Stevens is either an idiot, or . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
. . .an activist willing to trade his judicial credibility to impose a utopian ideal.

A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

Um, yes, I think that's exactly what the framers intended.
 
He also such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Um, it's in the 2nd Amendment, Mr. Stevens. You know, that thing in the Bill of Rights that you have supposedly been considering in order to come up with your opinion.

I dunno, but maybe his copy of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is missing some pages. Based on his opinions of late, I'd say that's a safe bet.
 
My wife (a law student) was just telling me that in many prior decisions Stevens and Breyer have rejected the "originalist" concept of the Constitution and have endorsed the "Living Constitution" concept (as recently as yesterday with the child rape decision and "evolving standards"). Then they write an opinion when relies heavily on originalist concepts.
 
I wish there was some way to impeach Stevens because of his "grotesque," "bizarre," "dead wrong," and "unsupported" opinions.
 
You can impeach a sitting Supreme Court justice.

Justice Douglas once wrote that many SC decisions start with the judges' gut feeling, and the opinion is a fabrication to justify that position. I do not find it shocking that after law school, and his judicial experience, that he would think his way better then the founders. In fact, that was my fear when this went to trial.

SC judges are some of the most insulated, isolated from reality individuals in our society. The fact that this case came down in favor if the 2nd amendment is, to me, a bloody miracle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

All the counts involved Chase's work as a trial judge in lower circuit courts. (In that era, Supreme Court justices had the added duty of serving as individuals on circuit courts, a practice that was ended in the late 19th century.) The heart of the allegations was that political bias had led Chase to treat defendants and their counsel in a blatantly unfair manner. Chase's defense lawyers called the prosecution a political effort by his Democratic-Republican enemies. In answer to the articles of impeachment, Chase argued that all of his actions had been motivated by adherence to precedent, judicial duty to restrain advocates from improper statements of law, and considerations of judicial efficiency.

The Senate voted to acquit Chase of all charges on March 1, 1805, and he returned to his duties on the court. He is the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have been impeached.[3]

The acquittal of Chase -- by lopsided margins on several of the counts -- is believed to have helped ensure that an independent federal judiciary would survive partisan challenge. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book, Grand Inquests, some people expressed opinions at the time of Chase's trial that the Senate had absolute latitude in convicting a jurist it found unfit, but the acquittal set an unofficial precedent that judges would not be impeached based on their performance on the bench. All judges impeached since Chase have been accused of outright criminality.

I wonder if at some point, a failure to uphold your oath, to uphold the Constitution qualifies?
 
just remember

if you get your wish then many would get theirs by removing someone else. In the end what would be gained.

"I wish there was some way to impeach Stevens because of his "grotesque," "bizarre," "dead wrong," and "unsupported" opinions."
 
if you get your wish then many would get theirs by removing someone else.


This is a common error in certain circles. The idea that justices who rule according to the Constitution are no different from justices who rule against the Constitution. The inability to perceive the difference is troubling and may be part of the reason the latter type of Supreme Court justice exists.
 
not what was said

in response to a wish to be able to remove one justice I commented that getting to removing the one you want would allow others to remove ones they do not like. There was no reference to the judges who would rule one way or another just the issue of being able to remove those in the seats. It is a far bigger error to believe a removal system would only remove judges who you don't like and that a system would not remove those you do like.
 
It is the attitudes such as his by those in gov't which are the exact reason the founders did include such limitations on gov't as the Second Amendment...
 
A long history of not doing what Supreme Court justices are paid to do is grounds for removal. It's not a matter of simple dislike for their decisions.
 
Stevens can't be impeached for trying to tear down the Second amendment with a Democratic majority in Congress. Scalia would actually have more to fear on that score.
 
Name Calling

Isn't it usually the liberals that resort to name calling when their logic doesn't hold up? There are many on the left that I have a few choice expletives for. I keep them to myself or share them with a few close friends over a beer. I refuse to air them publically, I don't want to stoop to their level.
 
Roy, I agree.

TheFiringLine walked the High Road, back when we started up. We still walk that road.

Closed for being low road material.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top