Impeachment is a constitutional tool. Let’s use it against Kennedy and Roberts

[Aratus]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...esident-will-appoint-at-least-4-members-of-SC

this quiet lil thread examines how many hypothetical
Supreme Court vacancies could arise in four years time.

 

[jkob]

Is this all because of the gay marriage ruling? The best course of action there is none, we're going to be looked at as insane for even suggesting impeaching and stripping the authority of Supreme Court justices on an issue that the American people are decidedly are against. Do you want to movement to be irrelevant? Priorities!

 

[Aratus]

Even though i think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are more honest than Hillary Clinton, and even sometimes three degrees to her left, if any
of them wins in 2o16 its like handing BHO a third term because nearly the same group of people would be returning to Washington after the election.
We need to get a Republican in to change the composition of the court, more to the point, if we can get Rand Paul elected, we will have a much more
Libertarian court as he faces re-election. On top of this, if we can impeach one of the younger justices, we can really shake up the court & then some!

 

[Ronin Truth]

And if the SCOTUS rules the impeachment effort to be unCONstitutional, then what?

 

[osan]

Why just Roberts and Kennedy? What of the rest? Why not them?

 

[Southron]

And if the SCOTUS rules the impeachment effort to be unCONstitutional, then what?

Turn off the lights in the Supreme Court building?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Turn off the lights in the Supreme Court building?

Why wouldn't ruling in the dark or during the daylight hours be viable options?

 

[euphemia]

Yesterday I was reminded that Kennedy is a Supreme Court judge because Robert Bork was not confirmed by the Senate.

Can you imagine the trio of Sclaia, Thomas, and Bork? That would have been one formidable wall of justice and logic.

 

[Jan2017]

Enough good ideas here for a SNL skit at least . . .

Yesterday I was reminded that Kennedy is a Supreme Court judge because Robert Bork was not confirmed by the Senate.

Can you imagine the trio of Sclaia, Thomas, and Bork? That would have been one formidable wall of justice and logic.

Wow, yeah.
Bork - even if you may personally disagree in how he went on a case - would have been a constitutional genius . . .
he would have wrote dissenting opinions that would change peoples minds probably, lol.

 

[thoughtomator]

An effective solution would be to find out what they are being blackmailed with and expose it publicly to end the blackmail.

 

[FloralScent]

Prisoners: "Dear Warden, please allow me and cell block B to leave and become our own, free entity"

Warden: "Get back to work slaves, we just let gays get married, that's all the freedom you're getting this century"

He never said it would be a bloodless process.

 

[euphemia]

Why just Roberts and Kennedy? Why not the others who consistently decide against the Constitution?

 

[timosman]

An effective solution would be to find out what they are being blackmailed with and expose it publicly to end the blackmail.

It was sufficient to blackmail one judge to affect the vote on this case. Wonder who would that be ?

 

[anaconda]

"Impeachment is a constitutional tool. Let’s use it against Kennedy and Roberts"

I'm sure Congress will jump right on it.

 

[osan]

So the point is to impeach 2 SCs and let them be replaced by 2 more Obama nominees?

Sure. At least their treachery will have been answered with something unpleasant. To do nothing is tantamount to consent.

I do not consent.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

.
What they both did was use their office of public trust to impose their personal views of justice, fairness and reasonableness upon the entire population of the United States. And that amounts to judicial tyranny!

Which is only possible because the people are disabled from agreeing upon prime constitutional intent.

Such a disability is going to cause a lot worse problems than what is described in your OP.

Because the second most prime intent, that which empowers the action that protects all rights by enabling unity, the PURPOSE of free speech cannot manifest. The greatest threats cannot even be understood or effectively shared to any significant extent.

 

[Christopher A. Brown]

Viable solutions are impossible from within the system, because the system is the problem.

Actually the part of the system that can provide solution is out of the reach of the people because the PURPOSE of free speech is so far abridged.

The first amendment is deficient because it does not describe the PURPOSE of free speech although the Declaration of Independence fully implies such a purpose has to exist in order for the intent to alter or abolish to manifest.

That Article V exists shows that the intent to alter or abolish was taken into law but taken from the people and given to the states.

For example:

Public access television therefore should have been statewide, but corporations controlling the cable systems kept it all regional reducing its effectiveness completely.

Now the people are the problem because they are so ignorant and miseducated they think they know the problem, but if they actually did, they could NEVER share it effectively. Vain conceit and arrogance instilled by corrupt educational entities dedicated to disabling people from making effective agreement to know and use the system.