Uhm, Supreme Court Justice Alito?
01/28/2010
Sir? Aren’t there some eligibility questions remaining unanswered? Your group looked at Senator McCain, how about this dual citizen from Illinois/Indonesia?
Born in Hawaii or not, and I’m sure you’ve got the authority to request the appropriate documents, there’s always that “His Father Was A British Citizen” part. 
And his prior Indonesian citizenship. And his foreign aid to college. And his Logan Act violations. And who knows how much else.
Advertisement
12 Comments
Comments are closed.
The President further proved that he doesn’t quite understand that he is not a King by slapping the SCOTUS during the SOTU speech like that. They’ll remember that the next time one of his party’s laws comes before them for review. I believe the correct term for what is likely to happen to such a law is “evisceration”.
After that insult to their faces, and the Democrats standing up to clap in approval, I’m surprised the 9 Justices didn’t get up and walk out of the speech, right then.
I’m unsure of this, but I don’t think the SCOTUS can initiate a Constitutional review of any law, or call for evidence outside of a case (with standing) that has reached it through normal channels. More’s the pity, a bad, unconstitutional law (or situation) can stand for years, doing damage to the Republic and the rights of The People before it reaches SCOTUS for final deliberation. I’d prefer that SCOTUS could actually initiate Constitutional-based reviews.
More to the point, does anyone know if SCOTUS can initiate IMPEACHMENT proceedings? Or rather, provide the Congress and Senate with the proper information/indictments to do so. Clearly, as our host mentions, Obama has not met the minimum requirements for holding the office he is in now. The Usurper-in-Thief must go!!!
Excellent, Guy. There’s another good idea. I don’t care what it takes…
The President further proved that he doesn’t quite understand that he is not a King by slapping the SCOTUS during the SOTU speech like that. They’ll remember that the next time one of his party’s laws comes before them for review. I believe the correct term for what is likely to happen to such a law is “evisceration”.
No, they won’t, because they have judicial cannons, including maintaining the appearance of impartiaility to adhere to. What you describe would be a severe breach of judicial ethics and would damage the credibity and integrity of the Court.
I’m unsure of this, but I don’t think the SCOTUS can initiate a Constitutional review of any law, or call for evidence outside of a case (with standing) that has reached it through normal channels. More’s the pity, a bad, unconstitutional law (or situation) can stand for years, doing damage to the Republic and the rights of The People before it reaches SCOTUS for final deliberation. I’d prefer that SCOTUS could actually initiate Constitutional-based reviews.
No, it would NOT be a good idea. It would overturn centuries of civil procedure and jurisprudence, and would violate the principal non-partisan judges. You need standing and a justiciable controversy before the Court can consider your case. To do it any other way would be to help usher us in to a banana republic where the winners clear the offices of the losers, and then use their power to punish and enact reprisals.
More to the point, does anyone know if SCOTUS can initiate IMPEACHMENT proceedings? Or rather, provide the Congress and Senate with the proper information/indictments to do so.
No and no. Again, you DO NOT want the Court acting on matters not properly before it, and if you start empowering the courts to issue or originate indictments, then you are being charged and brought into the Court’s jurisdiction by the same entity that will be deciding the case. Captain Awesome has already fucked things up by having government participate in and pick the winners and the losers in the same markets it regulates. You don’t treat a broken leg by breaking the other one, do you? In the same vein, you don’t fix errors in government by making more of them.
What Captain Awesome did to the Court was not just inexcuably rude, it was also unprofessional, and most lawyers would be disciplined for it. However, circumstances being what they are, discipline is highly unlikely in this case, for reasons that I blogged about earlier this week. It pisses me off, probably more than it did any of you, but if you start calling for changes to the Court, you’ll bring more of the “fundamental change” of the type that Teh Won™ is considering bringing.
BiW!!!!!!!!!!! Good to hear from you, indeed. You are the legal eagle I’ve been waiting for to step in on this. Your mind I somewhat know and trust, as opposed to those who allow their political leanings to dictate their actions. For example, we have 4 SCOTUS who are Constitutionalists that believe in the LAW. We have 4 liberals, who seem to believe in feeeeeeelings, and incorporation of other nations laws into the jurisprudence of our own cases, and one who is more of a loose cannon. You, sir, are a conservative voice of reason. I’m glad you showed up to comment.
And BinW’s commentary was exactly the reason why I posed my thought as a question. I honestly didn’t know (off the top of my pointy head) if SCOTUS could (or should) be able to instigate anything. That the courts at all levels have gone to interpreting the law based on their feelings rather than interpreting the case before them based on the applicable law (or laws) and the guidelines (if any) said law provides, perhaps is what sets us up for falling into that same trap.
Well, Guy, some would argue (me among them) that there is a very serious difference between legislating from the bench and applying facts to law to determine the proper outcome. I’m not sure that i would be so generous as to say that Courts in the grips of fweings are interpreting law so much as they make it…a condition as much as admitted to by Ms. Justice Unfit and Injudicious Herself, Sonia Sotomayor, when she said that the appellate courts “make policy”. While it is sadly true, it demonstrates exactly what is wrong with some in government, and on the bench, today, who use the power of the Court to address greater issues than those before them in order to fulfill a notion of “social justice” that they were never empowered to contemplate. The same reluctance on the part of the legislative branch to contemplate and enact the policies that certain judges do without any reluctance and trepidation are virtually guaranteed to not be overturned by that same legislature because to either enact or overturn such policies requires a politcal courage absent in the current crop of career politicians, who will allow an overreaching judiciary to usurp their powers in order to avoid the hard work of telling vocal and short-sighted constiuencies “No.”, and then explaining in great detail why the desires of vocal minorities are not the proper aims of the federal government, and in many cases, are not within the federal government’s to provide to them.
Who do I blame? Democrats, and their modern-day plantation where they actively cultivate a class dependent upon them for their daily subsistance, Republicans, for not having the courage to call it what it is, and demand a return to separation of powers and the restoration of LIMITED government, and for not doing it as loudly and as long as is necessary in order to make headway, and finally, the legacy media, for choosing a side, and actively campaigning for it, instead of reimbursing the public trust, and using its access to ask the hard questions that the public cannot, and its soapbox to broadcast the answers to those questions so that the public can make informed decisions not only when it goes to the ballot box, but when it learns of the pet projects of its elected officials.
Ok, Pedantic Lecture over.
I see I forgot to close an italic somewhere.
That’s cool, we all do it.
Oh, and there are cases outstanding against this impostor. All they have to do is hear one.
To twist an old “truth” just a bit. “There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.” Seems apropos here.
We’ve just got to get one of the cases that are stacked up heard. All we need to do is get one in. The answers there should solve our problem.