Impeach 9th circuit Justice Stephen Reinhardt - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

The_Jazz · 09-20-2006, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I did NOT start this off with a death threat. I simply said he should be tried and executed, via due process, which is in NO WAY a death threat. Please do not attribute statements to me that were never made.

If you can show me anywhere in the constitution that allows for federal judges to be impeached AND executed I will happily retract my statement. "Due process"? The process you're describing is constitutionally impossible unless he's guilty of treason or espionage, and you've made no statements to that effect or presented any evidence of those crimes.

Impeachment removes the party from office. Period. There is no jail time involved. Period. Criminal charges may be pursued in parrallel with impeachment, but they are two completely separate processes working through two completely separate branches of government - impeachment through the Senate and criminal charges through the judicial system.

Face it, you literally called for the guy's head because you don't agree with his decisions, and it's very different than calling for his impeachment. Dk, I know you have a good working knowledge of the Constitution, and you should know all of this. That's my entire problem with this thread.

dksuddeth · 09-20-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

If you can show me anywhere in the constitution that allows for federal judges to be impeached AND executed I will happily retract my statement. "Due process"? The process you're describing is constitutionally impossible unless he's guilty of treason or espionage, and you've made no statements to that effect or presented any evidence of those crimes.

The word 'treason' does come to mind. How else could one consider rulings in direct opposition to the constitution? 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Face it, you literally called for the guy's head because you don't agree with his decisions, and it's very different than calling for his impeachment. Dk, I know you have a good working knowledge of the Constitution, and you should know all of this. That's my entire problem with this thread.

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.

dc_dux · 09-20-2006, 09:38 AM

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.

The_Jazz · 09-20-2006, 10:36 AM

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).