Why they must be impeached

“Gentlemen, you shall not be dismissed until you bring in a verdict which the court will accept. You shall be locked up, without meat, drink, fire and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court. We will have a verdict by the help of God or you shall starve for it.”

– English judge in 1670, addressing William Penn’s jury upon delivery of a not guilty verdict

It is the nature of humanity to “push the envelope.” We are always seeking the limits to individual action. We see this behavior in 2-year-olds. We see it again in teen-agers. And now we see it in United States Supreme Court justices.

William Penn was later released from prison, but not before his jury did go to jail. Penn came to America and founded Pennsylvania. Do you think he ever took his liberty, or anyone else’s for granted again?

The Supreme Court has been much in the news. It is an important part of our government. The nature of the court’s work means that it decides the toughest cases. Invariably, there will be widespread disagreement over the wisdom of their rulings by you, me and our fellow citizens. At its most basic, that’s why any court is there: to arbitrate between us and assign guilt or innocence. In short, to keep us from killing one another to settle our differences.

America’s founders gave the Supreme Court broad authority – but not as broad as it now claims for itself. Think of the Constitution as a three-legged stool upon which our government rests. Congress, the president and the Supreme Court must all function within their prescribed limits or freedom – seated on the stool of government – is due for a big fall.

America’s founders understood all of us very well. That is why the powers granted to the various branches of government are designed to balance one another. If Congress passes laws contrary to the Constitution, the president can veto them. Should he let them through – the court can declare them null and void (unconstitutional). If the president attempts to enact his agenda without popular support, Congress can withhold the funding. No money, no agenda. Should Congress fail to block the president, the Court may well succeed.

But what of the Court? What protection or remedy do “we the people” have when five or six or seven or eight or nine robed justices suddenly declare themselves above the Constitution, and begin handing out free passes for special interest groups to ignore the law? What can we do?

There is only one remedy, as the Constitution makes clear: Impeachment. That authority is given only to Congress. They are, in the end, the sole guardian against judicial rule.

The University of Michigan affirmative-action case can be summed up easily enough. Nine justices looked at the university’s practice of awarding extra admission points for people of a certain race, and denying them to people of another race. Nine justices acknowledged that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits such discrimination based upon race. Then five of those justices said, “I don’t care. I don’t care what the law says. I don’t care about my oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution, and I don’t care about the rule of law. I’m going to do what I want to do anyway, and the rest of you be damned.” And that is what they did.

It doesn’t matter whether you love or loathe affirmative action. It doesn’t matter if it has helped you or hurt you. It doesn’t matter what skin color you are. It matters only that you are an American.

In the Michigan ruling, five justices spit in the face of every American citizen, those of us alive today and those now turning in their graves. They urinated on Congress and the president, and they wiped the excrement of their personal political preferences over the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They no longer “hold these or any other truths to be self-evident.” They have denounced the rule of law.

For America, there is only one question that remains. Will you have these people as kings, to rule over you as their mood and whim strikes? Or will you respond as William Penn’s jury did, and reject the kingship of the judiciary?