Raven Report Wisdom is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense and insight
“Impeachment is not a remedy for private wrongs; it’s a method of removing someone whose continued presence in office would cause grave danger to the nation. Charles Ruff
Article II of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was just the simple fact that he talked about and suggested the potential use of the IRS against one or two political opponents.
Monica Crowley“Experience has already shown that the impeachment the Constitution has provided is not even a scarecrow.” Thomas Jefferson
The Facts
I have analyzed and commented upon this legislation in depth here. However, this is a reflection upon what could be done to correct this ruling. The recent Supreme Court Ruling on June 26, 2015 held that
“The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of State.” Pp. 3-28
This ruling was political legislation by the majority who were – Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, and not related to the law in the constitution that never mentions marriage and thereby, per the 10th Amendment, reserves the jurisdiction of marriage rulings to the States and not the Federal government or the Supreme Court. They justified their ruling by arbitrary reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to include the Federal right to legislate in this area. They avoided, by never mentioning, the First Amendment that specifically says –
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” [Emphasis added]
The Constitution specifically mentions the freedom of religion but does not mention marriage.
This is a political legislation and not law as noted by Chief Justice Roberts in his dissent:
“The Court’s ruling is a matter of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.” P. 3 [Emphasis added]
Alternative of Impeachment
The public can either passively accept the ruling or fight it. They can ignore this clear encroachment of the State into the domain of Religion or fight it. The only way to fight it at this point is to overturn the ruling quickly or start proceedings for impeachment.
The facts raise the question as to whether these five justices should be impeached and forcefully removed from office and to whether there is precedent for such action. Let us examine history. Federalist paper, number 65 by Alexander Hamilton, 1788, says Congress has a political check that can remove a public official through impeachment in order to protect the public interest against
“The abuse of violation of some public trust”
Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, in 1833, reinforced the concept by differentiating impeachable offenses from criminal offenses by noting that they are:
“. . .Aptly termed political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard for the public interests. . . they must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy or duty. “
Conclusion
When Supreme Court justices take upon themselves the “right” to create law from the bench per their social views as to how society should be run, rather than interpret law passed by the Congress as being within the constraints of the constitution then they are “usurping” the powers of their office from those provided to the Congress by the constitution. These “elite” five attorneys (2 Catholics, 3 Jews and no Protestants – all Harvard or Yale) have legislated their social views on 320 million people that has no basis in law, per the Chief Justice John Roberts, to do so.
It appears clear to me that the majority of the five Justices on the Supreme Court have violated the public trust and their fiduciary obligations and have demonstrated their unfitness to serve. It is time for these Justices to retire or leave office or for the Congress to impeach them based on their recent decision. The proper thing to do is to impeach them.
It is extremely important to note that these Justices have now set the precedent of legislating from the bench and can do so again in the future. There is no mention of marriage in the Constitution. There is no law under discussion. Thus, these justices created new law or legislated from the bench. This is a clear violation of the Constitution that they have sworn to uphold. It is also a clear encroachment of the Judiciary on the Congressional rights to argue and pass laws per the Constitution. Unfortunately, Thomas Jefferson is probably right again – see the quote upfront.
The answer to the Title question is that – “Yes, we should impeach them based on their actions but we will not.” What should be done and is right per the Constitution and the American people is often not done because of the political implications to our currently very weak Congress. It is weak because the leadership does not understand and / or does not follow the rule of law specified in the Constitution.
In my view, they are more interested in holding on to their positions and “not rocking the boat” than doing what is right for the American people. I do not believe that these Justices will be impeached even though they deserve to be. However, I do believe, that now that they have demonstrated that they can, that they will continue to make law from the bench and thereby erode and destroy our Constitution because it will become meaningless as a constraint on these ”socially motivated progressives” currently on the bench. As a country boy, I would say that, “The horse has the bit in his teeth!” and you will have a hard time reigning him in.
