Since I've been acused of putting words in your mouth once, I'm actually going to do it for real. I've inserted what I believe you're thinking in your response:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
The word 'treason' does come to mind because I don't like these decisions. How else could one consider rulings in direct opposition to the constitution as I interpret it? It's one thing to misinterpret the constitution like was done before 'incorporation', it's quite another to base decisions on what you think something should be and then twist the constitution to fit your decision.
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 (and I think that any judgement that I don't agree with is high treason), 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. And The_Jazz is incredibly good-looking, smart and funny.
|
OK, I fudged a little on that last one.
To directly answer your first question about when impeachment is proper for overturned decisions- that would be never. Not in a million years. Just because you (or even a majority of the people) don't agree with him, that doesn't make his decision less valid. Having his decisions overturned, as DC pointed out, just shows the system works.
Let me also point out that a judge's who's decisions are turned down is only guilty of doing his job. You may not like the way he does it, but that in no way, shape or form makes him guilty of treason. It might make him incompetent, ignorant or the wrong man for the job, but there is absolutely, positively no crime here (except the ones that he's reviewing).