one branch--one branch totally subservient to the dem party and its socialist/dictatorial agenda-- a sad, tragic and very dangerous reality, yes-- it is just that simple..

    I am dead on the mark--when I declare the dem party to be a great danger to this nation-- when I openly, boldly and so truthfully, declare that it engages in treason on a daily basis. as did its beloved messiah-- the obama-- who did so and got away with it--setting the standard..
    Truth that so many hate, deny and want to be shut up... A very sad and a most tragic fact....
    What is going on now-- is not politics as usual-- it hasnt been that for a long time.. --Tyr

    Edit-- by the way- it is not -- "warns "-- it is openly , brazenly and boldly dem party ""threatens"" SCOTUS.. lets be precise ON THAT...
    Those making that threat should be brought up on charges-, IMHO....
    Of course totally disregarding their sworn oath of office is now and has long been par for course from dems.. Another sad fact.. -Tyr
    I find it interesting (among a host of other points in this) that they want to enact term limitations for SCJs. To even suggest term limits for Congressional seats is tantamount to treason for these people. Yes, I am well aware that the States have a say but such considerations have not stopped the progressives in the past.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  5. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
    Likes SassyLady liked this post
  6. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSM View Post
    I find it interesting (among a host of other points in this) that they want to enact term limitations for SCJs. To even suggest term limits for Congressional seats is tantamount to treason for these people. Yes, I am well aware that the States have a say but such considerations have not stopped the progressives in the past.
    Another strong point well said-- well made.
    How any decent person can side with such hypocritical, corrupted, worthless, lying vermin astounds me...--Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post
    Another strong point well said-- well made.
    How any decent person can side with such hypocritical, corrupted, worthless, lying vermin astounds me...--Tyr
    It's called "integrity". The one basic characteristic that politicians either dismiss entirely upon election or never had in the first place.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  8. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
    Likes Kathianne liked this post
  9. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks (Given)
    806
    Thanks (Received)
    992
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    678
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5509726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSM View Post
    It's called "integrity". The one basic characteristic that politicians either dismiss entirely upon election or never had in the first place.
    Related to the point I made a few weeks ago, isn't it interesting that of the three branches, the legislative branch is the ONLY branch that doesn't have some mechanism whereby one of the other branches can remove its members from office?

  10. Likes Kathianne liked this post
  11. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STTAB View Post
    Related to the point I made a few weeks ago, isn't it interesting that of the three branches, the legislative branch is the ONLY branch that doesn't have some mechanism whereby one of the other branches can remove its members from office?
    The one branch that is truly "for the people, by the people" some would say
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  12. Likes Kathianne liked this post
  13. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks (Given)
    806
    Thanks (Received)
    992
    Likes (Given)
    53
    Likes (Received)
    678
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5509726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSM View Post
    The one branch that is truly "for the people, by the people" some would say
    Well, given that by and large "the people" are dishonest morons, that is true.

    Congress truly is reflective of the will of the people. Sadly

  14. Likes SassyLady liked this post
  15. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    4,853
    Thanks (Given)
    960
    Thanks (Received)
    3749
    Likes (Given)
    535
    Likes (Received)
    854
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    17759693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by STTAB View Post
    Well, given that by and large "the people" are dishonest morons, that is true.

    Congress truly is reflective of the will of the people. Sadly
    LOL.... agreed. Politicians spout "the will of the people" as they do whatever they can to retain power. "The will of the people" only matters to them as it impacts their retention of power.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson


  16. Thanks STTAB thanked this post
    Likes Mr. P, Kathianne liked this post
  17. #10
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Podunk, WI
    Posts
    9,836
    Thanks (Given)
    4248
    Thanks (Received)
    4521
    Likes (Given)
    4519
    Likes (Received)
    2812
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Here we go... once again... the democrats don't like the outcome of something, it's time to either SHUT THEM UP or SHUT THEM DOWN. I swear go God, these democrat worms are the most disgusting bunch of human trash I've ever seen. They've gone completely past just being an opposition party, now they're the ENEMY WITHIN. They are like NAZIS, and no, I'm NOT KIDDING. This is the way HITLER and the Nazis operated. I'm just absolutely appalled at their behavior. It's about as blatantly anti American as you'd ever want to see, and I'm not talking about JUST this latest THREAT on the SC either. I mean with everything. There has to be a reckoning coming. These people need to be reminded how our constitutional republic works, and if that takes another civil war, then count me in.
    Last edited by High_Plains_Drifter; 08-15-2019 at 12:58 PM.

  18. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,595
    Thanks (Given)
    23844
    Thanks (Received)
    17371
    Likes (Given)
    9625
    Likes (Received)
    6080
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSM View Post
    The one branch that is truly "for the people, by the people" some would say
    I believe that was the idea, the people could remove. I'd start with Federalist 10 and 51, Madison.
    Last edited by Kathianne; 08-15-2019 at 04:34 AM.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  19. Thanks CSM thanked this post
    Likes CSM liked this post
  20. #12
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    I believe that was the idea, the people could remove. I'd start with Federalist 10 and 51, Madison.


    *****************
    The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment. The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805.

    *****************
    The House of Representatives impeached Chase on eight articles of impeachment, all centering on Chases's alleged political bias. The Senate voted to acquit Chase on all counts, and Chase served on the Supreme Court until his death in 1811.

    *****************


    Samuel Chase
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to navigationJump to search
    This article is about the Supreme Court justice. For the U.S. Congressman, see Samuel Chase (congressman). For the American tennis player, see Samuel T. Chase.
    Samuel Chase
    Samuel Chase.jpg
    Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
    In office
    January 27, 1796 – June 19, 1811
    Nominated by George Washington
    Preceded by John Blair
    Succeeded by Gabriel Duvall
    Personal details
    Born April 17, 1741
    Somerset County, Maryland, British America
    Died June 19, 1811 (aged 70)
    Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.
    Political party Federalist
    Spouse(s) Ann Baldwin
    Hannah Kilty
    Signature
    Nickname(s) Old Bacon Face, the Demosthenes of Maryland [1]
    Samuel Chase (April 17, 1741 – June 19, 1811) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and a signatory to the United States Declaration of Independence as a representative of Maryland. He was impeached by the House on grounds of letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions but was acquitted by the Senate and remained in office.

    Born near Princess Anne, Maryland, Chase established a legal practice in Annapolis, Maryland. He served in the Maryland General Assembly for several years and favored independence during the American Revolution. He won election to the Continental Congress before serving on the Baltimore District Criminal Court and the Maryland General Court. In 1796, President George Washington appointed Chase to the United States Supreme Court.

    After the 1800 elections, President Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans sought to weaken Federalist influence on the federal courts. Chase's actions on the court had been accused of demonstrating bias, and Jefferson believed that Chase should be removed from office. The House of Representatives impeached Chase on eight articles of impeachment, all centering on Chases's alleged political bias. The Senate voted to acquit Chase on all counts, and Chase served on the Supreme Court until his death in 1811. Some historians have argued that Chase's acquittal set an important precedent regarding the independence of the federal judiciary.


    Contents
    1 Youth and early career
    2 Family and personal life
    3 Career in Annapolis
    3.1 Continental Congress
    4 Judicial career
    4.1 Impeachment
    5 Death
    6 References
    7 Further reading
    8 External links
    Youth and early career
    Samuel Chase was the only child of the Reverend Thomas Chase (c. 1703–1779) and his wife, Matilda Walker (? – by 1744), born near Princess Anne, Maryland.[2]

    His father was a clergyman who immigrated to Somerset County to become a priest in a new church. Samuel was educated at home. He was eighteen when he left for Annapolis where he studied law under attorney John Hall.[2] He was admitted to the bar in 1761[3] and started a law practice in Annapolis. It was during his time as a member of the bar that his colleagues gave him the nickname of "Old Bacon Face."[4]

    Family and personal life
    In May 1762, Chase married Ann Baldwin, daughter of Thomas and Agnes Baldwin. Samuel and Ann had three sons and four daughters, with only four surviving to adulthood.[2] Ann died in 1776.

    In 1784, Chase traveled to England to deal with Maryland's Bank of England stock, where he met Hannah Kilty, daughter of Samuel Giles, a Berkshire physician. They were married later that year and had two daughters, Hannah and Elisa.[2][5]

    Career in Annapolis
    In 1762, Chase was expelled from the Forensic Club, an Annapolis debating society, for "extremely irregular and indecent" behavior.[2]

    In 1764, Chase was elected to the Maryland General Assembly where he served for 20 years.[3]

    In 1766, he became embroiled in a war of words with a number of loyalist members of the Maryland political establishment. In an open letter dated July 18, 1766, Chase attacked Walter Dulany, George Steuart (1700–1784), John Brice (1705–1766), and others for publishing an article in the Maryland Gazette Extraordinary of June 19, 1766, in which Chase was accused of being: "a busy, reckless incendiary, a ringleader of mobs, a foul-mouthed and inflaming son of discord and faction, a common disturber of the public tranquility". In his response, Chase accused Steuart and the others of "vanity...pride and arrogance", and of being brought to power by "proprietary influence, court favour, and the wealth and influence of the tools and favourites who infest this city." [6]

    In 1769, he started construction of the mansion that would become known as the Chase–Lloyd House, which he sold unfinished in 1771. The house is now a National Historic Landmark.

    He co-founded Anne Arundel County's Sons of Liberty chapter with his close friend William Paca, as well as leading opposition to the 1765 Stamp Act.[2]

    Continental Congress
    From 1774 to 1776, Chase was a member of the Annapolis Convention. He represented Maryland at the Continental Congress, was re-elected in 1776 and signed the United States Declaration of Independence.[3]

    He remained in the Continental Congress until 1778. The involvement of Chase in an attempt to corner the flour market, using insider information gained through his position in the Congress, resulted in his not being returned to the Continental Congress and damaging his reputation.

    Judicial career
    In 1786, Chase moved to Baltimore, which remained his home for the rest of his life. In 1788, he was appointed chief justice of the District Criminal Court in Baltimore and served until 1796. In 1791, he became Chief Justice of the Maryland General Court, again serving until 1796.[3]

    On January 26, 1796, President George Washington appointed Chase as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Chase served on the court until his death on June 19, 1811.[3]

    Impeachment

    This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
    Find sources: "Samuel Chase" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
    President Thomas Jefferson, alarmed at the seizure of power by the judiciary through the claim of exclusive judicial review, led his party's efforts to remove the Federalists from the bench. His allies in Congress had, shortly after his inauguration, repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, abolishing the lower courts created by the legislation and terminating their Federalist judges despite lifetime appointments; Chase, two years after the repeal in May 1803, had denounced it in his charge to a Baltimore grand jury, saying that it would "take away all security for property and personal liberty, and our Republican constitution will sink into a mobocracy."[7] Earlier in April 1800, Chase acting as a district judge, had made strong attacks upon Thomas Cooper, who had been indicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts; Chase had taken the air of a prosecutor rather than a judge.[8] Also in 1800, when a grand jury in New Castle, Delaware declined to indict a local printer, Chase refused to discharge them, saying he was aware of one specific printer that he wished them to indict for seditious behavior.[9] Jefferson saw the attack as indubitable bad behavior and an opportunity to reduce the Federalist influence on the judiciary by impeaching Chase, launching the process from the White House when he wrote to Congressman Joseph Hopper Nicholson of Maryland, asking: "Ought the seditious and official attack [by Chase] on the principles of our Constitution . . .to go unpunished?"[10]

    Virginia Congressman John Randolph of Roanoke took up the challenge and took charge of the impeachment. The House of Representatives served Chase with eight articles of impeachment in late 1803, one of which involved Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more focused on his conduct in the political libel trial of James Callender. One article covered Chase's conduct with the New Castle grand jury, charging that he "did descend from the dignity of a judge and stoop to the level of an informer by refusing to discharge the grand jury, although entreated by several of the said jury so to do." Three articles focused on procedural errors made during Chase's adjudication of various matters, and an eighth was directed at his "intemperate and inflammatory … peculiarly indecent and unbecoming … highly unwarrantable … highly indecent" remarks while "charging" or authorizing a Baltimore grand jury. On March 12, 1804, the House voted 73 to 32 to impeach Chase. [11] The United States Senate—controlled by the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans—began the impeachment trial of Chase on February 9, 1805, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding and Randolph leading the prosecution.

    All the counts involved Chase's work as a trial judge in lower circuit courts. (In that era, Supreme Court justices had the added duty of serving as individuals on circuit courts, a practice that was ended in the late 19th century.) The heart of the allegations was that political bias had led Chase to treat defendants and their counsel in a blatantly unfair manner. Chase's defense lawyers called the prosecution a political effort by his Republican enemies. In answer to the articles of impeachment, Chase argued that all of his actions had been motivated by adherence to precedent, judicial duty to restrain advocates from improper statements of law, and considerations of judicial efficiency.

    The Senate voted to acquit Chase of all charges on March 1, 1805. There were 34 Senators present (25 Republicans and 9 Federalists), and 23 votes were needed to reach the required two-thirds majority for conviction/removal from office. Of the eight votes cast, the closest vote was 18 for conviction/removal from office and 16 for acquittal in regards to the Baltimore grand jury charge.[12] He is the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have been impeached.[3] Judge Alexander Pope Humphrey recorded in the Virginia Law Register an account of the impeachment trial and acquittal of Chase.[13]

    The impeachment raised constitutional questions over the nature of the judiciary and was the end of a series of efforts to define the appropriate extent of judicial independence under the Constitution. It set the limits of the impeachment power, fixed the concept that the judiciary was prohibited from engaging in partisan politics, defined the role of the judge in a criminal jury trial, and clarified judicial independence. The construction was largely attitudinal, as it modified political norms without codifying new legal doctrines.[14]

    The acquittal of Chase—by lopsided margins on several counts—set an unofficial precedent that many historians say helped ensure the independence of the judiciary. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book Grand Inquests, some senators declined to convict Chase despite their partisan hostility to him, apparently because they doubted that the mere quality of his judging was grounds for removal. All impeachments of federal judges since Chase have been based on allegations of legal or ethical misconduct, not on judicial performance. For their part, federal judges since that time have generally been much more cautious than Chase in trying to avoid the appearance of political partisanship.[15]

    Death
    Samuel Chase died of a heart attack in 1811. He was interred in what is now Baltimore's Old Saint Paul's Cemetery.[16][17]

    ************************************************** ************************************************** **
    https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline...hase-impeached
    Samuel Chase Impeached
    March 12, 1804
    Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase, an ardent Federalist supporter, was known for his open partisanship both on and off the bench. He campaigned vigorously for John Adams in the election of 1800, and in 1803, gave a grand jury charge in the U.S. circuit court in Maryland that was sharply critical of the Republicans for repealing the 1801 judiciary statute and abolishing the circuit judgeships that act had established. The grand jury charge proved highly controversial and led many to call for Chase’s removal from the bench. In March 1804, after debating what constituted proper grounds for impeachment, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Chase. The Maryland grand jury charge formed the basis for one of the eight articles of impeachment because of its allegedly seditious intent, while most of the others focused on allegedly improper behavior during politically charged trials such as the Sedition Act prosecutions. During his twenty-two day trial before the Senate, Chase argued that he could not be impeached for errors in judgment or improper behavior on the bench, but rather only for an indictable offense. On March 1, 1805, the Senate acquitted Chase when none of the eight articles of impeachment secured the votes of two-thirds of the members as was required for conviction. Chase’s impeachment helped to set the parameters of what kinds of conduct would warrant a judge’s removal from the bench. Although there had been one earlier judicial impeachment, involving John Pickering of New Hampshire, it was such a clear case of disability that it was not very useful as a precedent. Chase’s acquittal served as a tacit victory for his position that an indictable offense was required to meet the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard for the impeachment and conviction of a federal judge. More than two centuries later, only eight federal judges have been removed by impeachment. In the twentieth century, Congress examined proposals for the removal of federal judges whose conduct did not rise to the level required for impeachment, but none was enacted, due in large part to doubts about the constitutionality of such a measure.

    Timeline:
    The Administration of the Federal Courts
    Greatest and most easily seen or prove to exist --political bias--- rests with the liberal SCOTUS Justices, the pro-dem justices!
    Now the dem party directed its threats not against them-- their faithful ALLIES- but made those threats against the justices that truly hold the Constitution as the guiding document and most important consideration in deliberating..-Tyr
    Last edited by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot; 08-15-2019 at 07:08 AM.
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  21. Thanks High_Plains_Drifter thanked this post
  22. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,595
    Thanks (Given)
    23844
    Thanks (Received)
    17371
    Likes (Given)
    9625
    Likes (Received)
    6080
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475522

    Default

    Tyr, we get what the Constitution says, what i was referring to is perhaps the thinking behind the differences how removal of legislators compared to judicial or executive.

    While the idea of a strong legislature and slightly less strong executive has been turned into something very different since at least the Civil War, the Federalist Papers, along with letters, journals, and notes give us direction of what the framers considered.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  23. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, STTAB thanked this post
  24. #14
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathianne View Post
    Tyr, we get what the Constitution says, what i was referring to is perhaps the thinking behind the differences how removal of legislators compared to judicial or executive.

    While the idea of a strong legislature and slightly less strong executive has been turned into something very different since at least the Civil War, the Federalist Papers, along with letters, journals, and notes give us direction of what the framers considered.
    I see that , my take is the threat the dems made was that they would attack the Executive branch by stacking/tampering with-- the court-- same threat that FDR once made and was soundly chastised for.
    I see your point and yes it is tied in to it all.
    My point is history shows this same thing -involving Chase and later FDR when he made the threat-- neither time did the threat and the attempted action succeed.
    And that was because the threat is fundamentally wrong and is an attack upon the nation as it was founded-- at least and especially so, both in the FDR AND THE CURRENT EXAMPLE, IMHO.
    Should they be allowed to do this on the grounds that exist and the agenda they do this on--there will be no stopping them and it is/would very likely eventually cause the demise of this Representative Republic, IMHO..
    Neither political party can be allowed to do this..... -Tyr
    Last edited by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot; 08-15-2019 at 07:20 AM.
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  25. Thanks Kathianne thanked this post
  26. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,595
    Thanks (Given)
    23844
    Thanks (Received)
    17371
    Likes (Given)
    9625
    Likes (Received)
    6080
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post
    I see that , my take is the threat the dems made was that they would attack the Executive branch by stacking/tampering with-- the court-- same threat that FDR once made and was soundly chastised for.
    I see your point and yes it is tied in to it all.
    My point is history shows this same thing -involving Chase and later FDR when he made the threat-- neither time did the threat and the attempted action succeed.
    And that was because the threat is fundamentally wrong and is an attack upon the nation as it was founded-- at least and especially so, both in the FDR AND THE CURRENT EXAMPLE, IMHO.
    Should they be allowed to do this on the grounds that exist and the agenda they do this on--there will be no stopping them and it is/would very likely eventually cause the demise of this Representative Republic, IMHO..
    Neither political party can be allowed to do this..... -Tyr
    Which I tried to make clear in my comments on the two articles in OP. It also was the point of RBG comments around 2 months ago, when she strongly advised against such a move.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  27. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums