The last one was close with John Roberts abstaining. It is hard to tell what will happen. Yes, Addington and others on the inside want this one to go their way real bad. Fine, if that court says yes then there is not alot that can be done. I personally think it gives the precedent for too much EB power in the long run but we will see.

Hi Cat,

Actually I also thought the Supremes TOTALLY F-up on their ruling on eminant domain. ALL judges should be on term limits.

__________________
Please don't tell mama I work for Obama's campaign. She thinke I am a piano player in a whore house.

Exactly, the phone lines are not part of your house after they leave your house. Talking on a phone is just the same as yelling down the road; it just costs more.

__________________
"If I didn't live in Ohio I would love to live in Texas, it's the only place where drinking beer and kickin' ass is still accepted." -Roman

No they are not fair game. Thats what the court has ruled. Intercepting a call is equivalent to searching someone's house. There are laws about how, when and to whom it may be done.

Here is something for you to read.
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
Even FISA says that the presidential authority can not be overriden by FISA

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w

I agree, I tend to vote for the GOP but these guys went way too far on this issue. Our civil rights are way too important. There are rules in place to quickly handle situation like these but for some reason they don't want to abide by them. This is the thing that scares me about the war on terror becuz in the time of war the administration has the power to pretty much do what it likes. I think we need to more specifically define that term. If you look at the Bill of Rights, they're solely based on protecting citizens from its government and it should remain so.

I have voted with the GOP in national elections, but I think the Supremes will have to decide this issue

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

Supreme Court of the United States
VIII. Removal from Office

Justices serve lifetime appointments. Under the Constitution they can be removed from the Court only by first being impeached (accused) by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. There is no precise standard for determining whether a justice has committed an impeachable offense, though the consensus is that removal should be for criminal or ethical lapses, not for partisan political reasons. No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached. In 1805 Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in the House by his political enemies, but the Senate failed to convict when it became apparent that Chase’s opponents were after him not because he had committed any wrongdoing but because they disagreed with his decisions. The possibility of impeachment may have been a factor in the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas, who left the Court in 1969 after allegations surfaced that he had accepted a questionable fee from a private foundation. Some conservative groups rallied for the removal of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1960s, but their efforts failed.

In the wake of the controversy over Abe Fortas’s financial practices, the Court became more restrained in its public activities. Once confirmed to the Court, justices try to ensure that their investments and outside income do not bring their integrity into question. Common practice now dictates that justices also remove themselves from politics, refraining from speaking out about controversial issues or pending legislation. The justices can make public speeches, but these are usually confined to subjects related to the law in general and to the federal court system. In these and other questions of judicial ethics the Court usually follows the American Bar Association (ABA) Code of Judicial Conduct, although these rules are not binding on the Court.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contributed By:
Jethro K. Lieberman, B.A., J.D., Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Constitutional Law, New York Law School. Author of A Practical Companion to the Constitution: How the

Rasta I hope this answeres your question about the removal of a Judge.

Thanks for the information ROB.

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.