PDA

View Full Version : Wash Post: Firebrand Conservatives Want Justice Kennedy Impeached... or Dead



Unassisted
04-11-2005, 05:03 PM
Surprising that these outrageous comments haven't gotten more coverage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38308-2005Apr8.html


And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty

By Dana Milbank
Saturday, April 9, 2005; Page A03

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.

Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/article/pieces/enlargePhotoIcon_91x14.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:void%280%29)
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I38721-2005Apr08 (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:void%280%29)
Although Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was named to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, he drew the ire of conservatives at a forum on the judiciary. (Lisa Poole -- AP)

Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."

Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."

"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday. One worker at the event wore a sticker declaring "Hooray for DeLay."

The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.

The Schlafly session's moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a "radical secularist relativist judiciary." It turned more harsh from there.

Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.

Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."

Farris then told the crowd he is "sick and tired of having to lobby people I helped get elected." A better-educated citizenry, he said, would know that "Medicare is a bad idea" and that "Social Security is a horrible idea when run by the government." Farris said he would block judicial power by abolishing the concept of binding judicial precedents, by allowing Congress to vacate court decisions, and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems to have replaced Justice David H. Souter as the target of conservative ire. "If about 40 of them get impeached, suddenly a lot of these guys would be retiring," he said.

Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who wrote "How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary," escalated the charges, saying a Politburo of "five people on the Supreme Court" has a "revolutionary agenda" rooted in foreign law and situational ethics. Vieira, his eyeglasses strapped to his head with black elastic, decried the "primordial illogic" of the courts.

Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the "no man, no problem" line twice for emphasis. "This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."

A court spokeswoman declined to comment.

RedFanAlways1966
04-11-2005, 05:31 PM
I'd have to guess that these comments are not that newsworthy b/c the people talking are mouthpieces who hold no real powers. The guy making the Stalin reference is a Harvard-bred writer/speaker. He makes money by spewing fire out of his mouth. And there are enough people, unfortunately, willing to pay money for his talk. Not me! Just read the list of speakers for this forum... who, what, who-dat? Not at all newsworthy IMO. Some will try to portray these people as a true reflection of the Repub party. It is not. And the Repubs have to be careful to not lean too far in one direction. Just look at the last 6 years in this country for one of the two major parties. Leaned too far. Got burned.

Newsworthy are the partisan comments being made by Sen. Biden & Sen. Dodd about the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the U.N.. Bolton said the United Nations is clearly in need of reform. He cited problems with the UN Human Rights Commission and General Assembly, saying the political will of member states was a problem. Bolton also said the scandal over the UN's administration of the oil-for-food program in Iraq revealed deep bureaucratic flaws. But that is another discussion. Sens. Biden and Dodd don't like those comments. I am still trying to figure out what is not true about those comments. At least Jacques Chirac knows that some here still think he was right before the first U.S. bomb hit Baghdad. Too bad they are Senators <sigh>. Makes me wonder if Biden & Dodd had their hands in on that Iraqi cookie jar that was making many French, Germans & Russians rich between 1992-2002?

LawFive
04-11-2005, 06:27 PM
Maybe I missed that day in civics class, but I thought that Supreme Court justices were on the bench for life unless they retire/resign? I don't think they can be impeached.

Reds4Life
04-11-2005, 06:49 PM
I don't think they can be impeached.

Yes, they can be impeached.

To date, the House of Representatives has only impeached one Justice, Samuel Chase, in 1804. There wasn't enough support in the Senate to continue on with impeachment, so he kept his seat on the court.

RBA
04-11-2005, 06:49 PM
Makes me wonder if Biden & Dodd had their hands in on that Iraqi cookie jar that was making many French, Germans & Russians rich between 1992-2002?

And several US Corporations.

Chip R
04-11-2005, 06:51 PM
Maybe I missed that day in civics class, but I thought that Supreme Court justices were on the bench for life unless they retire/resign? I don't think they can be impeached.
They can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors which this doesn't fall under.

RBA
04-11-2005, 07:10 PM
I think John Bolton's comments were more about abolishing the UN than refroming them. At least the comments he made to the ultra conservative group I heard replayed on the radio sounded that way.

Redsfaithful
04-11-2005, 07:44 PM
Newsworthy are the partisan comments being made by Sen. Biden & Sen. Dodd about the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the U.N.. Bolton said the United Nations is clearly in need of reform

RFA: Always willing to change the subject when a Republican says or does something ignorant.

Chip R
04-11-2005, 08:30 PM
RFA: Always willing to change the subject when a Republican says or does something ignorant.
Don't start. :angry:

RedFanAlways1966
04-11-2005, 09:01 PM
RFA: Always willing to change the subject when a Republican says or does something ignorant.

Nah! Repubs do say ignorant things sometimes though. I thought I'd see if if everyone was awake when I took a tangent. RBA and you were there and it almost felt like old times! I don't mean to start "trouble" though, RF. The Bolton nomination is an interesting topic/debate for sure. I miss the debates here, but it may be an ignorant thing for me to bring these subjects up.... esp. after the REDS get swept. :)

On the topic of judges and impeachment. Aside from criminal activity, I think it is wrong. Judges should never be "swayed" when making a decision for any reason. Those who want to impeach today are trying to make that the standard. That is wrong and not how judges should work. They should never feel the "pressure of getting impeached" when doing their job. Within perfectly good reason of course (e.g. letting those guilty of murder go free, etc).

RedsBaron
04-11-2005, 09:39 PM
I'm not a fan of many of Justice Kennedy's opinions, but Vieira should have been denounced on the spot by the other people at the meeting. How in the world does anyone quote Joseph Stalin with approval on anything, much less use a quote which at the very least gave the implication of advocating murder?

Redsfaithful
04-11-2005, 09:47 PM
The Bolton nomination is an interesting topic/debate for sure.

So start a thread on it.

MWM
04-11-2005, 09:54 PM
Some of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Does anyone take these people seriously?

Unassisted
04-11-2005, 10:28 PM
Some of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Does anyone take these people seriously?Funny you should ask that. I Googled "impeach Supreme Court" this afternoon when I was looking for the answer to the question about whether a Justice had ever been impeached. If the number of links that showed up in the first 50 on Google is any indication, there is apparently quite a vocal movement of folks who want to impeach 6 of the current justices over their rulings on "sodomy" laws.

Mutaman
04-12-2005, 06:35 PM
The failure of the mainstream media to report on this is yet another example of its liberal bias, not. After its performance over the last few weeks it should be perfectly clear that the media does not want to offend the far right.

jmcclain19
04-13-2005, 03:39 AM
Sad to see.

If there was any justice at all, the last decade would be called historically the "Kennedy Court" because, with apologies to Justice O'Connor, he's the most important justice on the bench right now

RedsBaron
04-13-2005, 05:58 PM
The failure of the mainstream media to report on this is yet another example of its liberal bias, not. After its performance over the last few weeks it should be perfectly clear that the media does not want to offend the far right.
I thought The Washington Post, a pillar of the mainstream media, just did report this, as it should have.
I am concened about the hate rhetoric on all sides of the political spectrum. There is an "art show" at Columbia College near Chicago which features fake stamps showing President Bush with a gun pointed at his head-http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-axis12.html. Cafepress.com was featuring products such as shirts saying "Kill Bush." Last year, Charles Booker of The Guardian lamented: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr-where are you now that we need you."-http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1254928/posts

Falls City Beer
04-13-2005, 06:34 PM
Monsters.

Redsfaithful
04-13-2005, 07:34 PM
Cafepress.com was featuring products such as shirts saying "Kill Bush."

Cafepress features items made from literally anyone. They're a print on demand service.

Believe me when I say I could find just as bad from right wing cafepress shops.

And Free Republic? I would have really thought a hate website like that was beneath you RB.

RedsBaron
04-13-2005, 07:45 PM
Cafepress features items made from literally anyone. They're a print on demand service.

Believe me when I say I could find just as bad from right wing cafepress shops.

And Free Republic? I would have really thought a hate website like that was beneath you RB.
I don't know anything about that website; I just wanted to post a source for the news item. I orginally read a portion of the article elsewhere-it originally appearred in The Guradian, a British newspaper, but I don't have a link to that paper.

Redsfaithful
04-13-2005, 07:49 PM
I'm sure it did appear in the Guardian as an op-ed piece, and I agree that it was in bad taste.

The difference is that the Guardian writer has literally no power over American affairs and no sway over the opinion of Americans while the people calling for Kennedy's assassination actually have power over conservative's opinion and power within the Republican party.

I'm sick and tired of the old "you do it too" argument. Prominent Democrats don't go around saying anything nearly this dangerous or ignorant, and whenever they do say something questionable they get lynched by the media.

RedsBaron
04-13-2005, 07:51 PM
The hate rhetoric truly does concern me. Even if Edwin Vieira doesn't literally want to kill Justice Kennedy, or even if Charles Booker doesn't really want President Bush murdered, there are already enough crazy people out there who certainly need no "encouragement." I wish our political factions could disagree in a civil manner and could respect the integrity of those with whom they may have differences.

Redsfaithful
04-13-2005, 07:52 PM
I wish our political factions could disagree in a civil manner and could respect the integrity of those with whom they may have differences.

I agree completely.

RedsBaron
04-13-2005, 07:55 PM
I'm sure it did appear in the Guardian as an op-ed piece, and I agree that it was in bad taste.

The difference is that the Guardian writer has literally no power over American affairs and no sway over the opinion of Americans while the people calling for Kennedy's assassination actually have power over conservative's opinion and power within the Republican party.

I'm sick and tired of the old "you do it too" argument. Prominent Democrats don't go around saying anything nearly this dangerous or ignorant, and whenever they do say something questionable they get lynched by the media.
I utterly and absolutely disagree with the final paragraph of your post. I had never heard of Vieira until this thread and I don't know that he has any power other than perhaps with some lunatic fringe.
While the present chairman of the Democratic party hasn't advocated killing opponents, going around making public statements about "hating" Republicans and everything they stand for is hardly a responsible and civil statement.

RedsBaron
04-13-2005, 07:56 PM
I agree completely.
Now I totally agree with you. Geez, I'm disagreeing with you, and while I'm typing you then post something I agree with-truce Okay? ;)