Jon's Blog

When all else fails, read the instructions!

David Limbaugh has a couple of good articles on the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Texas sodomy law. Among other things, he says:

President Bush has provided badly needed moral leadership in our War on Terror. But while we're paying scant attention, our moral foundations are continuing to crumble from within. The president should use his bully pulpit to challenge this court publicly. Done effectively, it could lead to the filibuster-proof majority he needs to bring sanity to the judiciary.

Limbaugh is correct that President Bush needs to challenge the court publicly. But a "filibuster-proof majority" is needed for more than simply confirming constructionist judges. As most of us learned in high school history, the three-branched government framed by our Constitution includes "checks and balances" so no branch is able to usurp more than its share of granted powers. According to Article III, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behaviour...." If and when a Judge fails to exercise good Behaviour, that Judge is to be removed from office. But how to do it? As noted in the anti-federalist paper Brutus, number 15:

There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.

The Constitution is clear that a bad judge must be removed from office, and the method of removal is specified in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which delineate the impeachment authority of the Congress. Impeaching a badly-behaved Judge is really not an option; it is the sworn duty of the Legislature to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. "Bad behaviour" is defined by the Constitution as "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Because the United States is a Constitutional Republic--that is, founded upon the rule of law--any effort to undermine the authority of the Constitution may well be considered Treason. If a Judge, therefore, behaves or adjudicates in such a fashion that he challenges the clear meaning of, or usurps authority beyond the scope of, the Constitution, then he is guilty of Treason and may be considered a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

With that in mind, at least a few justices on the Supreme Court have demonstrated clearly that they are domestic enemies of the Constitution. We, the people, must demand that our Congress fulfill its duty to impeach these Judges. If they will not, then it shall be our duty to replace them with those who will.

Posted by jon at July 9, 2003 06:03 PM