I don't think the Justices could be impeached.

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #2,773 by Simon_Jester 7/25/01 9:33:10 AM Reply	I don't think the Justices could be impeached. I don't remember anything in the Constitution about it. Presidents, sure, but Justices? Besides, who's be Judge at the trial? I know there's a move afoot to 'impeach' the Justices, but I consider it as well planned as the move to oust McCain. Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
Post #2,780 by boxley 7/25/01 10:17:07 AM Reply	that is the only way you can get rid of them Has happened only once before for a single Judge in the 1800's(Vague memory)Alcee Hastings one of our congress critters is an impeached federal judge. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk

Florida vote counting revisited. - (a6l6e6x) - (48) - July 14, 2001, 10:03:59 PM EDT

err you are confused - (boxley) - (3) - July 15, 2001, 12:12:05 AM EDT

Interesting.. - (Simon_Jester) - (2) - July 15, 2001, 02:30:48 PM EDT

Re: Interesting.. - (jp) - July 15, 2001, 04:09:03 PM EDT

nope all amil was shipped via mil transpo - (boxley) - July 15, 2001, 11:39:17 PM EDT

And more. - (mmoffitt) - (43) - July 18, 2001, 10:16:50 AM EDT

I love this stuff... - (bepatient) - (29) - July 18, 2001, 01:46:48 PM EDT

Um... - (Simon_Jester) - (26) - July 18, 2001, 03:22:40 PM EDT

Speaking of lost... - (addison) - (25) - July 18, 2001, 03:48:19 PM EDT

Well, I will admit '96 was better than '92... - (Simon_Jester) - (24) - July 19, 2001, 08:43:37 AM EDT

I'm still lost. - (addison) - (22) - July 19, 2001, 11:34:08 AM EDT

Where there was disputes back in '92? - (Simon_Jester) - (21) - July 19, 2001, 01:13:30 PM EDT

I don't see that as the same thing. - (addison) - (16) - July 19, 2001, 01:47:06 PM EDT

Okay, I'm lost now... - (Simon_Jester) - (15) - July 19, 2001, 02:09:04 PM EDT

Don't get eaten by a grue. - (addison) - (6) - July 19, 2001, 02:40:16 PM EDT

Slow down there pilgrim... :-) - (Simon_Jester) - (5) - July 19, 2001, 04:27:08 PM EDT

Re: Slow down there pilgrim... :-) - (addison) - (4) - July 19, 2001, 11:53:32 PM EDT

Okay...point by point... - (Simon_Jester) - (3) - July 20, 2001, 08:27:07 AM EDT

Back to the main point - (addison) - (2) - July 20, 2001, 10:08:22 AM EDT

You're right.... - (Simon_Jester) - (1) - July 20, 2001, 12:05:09 PM EDT

Thanks. - (addison) - July 20, 2001, 02:48:37 PM EDT

Still a difference - (drewk) - (7) - July 19, 2001, 02:46:54 PM EDT

the votes dont matter anyway in Florida - (boxley) - (6) - July 19, 2001, 03:03:36 PM EDT

That is the real issue. - (mmoffitt) - (5) - July 24, 2001, 12:02:26 PM EDT

Well I like the current system sorta - (boxley) - (4) - July 24, 2001, 07:14:27 PM EDT

I don't think the Justices could be impeached. - (Simon_Jester) - (1) - July 25, 2001, 09:33:10 AM EDT

that is the only way you can get rid of them - (boxley) - July 25, 2001, 10:17:07 AM EDT

"3 votes per" - spoken like true Alaskan. :) -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (1) - July 25, 2001, 12:57:11 PM EDT

50*3+14DC!/2 :) -NT - (boxley) - July 25, 2001, 07:03:49 PM EDT

Re: Where there was disputes back in '92? - (Fearless Freep) - (3) - July 19, 2001, 01:54:49 PM EDT

Which I find interesting... - (inthane-chan) - (2) - July 19, 2001, 02:10:06 PM EDT

In Both - (Steve Lowe) - July 19, 2001, 03:49:58 PM EDT

Re: Which I find interesting... - (rsf) - July 19, 2001, 08:38:49 PM EDT

That'd be a first! - (mmoffitt) - July 24, 2001, 11:41:28 AM EDT

"the Dems are going to spend the next 3 years stuck in y2k" - (DonRichards) - July 18, 2001, 03:38:43 PM EDT

Re: I love this stuff... - (a6l6e6x) - July 18, 2001, 03:57:16 PM EDT

Slightly OT Gore is coming back - (boxley) - (12) - July 18, 2001, 09:56:12 PM EDT

Geez Bill, John Edwards is just another Clinton. - (a6l6e6x) - (11) - July 18, 2001, 11:28:55 PM EDT

Silly question... - (Simon_Jester) - (4) - July 19, 2001, 08:47:10 AM EDT

It was not just a question of suing. - (a6l6e6x) - (3) - July 19, 2001, 04:29:23 PM EDT

unlimited damges is important bu not for lawyers - (boxley) - (2) - July 20, 2001, 02:16:04 PM EDT

Re: important for lawyers - "Progress Through Litigation". - (a6l6e6x) - (1) - July 20, 2001, 03:58:31 PM EDT

if yer gonna cap cap the contingency percentage - (boxley) - July 20, 2001, 04:23:06 PM EDT

Silly question... - (Simon_Jester) - July 19, 2001, 08:47:14 AM EDT

He is on the right side of privacy on the net - (boxley) - (1) - July 19, 2001, 10:04:01 AM EDT

Re: Privacy on the net -- Yep, not all bad. -NT - (a6l6e6x) - July 19, 2001, 04:49:09 PM EDT

Why is my constitutional right - (boxley) - (2) - July 19, 2001, 10:07:59 AM EDT

See my comment to Jester, above. - (a6l6e6x) - (1) - July 19, 2001, 04:47:30 PM EDT

I'd rather look like a patient. -NT - (mmoffitt) - July 24, 2001, 01:09:26 PM EDT

iwethey.org

No. Just no. Not a potential no, a solid diamond-hard no. Like, seriously Chuck Norris testicles-hard no.
54 ms