Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Ben Carson Says Congress Should Remove Pro-Equality Judges f/ Unconstitutional rulngs
From interview:
DEACE: Do our rights really come from God? Or do they come from the mob, do they come from the state?
CARSON: I think you’re right about that. The Constitution actually [inaudible] this message. It says that those kinds of matters are in the jurisdiction of the state. That is not a federal issue. And, what the president and what the Supreme Court needs to reiterate is the states have a mechanism whereby they can determine the will of the people. It’s called ballot referendum. It has been done multiple times already. 32 states have indicated that marriage is between a man and a woman, and a few judges have come and overturn that. That, as far as I’m concerned, is unconstitutional. And Congress actually has oversight of what they call the inferior courts, everything below the Supreme Court. That’s where those overturns have come. When judges do not carry out their duties in an appropriate way, our Congress actually has the right to reprimand or remove them. Most people don’t know that because they don’t know the Constitution.
Setting aside Carson’s premise that the Constitution’s promise of equality should be put up to a vote, he is misguided about what the Constitution provides with respect to judges. Despite his assertion, Congress cannot simply remove a judge for ruling in a way the majority disagrees with. Judges may only be removed for impeachable offenses, which the Constitution defines as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Under other circumstances, the Constitution declares that “judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour.
CARSON: I think you’re right about that. The Constitution actually [inaudible] this message. It says that those kinds of matters are in the jurisdiction of the state. That is not a federal issue. And, what the president and what the Supreme Court needs to reiterate is the states have a mechanism whereby they can determine the will of the people. It’s called ballot referendum. It has been done multiple times already. 32 states have indicated that marriage is between a man and a woman, and a few judges have come and overturn that. That, as far as I’m concerned, is unconstitutional. And Congress actually has oversight of what they call the inferior courts, everything below the Supreme Court. That’s where those overturns have come. When judges do not carry out their duties in an appropriate way, our Congress actually has the right to reprimand or remove them. Most people don’t know that because they don’t know the Constitution.
Setting aside Carson’s premise that the Constitution’s promise of equality should be put up to a vote, he is misguided about what the Constitution provides with respect to judges. Despite his assertion, Congress cannot simply remove a judge for ruling in a way the majority disagrees with. Judges may only be removed for impeachable offenses, which the Constitution defines as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Under other circumstances, the Constitution declares that “judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour.
More from ThinkProgress:
http://thkpr.gs/3615989
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
