Impeachment of judges who openly misinterpret the Constitution and statute for political motivations There were two attempts in the 1960s to impeach Associate Justice William Douglass for his outlandish liberal views that he interjected into the law and Constitution. The great Justice Joseph Story writes in his “Commentaries” that impeachment was reserved for any usurpation of political power “growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard for the public interests.” John Marshall, the great judicial strongman of his day and father of judicial review, noted that although he preferred other legislative checks on the judiciary, “he present doctrine seems to be that a Judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment.” Hamilton wrote that the power of impeachment alone would be a “complete security” against judges usurping legislative power and would “remove all apprehensions” of those who feared that judicial review would morph into judicial supremacy. Ĭharles Pinckney stated at the South Carolina ratifying convention that impeachment would be used against "those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." Īt the Constitutional Convention, George Mason wanted to slip in the word “mal-administration” to the impeachment clause in order to cover those who “subvert the Constitution.” Although his colleagues opposed the effort because they felt the term “mal-administration” was “too vague,” they clearly agreed with the premise of covering political crimes. Impeachment was designed to protect against “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Hamilton noted that such offenses were “political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself” because real crimes would be prosecuted in court anyway. Here are a sampling of quotes and anecdotes from our Founders and congressional history regarding the purpose of impeachment: James Wilson, one of the preeminent Founders and an original Supreme Court justice who helped draft Article III, clearly annunciated this point: “In the United States and in Pennsylvania, impeachments are confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.” As the Congressional Research Service observes, Congress has identified “improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office” as a criterion for impeachment. It was clearly designed to check abuse of power. Impeachment was not only reserved for those who engage in criminal behavior. It’s also hard to imagine an opinion that is of greater consequence - unless it is ignored. It’s hard to comprehend a judicial opinion more divorced from our Constitution, sovereignty, fundamental laws, founding values, history, and tradition. If Obergefell redefined the building block of all civilization, Judge James Robart’s ruling redefined the building block of a sovereign nation. All in contravention to statute, numerous clauses of the Constitution, the social contract, the social compact, popular sovereignty, jurisdictional sovereignty, and 200 years of case law.
![jydge robart jydge robart](https://s.hdnux.com/photos/56/76/31/12314225/4/920x920.jpg)
It’s almost unfathomable that a district judge, an institution created by Congress, can overturn long-standing refugee law and bar the federal government from prioritizing persecuted religious minorities for refugee resettlement.
![jydge robart jydge robart](http://wallstreetonparade.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Judge-Robart-Hears-Arguments-on-Trumps-Executive-Order-to-Ban-Refugees-from-Entry-Into-the-U.S.-February-3-2017.jpg)
![jydge robart jydge robart](https://cdn.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2017/02/06/545822-judge-james-robart-afp.jpg)
It’s still hard to believe we now live in a country where a district judge can demand that we bring in refugees from state sponsors of terror and failed states saturated with terrorists and no data systems during a time of war.