Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
good to see kelly delivering the message
-
Embed this notice
@egirlyuumimain it's the "muh feels" portion on the back
-
Embed this notice
@sickburnbro I musta missed the part in the Constitution that stopped invader removal lol
-
Embed this notice
@s2208 @egirlyuumimain well, then: "I don't care"
-
Embed this notice
the constitution is indeed a suicide pact
-
Embed this notice
@sickburnbro It must be in the living part
-
Embed this notice
@egirlyuumimain it's the "pursuit of live, liberty and happiness" FEELZ
-
Embed this notice
@PoalackJokes88 @sickburnbro For number 1 the judges kinda made that up themselves
-
Embed this notice
@egirlyuumimain @PoalackJokes88 I think "good behavior" is a fairly unexplored part
-
Embed this notice
@egirlyuumimain @sickburnbro 1. The Constitution allows judges to decide what laws mean.
2. The courts / judges have only ruled in ways to expand their power.
3. They've decided it's illegal to remove invaders.
The Constitution was vague enough to let a cohesive group seize power by stretching the rules. To remove them from power, the rules have to be stretched back.
-
Embed this notice
@s2208 @PoalackJokes88 @egirlyuumimain https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-10-2-3/ALDE_00000686/
The meaning of the Good Behavior Clause has been the subject of long-standing debate. Some have argued that the phrase denotes an alternative standard of removal for federal judges beyond high crimes and misdemeanors that normally may give rise to the impeachment of federal officers.1 Others have rejected this notion,2 reading the good behavior phrase simply to make clear that federal judges retain their office for life unless they are removed via a proper constitutional mechanism. However, while one might find some support in early twentieth-century practice for the idea that the Clause constitutes an additional ground for removal of a federal judge,3 the modern view of Congress appears to be that good behavior does not establish an independent standard for impeachable conduct.4 In other words, the Good Behavior Clause simply indicates that judges are not appointed to their seats for set terms and cannot be removed at will; removing a federal judge requires impeachment and conviction for a high crime or misdemeanor.
-
Embed this notice
Senators used to serve at times of good behavior too
-
Embed this notice
@s2208 @PoalackJokes88 @egirlyuumimain lots of extremely motivated reasoning going on here
-
Embed this notice
@s2208 @PoalackJokes88 @egirlyuumimain https://www.jstor.org/stable/3108675 looks interesting, but .. behind dumb jstor
-
Embed this notice
@s2208 @PoalackJokes88 @egirlyuumimain https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/438_q54sjnwz.pdf this is very interesting:
"Using evidence from
England, the colonies, and the revolutionary state constitutions, the Article demonstrates that at
the Founding, good-behavior tenure and impeachment had only the most tenuous of
relationships. Good-behavior tenure was forfeitable upon a judicial finding of misbehavior. "
this is more along the lines of what I was thinking
-
Embed this notice
@s2208 @PoalackJokes88 @egirlyuumimain This also matches with the tarring and feathering of judges
-
Embed this notice
@sickburnbro @s2208 @egirlyuumimain Logically it makes no sense that a faction of the government, in this case Washington & the Federalists, could just make up new courts and appoint them, but that another faction couldn't simply fire them when they took power. It's an entirely self-serving standard that they just made up, and basically can only ever go towards increasing the power and centralization of the federal government. This exact same thing was done by FDR when he created new government agencies with new powers that were never mentioned before, and threatened the courts with packing if they didn't fall in line. "Packing" wasn't illegal, it was how the court was founded in the first place. If it's going to be fought, it's going to be some form of "reverse-packing", or some other legally dubious thing that will get ratified in hindsight just like our current system was.
-
Embed this notice
@PoalackJokes88 @s2208 @egirlyuumimain well, packing I think is something else entirely. The thing about "good behavior" is that it's a standard that allows ordinary people to access control over the judiciary, which I think is important.
-
Embed this notice
@PoalackJokes88 @s2208 @egirlyuumimain that's the thing - "good behavior" ***isn't*** a congressional power.
-
Embed this notice
@sickburnbro @s2208 @egirlyuumimain It's a congressional power, so unless ordinary people have control over congress it won't help. At that point it's a horse apiece, whether it's "good behavior" or packing or something else, they have to have power in order to exercise it. If they aren't willing to think outside the box and take a few risks they won't be able to keep power.
-
Embed this notice
@PoalackJokes88 @s2208 @egirlyuumimain this is the history of a good behavior appointment.
Bread up, Bro
egirlyuumimain
Special Guest Star
PoalackJokes88
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the