The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Global Warming Paper - Didn't follow Rules

  1. #11
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    When straying off topic to point out someone else did it is out of the progressive play book.

    The "he started it" play.
    As that somehow excuses the circumventing of the rules in the thread title and the OP's story.

    Had you addressed the topic at hand instead of wandering to Thomas I would not have brought it up.
    Instead of buying that it is merely a coincedence that it happens every time a progressive gets caught, I call it like it is.
    Page 4 I believe.

    Nice effort though.......


    RK
    Your first post in the thread showed me that you were more than willing to start pointing fingers at what Obama did. That's fine and I happen to agree with you there. I just wanted to point out that it happens on both sides and we need to be just as objective and critical regardless of which side does it.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    This is a financial disclosure issue not something from the Constitution. Just as member of Congress are required by law to file financial disclosure statements the same holds true for Supreme Court justices. Do you not think that is true?
    If there is a conflict with Kagen then she has to go to. Same standard for everyone.
    I guess you don't see my point. Finantial laws governing Congress were passed by CONGRESS to govern Congress. Congress DOES NOT pass laws governing the Supreme Court. The CONSTITUTION governs the Supreme Court and NOT CONGRESS. So any law passed by Congress has no effet on the Supreme Court. NOW do you get my point??

    The second point I made was that I doubt you can find anyone in the US that doesn't have a conflict or a preconceived opinion concerning let alone 9 lawyers that have no preconceived opinion or some other preconceived issue. You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to realize the significance at hand. I guess we could maybe find a deaf, dumb and blind person, even with a law degree but I doubt that we could find 9

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,534

    Default

    Let me try to make it a little clearer. There is no requirement for a Supreme Court Justice to recuse himself in ruling on any case other than HIS OWN personal opinion that he cannot rule impartially on a particular case. NO ONE but he or she makes that decision. You can call into question your concern for their impartiallity but they and they alone make the decision whether to recuse themselves.

    Now do you understand?

  4. #14
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    Your first post in the thread showed me that you were more than willing to start pointing fingers at what Obama did. That's fine and I happen to agree with you there. I just wanted to point out that it happens on both sides and we need to be just as objective and critical regardless of which side does it.
    My first post on the thread was a light hearted reference to "Treasure of the Sierra Madres."

    "Badges, we ain't got no badges,we don't got no stinking badges......"


    Nothing to do with Obama.


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  5. #15
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by caryalsobrook View Post
    The CONSTITUTION governs the Supreme Court and NOT CONGRESS. So any law passed by Congress has no effet on the Supreme Court.
    I would say that congress passes laws and that Justices are bound by them just like any other citizen.

    Under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice is awarded a lifetime commission.

    A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

    Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses.

    In addition, any federal judge may prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.

    In the United States, impeachment is most often used to remove corrupt lower-court federal judges from office, but it's not unusual to find disgruntled special interest groups circulating petitions on the internet calling for the impeachment of one or all members of the High Court.


    The Impeachment Process

    Impeachment is a two-step process; the impeachment phase is similar to a Grand Jury hearing, where charges (called "articles of impeachment") are presented and the House of Representatives determines whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a trial. If the House vote passes by a simple majority, the defendant is "impeached," and proceeds to trial in the Senate.

    The House of Representatives indicts the accused on articles of impeachment, and, if impeached, the Senate conducts a trial to determine the party's guilt or innocence.

    The Senate trial, while analogous to a criminal trial, only convenes for the purpose of determining whether a Justice, the President (or another officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment.

    At the trial a committee from the House of Representatives, called "Managers," act as the prosecutors. Per constitutional mandate (Article I, Section 3), the Chief Justice of the United States (Supreme Court) must preside over the Senate trial of the President. If any other official is on trial, an "Impeachment Trial Committee" of Senators act as the presiding judges to hear testimony and evidence against the accused, which is then presented as a report to the remained of the Senate. The full Senate no longer participates in the hearing phase of the removal trial. This procedure came into practice in 1986 when the Senate amended its rules and procedures for impeachment and has been contested by several federal court judges, but the Supreme Court has declined to interfere in the process, calling the issue a political, not legal, matter.

    At the conclusion of the trial, the full Senate votes and must return a two-thirds Super Majority for conviction. Convicted officials are removed from office immediately and barred from holding future office. The Senate trial, while analogous to a criminal trial, only convenes for the purpose of determining whether a Justice, the President (or another officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment.

    Impeachment and Near Impeachment

    Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

    In 1957, at the height of McCarthyism, the Georgia General Assembly passed a joint resolution calling for "The Impeachment of Certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices" believed to be enabling Communism with their decisions. The resolution targeted Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom Campbell Clark, Felix Frankfurter, and Stanley Forman Reed (as well as several unnamed deceased Justices) for "...[usurping] the congressional power to make law in violation of Article I, Sections I and 8, and violated Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment and nullified the 10th Amendment of the Constitution."

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_US_S...#ixzz1ZY7tQQwP
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Shelbyville, Tn
    Posts
    1,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    I would say that congress passes laws and that Justices are bound by them just like any other citizen.
    Certainly laws that apply to any other citizen also applies to Justices. They are subject to speeding fines, robbery, and murder ect. Congress could even pass a law requiring them to wear red robes and not black robes but I doubt they would even pay attention to it(Remember, the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionally of the law).

    You cite as the only case of a Justice being impeached but not convicted where the accusation was that his opinions reflected Federalists viewpoints. In other words, they did not like his opinions. Thankfully he was not convicted. It is hard for me to imagine a Justice being impeached let alone convicted for anything OTHER THAN LAWS THAT APPLY TO THE ORDINARY CITIZEN, such laws as I have cited as an example.

    Two actual impeachment attemps and convictions come to mind, Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, and thankfully both failed. The case for both was silly at best as both were nothing but political.

    My history is rusty but as I remember it, Johnson's case involved his firing one of his cabinet appointees(Sec. of War). Congress want to impeach him for this action.

    Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in a civil matter. After the matter was resolved, I heardhis lawyer chastise the Congress for not passing a law that no sitting President could be supenaed to testify in a civil case, something that I totally agree. the ultimate result is exactly what should have happened. Bill Clinton was disbarred and no longer can practice Law. For lying, he shold have been disbarred but we should have learned that no sitting President should be called to testify in a civil matter. No matter how you look at it A PRESIDENT IS DIFFERENT BY THE NATURE OF HIS JOB THAN ANY OTHER CITIZEN.

    Concerning Justice Thomas or any other Justice for that matter, no matter the source of imcome of his wife or even him, as long as he states that he can rule on a case with impartiallity, there is no recourse other than impeachment. As you stated, only one aattempt that one could call as a serious attempt to impeach a justice, failed. To me that is as it should be.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •