A widely respected and sought-after legal counselor says if judges are behaving badly over the issue of marriage – ordering states to mandate same-sex unions, overturning the will of voters, abrogating state constitutional requirements and the like – Congress must actually do something about it.
Like, get rid of the judges.
“By whatever means … something must be done – and soon – to bring reckless judges to heel. The present enthusiasm among all too many judges for legitimating ‘same-sex marriage’ indicates how far they are willing to go in aid of perverse ‘social engineering’ at this point in time. That vanishingly few people ever imagined that American judges would go even as far (and as fast) as they already have ominously suggests that they are more than likely to go farther still,” wrote Edwin Vieira Jr.
The well-known voice among the top echelon of attorneys in the country holds four degrees from Harvard and for more than 30 years has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues.
He’s successfully taken disputes to the Supreme Court and won cases that established constitutional and statutory limits on the uses to which labor unions may apply “fees extracted from nonunion workers.”
His comments came in a report from the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C., the workplace of Olson, who served in several positions for the Reagan administration, and Herb Titus, a longtime constitutional law professor.
The organization has issued a series of reports on the issue of marriage, under funding from the United States Justice Foundation.
He said while “same-sex marriage” may be, among other things, an “ontological impossibility,” the fact that such language is being used in alarming.
“Simply by transmogrifying definitions, entirely new sets of legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties, exposures and liabilities can be created out of essentially nothing more than plays on words. For example, prefixing the noun ‘speech’ with the pseudo-adjective ‘hate’ creates the novel legalistic category of ‘hate speech,’ which supposedly is not protected by the First Amendment, and therefore can be subjected to pervasive governmental regulation. With no greater difficulty than that, public officials can arrogate to themselves a license to impose censorship and to penalize individuals who expatiate vehemently on prohibited subjects. This process is also capable of aggregating such synthetic powers. For instance, once ‘same-sex marriage’ receives a legalistic imprimatur, those who express a strong aversion to it can be condemned for ‘hate speech.’”
But he noted the U.S. Constitution “nowhere mentions marriage or any matter material to it. So the government can point to no historical precedent or present power under color of which it can purport to equate ‘same-sex marriage’ with marriage for any purpose.
“If ‘same-sex marriage’ were the same as marriage the adjective would not be necessary. (And perhaps not to define those terms at all, under the pretense of equating them. For the proponents of ‘same-sex marriage’ have yet to clarify precisely what definition of marriage allows for participation on equal terms both by two individuals of opposite sex and by two individuals of the same sex – and yet excludes such arrangements as ‘plural marriage,’ ‘child marriage,’ ‘incestuous marriage’ or perhaps even ‘interspecies marriage.’)”
He suggested such behavior, if considered bad, can subject officials, including judges, to removal from office, since the Constitution allows for their tenure in office during periods of “good behavior.”
“The Constitution recognizes that, although ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ necessarily involve a lack of ‘good behavior,’ not every lack of ‘good behavior’ involves ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
He said, “The standard of ‘good behavior’ covers situations in which criminal wrongdoing … need not be present, whereas common sense deems intolerable the judicial misconduct in question. That standard allows for the removal of judges who, although perhaps personally honest, have proven themselves in some other way unsuitable for continuation in office. A judge whose tenure manifests insanity, emotional instability, recurrent intoxication, physical inability to perform his duties, gross ignorance, incompetence as a legal analyst, or chronic indolence (to mention only a few disqualifying deficiencies) may not be guilty of ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors’; but his comportment certainly falls so short of ‘good behavior’ as to require his removal. So, too, for a judge who, infatuated with ‘law laid down by linguistic legerdemain,’ misuses the Constitution as a blank slate upon which to inscribe theretofore unheard-of and fantastic legal doctrines.
“And an individual who acts upon so errant a belief cannot be suffered to hold a judicial office which enables him to harm the entire country by putting that belief into practice,” he wrote.
He speculated Congress and the White House could work together on such actions, but such actions need to be addressed soon.
WND reported a day earlier on a series of events that has been described as a “troubling turn” has been found to have taken place at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the justices’ looming decision on marriage – whether they will affirm the millennia old standard of one man and one woman or whether they will create a right to homosexual “marriage.”
That decision could come as early as this week.
The circumstances concern efforts to have Ruth Ginsburg and Elena Kagan recused from the marriage case because they both have taken public advocacy positions for same-sex “marriage” by performing those ceremonies even while the case was pending before the justices.
WND had reported that a former member of the federal judiciary, Joe Miller, who, when he was appointed U.S. magistrate judge in Fairbanks, Alaska, was the youngest person then serving in that federal position in the nation, called their actions a violation of the code of ethics for judges.
The report from Olson and Titus noted that the Foundation for Moral Law twice formally filed documents seeking the recusal of Kagan and Ginsburg.
“Importantly, Miller also reported that not only had the court not ruled on the foundation’s motion, but that the motion had not even been posted on the Supreme Court docket. While a delay in posting can occur for a number of reasons, none applied here. Did someone at the high court not want to acknowledge that such a motion had been filed?”
They continued, “Now we may have some indication that the U.S. Supreme Court uses Google Alerts, because shortly after the Miller article was published, on either June 17 or 18, 2015, the foundation’s recusal motion suddenly appeared on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court. Under a date of May 21, 2015, the entry read: ‘Request for recusal received from amicus curiae Foundation for Moral Law.’”
But that, they said, raises even more questions.
“First, the missing motion. The foundation’s first motion to recuse consisting of eight pages was submitted on April 27, 2015 (and date and time stamped on April 27, 2015, at 11:47 a.m.) — a good three weeks before the Supreme Court claims that it was ‘received’ on May 21, 2015. The Foundation for Moral Law later filed a second motion to recuse consisting of four pages on May 21 (date and time stamped on May 21, 2015, at 11:28 a.m.). The second motion was filed after Justice Ginsburg performed another same-sex wedding, and was to the effect of: ‘there, you did it again.’ The second motion refers back to the first motion. Why is there only one entry on the court’s docket sheets? What happened to the original motion?”
Then, as lawyers are apt to do, they noticed the specific language used by the Supreme Court.
“The Foundation document is entitled a ‘Motion.’ Why is it entitled on the docket as a ‘Request’? Third, the action. According to the court rules, a ‘Motion’ is ‘filed’ with the court. Why is the action taken by the court described only as ‘received’ and not ‘filed’?”
“These points … suggest that the high court, for an inordinate time, has ignored the recusal motion. While the court has finally acknowledged that some recusal filing was made, it certainly gives no assurance that any ruling on the motion will be forthcoming before the court decides the same-sex marriage case,” the lawyers explained.
They quoted federal law, which requires judges to exit from a case where their impartiality, “may reasonably be questioned.”
“However, as this case is demonstrating, the Supreme Court appears to believe it is under no obligation to abide by that federal law and judicial ethical rule. First, while Justices Ginsburg and Kagan have an ethical duty to avoid commenting on cases, and a statutory duty to recuse when their impartiality ‘may reasonably be questioned,’ as a matter of practice, each justice is the sole judge of her own case. While a decision of a lower federal court judge may be appealed to a higher authority, each U.S. Supreme Court Justice has the final word on his own fitness to serve. These two justices should have addressed the question publicly prior to participating in oral argument … on April 28, 2015, but they did not. Since these two justices ignored problems caused by their conduct, the remainder of the court should have stepped in and addressed the issue for them, but the other seven justices have remained silent.”
The lawyers noted that the move to take Kagan and Ginsburg off the case also has involved the American Family Association, Vision America Action, National Organization for Marriage, the U.S. Justice Foundation, the Louisiana House of Representatives and Gov. Bobby Jindal.
The result will ultimately, they said, “will not only erode public confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, but would call into question the constitutional legitimacy of its forthcoming same-sex marriage decision.”
WND reported when Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore said Ginsburg could be penalized for her public advocacy of “gay” rights as the court considers a case that could redefine marriage in federal law.
“It’s called impeachment,” he told WND.
As WND reported, Ginsburg has performed same-sex wedding ceremonies and made supportive public statements. Kagan also has performed same-sex weddings and promoted “gay” rights at Harvard’s law school while she was at its helm.
Moore also cited the provision for judges holding office during periods of “good behavior.”
“The remedy rests with Congress,” he told WND, although anyone could raise the question.
from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/congress-pressed-to-fire-reckless-judges/
from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/congress-pressed-to-fire-reckless-judges/
No comments:
Post a Comment