It's Time To Impeach The First SCOTUS Judge Since 1804

[Very Tired]

You realize giving opinions on matters is pretty much the only thing Supreme Court justices do?

[cubby]

I know they dont require it. Im just saying in my opinion unanimity should be required by all courts including the SCOTUS. If the entire panel of judges cannot agree on something then that means the evidence isnt strong enough. Its the same reason any normal court case decided by a jury requires it

And you're aware that the majority of juries DO NOT require unanimity for a proper judgement, right? This is where your TV knowledge runs head first into reality.

[Ghostpanther]

Any sane person would feel the same way as ginsberg. trump is dangerous. the fact that ginsberg never did this for any other republican candidate means that trump is in effect an outlier. someone so shit that it is the responsibility of every sane person on the planet to voice their disapproval of. Noone holds him accountable for racist comments, lies and changing his tune every 24hours just to get media attention.

the sad thing is theres so many dopes who buy into his rhetoric.

Not true. You think Hillary is leading in the polls because no one holds him accountable? The media attention is because they do. Same with her. They both are being held accountable by the public. How much it will effect the people will be decided this fall which they think has the least credibility and has done the worse things to keep them out of office.

The same sad thing could be said about those who buy into her rhetoric. See how that works?

[Pangean]

I know what you wrote. Is that supposed to make me feel better. That the people at the top like Hitlery Clinton are above the standard, rules, laws. But I was agreeing with you.

Now If you read what I wrote Im saying that they are not covered by that code and that them not being held to a higher standard is just pitiful. But to the mentally ill left they worship them like gods because they are above the common people.

The "mentally ill left"? Yeah you are here for debate. No one worships the SCOTUS. That is as childish as your name calling. People of all political stripes have called for the SCOTUS to have an ethics code. In fact in recent history as a function of Scalia not recusing himself in the Cheney case. Your little diatribe does not change those facts.

[Kalisandra]

That makes zero difference. As a powerful Supreme Judge who can decide on cases dealing with politics, It is her duty to remain publicly neutral. She broke the code of ethics for her job and as such should resign or be forced to. She has made it clear she cannot give a unbiased judgement, esp when it comes to a political one.

No, she didn't. Expressing an opinion and allowing that opinion to sway one's professional judgement are two different things. This is especially so when we already knew she had this opinion.

[Garnier Fructis]

If you think Him being a Constitutionalist and standing up for your Bill of rights is out of time please tell me what time you are living in. I mean do you want the freedom to have this discussion?

The justices your whining about stand up for the bill of rights just fine. More so, actually, since they ruled in favor of gay rights. This is just melodramatic nonsense, Scalia was about the person that ruled against people's rights the most, because of some misguided notion that the U.S. should have stayed like it was at the beginning.

[Pangean]

I know they dont require it. Im just saying in my opinion unanimity should be required by all courts including the SCOTUS. If the entire panel of judges cannot agree on something then that means the evidence isnt strong enough. Its the same reason any normal court case decided by a jury requires it

Uh no. Courts with multiple judges are ruling on matters and interpretation of laws. Jury's are ruling on the guilt or innocence of a crime.

- - - Updated - - -

I have Falafel now.... and Gyros.

What kind of Gyros?

[Kalisandra]

So let me get this straight the Lower Courts are held to Code of Conduct but the highest court in the land is not and I should have confidence in that? Must be topsy-turvy world. If its good enough for every other Judge in the country should not SCOTUS not even be held to a HIGHER code of conduct.

Who would enforce such a code on the SCOTUS? Any entity with the authority to do so de facto has the authority to control the court, rendering it no longer independent and impartial. Note that the House and Senate get to set their rules, and in fact do so every time a new congress is formed. The President largely sets their own rules about how they are going to do things, only most follow the customary ways of doing things and change is thus slow and incremental. Why should the SCOTUS be different? It is the third leg of the legislature-executive-judicial tripod, equal and independent in some ways, yet dependent in others (it's members being selected by the President and accepted by the Senate), just as the other branches are.

[Starscream101]

The justices your whining about stand up for the bill of rights just fine. More so, actually, since they ruled in favor of gay rights. This is just melodramatic nonsense, Scalia was about the person that ruled against people's rights the most, because of some misguided notion that the U.S. should have stayed like it was at the beginning.

If you want to cry about the re-definition of the word marriage I get that.
The Bill of Rights was written to address political freedom for the people and to set limits of power for a federal government. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to rob a bank. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to murder your neighbor. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to sell or use drugs. It does not say anyone has to believe in God or be a Christian. It does not say anything about marriage, nor does the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights does not say these things because these are moral issues, and the Bill of Rights was not written to address moral issues. The Bill of Rights was written to address political freedom for the people and to set limits of power for a federal government. I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are political documents, not a moral ones.

So who is misguided here. You do not even realize that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not about morals.

- - - Updated - - -

Who would enforce such a code on the SCOTUS? Any entity with the authority to do so de facto has the authority to control the court, rendering it no longer independent and impartial. Note that the House and Senate get to set their rules, and in fact do so every time a new congress is formed. The President largely sets their own rules about how they are going to do things, only most follow the customary ways of doing things and change is thus slow and incremental. Why should the SCOTUS be different? It is the third leg of the legislature-executive-judicial tripod, equal and independent in some ways, yet dependent in others (it's members being selected by the President and accepted by the Senate), just as the other branches are.

How about the people they should be able to vote them out. Or the The house and Senate 2/3 vote.

[Jakexe]

Orlong now wants people fired for speaking an opinion. He's gone full SJW.

[Starscream101]

The "mentally ill left"? Yeah you are here for debate. No one worships the SCOTUS. That is as childish as your name calling. People of all political stripes have called for the SCOTUS to have an ethics code. In fact in recent history as a function of Scalia not recusing himself in the Cheney case. Your little diatribe does not change those facts.

Just look at twitter you will see some sheeple that Literally worship her. Now if you want to say if these are not people then maybe we will agree.

[Shiny212]

She has committed no impeachable offense. This is nonsense. Re-read the Judicial codes in question.

[Jetstream]

Only the Supreme Court can impeach a justice, I think. Good luck with that.

Impeachment is carried out by congress for both the President and Supreme Court.

[munkeyinorbit]

No but breaking the Judicial code of conduct is which these comments violate

LOL. And I suppose Hilary broke the law too.

[Pangean]

Just look at twitter you will see some sheeple that Literally worship her. Now if you want to say if these are not people then maybe we will agree.

Literally eh? Agreeing with what she said or that she said it is hardly worship. This is just silliness on your part to attack those you don't agree with. I guess at the end of the day that's what you are left with.

[Starscream101]

Literally eh? Agreeing with what she said or that she said it is hardly worship. This is just silliness on your part to attack those you don't agree with. I guess at the end of the day that's what you are left with.

Is that not what Worship is , adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.the object of adoring reverence or regard.to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing). So yes they worship her. That word has a lot of meanings and not just for religious reasons. Just like people do Movie Stars, Sports and Singers people Worship them.

[Pangean]

Is that not what Worship is , adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.the object of adoring reverence or regard.to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing). So yes they worship her. That word has a lot of meanings and not just for religious reasons. Just like people do Movie Stars, Sports and Singers people Worship them.

You seem to struggle reading what I write. "Agreeing with what she said or that she said it is hardly worship.". It's also not adoration. And you know what adoration is right? You can keep claiming it as worship as much as you wish. It's silliness to attack folks that have a different view than you. Nothing more nothing less.

[buck008]

This is hysterical. Let Trump bang the war drums and go running after a respected justice because he's imagined a world where this is illegal or impeachable. Worst case scenario, it's against decorum for a sitting justice to talk about a political candidate. It's hardly the only time it's happened in recent memory. But it happened to Trump so he has to whine about how everyone is picking on him again because that's all he does. Then he tells us that America is a bunch of sissies after he whines all day.

[Starscream101]

You seem to struggle reading what I write. "Agreeing with what she said or that she said it is hardly worship.". It's also not adoration. And you know what adoration is right? You can keep claiming it as worship as much as you wish. It's silliness to attack folks that have a different view than you. Nothing more nothing less.

You seem to struggle reading what I write. I said "mentally ill left" I did not call you mentally Ill I said go read what people are saying on twitter. Obviously you did not go look or you are having a problem with the definition of the words use on twitter or just like your having a problem with definition of the words I am using.

I Said adoring so Look up adoring. Adoring definition, to regard with the utmost esteem, love, and respect; honor. So you are not reading what I am saying and accusing me of your failure.

I never once said adoration. Thank you.

[Malfecto]

I think it's weird that only SCOTUS is in the wrong for voicing an opinion when literally every other member of the federal government not only can, but if they're anyone important weill be expected to voice an opinion.

This is not true. My wife works under the State Department and she not allowed voice opinion on politics while acting in an official capacity. The line for SCOTUS is they are technically, with very few exceptions, always acting in an official capacity.