Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I'll ask the question again, how many times must a decision of his be overturned on the grounds that he based a decision on something that the constitution says otherwise before you impeach? If high treason against the constitution, which is the law of the land, were prosecuted with the same vigor and resulted in the same consequences as most other capital crimes, we'd have more judges ruling according to the constitution instead of redefining it in to something that doesn't resemble the original anymore. That's my entire problem with the government and those that support it.
|
I'll ask a question again as well. What evidence do you have that he bases his decisions on something other than his own honest interpretation of the Constitution. So it doesnt agree with yours (or mine, in some cases) .....too f*cking bad.... and some of his decisions are overturned, as are decisions by many appellate judges on the left and right, which only shows that the process as envisioned by the Founding Fathers is working.
It seems to me it is you who wants to change the original intent of the Constitution by putting new restrictions on an independent federal judiciary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
The word 'treason' does come to mind.
|
I would urge you to check your Constitution again:
Article III. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.