The Qualifications for SCOTUS
There are some basic qualifications for sitting on the Supreme Count of the United States (SCOTUS). These include:
- Being Intellectually Honest:
- Not Lying or Committing Perjury in Confirmation Hearings:
- Commitment to Equal Justice Under Law:
Objectively speaking: Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett, have failed to show they are qualified to sit on the Court. As such, they NO LONGER meet the standards require to serve.
Article. III. SECTION. 1. States: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, … .”
The current make-up of the Court is:
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States,
- Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
- Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice
- Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
- Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,
- Elena Kagan, Associate Justice
- Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice,
- Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice
- Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
The Constitution does not define what “Good Behaviour” is, but certainly; it includes a respect for the institution of the Court itself. The “leaked” Alito Draft opinion (Alito Draft) in the Dobbs v. Jackson case; reveals a fundamental disrespect for the Court and its precedents. Further, the opinion itself presents a FAILURE of even the most rudimentary basis of intellectual honesty. It displays an open contempt for the intelligence of the American people, by asserting that somehow, the Roe Court simply did not know what they were doing; and that this Court somehow has a better understanding of the law than any in the past. It defies all intellectual reasoning to say that Roe can be excised from the pantheon of judicial history, but that doing so will not undermine all other decisions. It is the ONLY TIME in the history of America, that the Court has proposed to “REMOVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT” (as opposed to recognizing a previously undefine right, or expanding the understanding of rights to a new social circumstance). IT IS AKIN TO WHAT THE NAZI’S DID IN GERMANY IN DECLARING CERTAIN GROUPS ‘UNDESIRABLE’. The fundamental Constitutional right to access medical services to terminate a pregnancy HAS BEEN THE LAW FOR FIFTY YEARS. By July 1, 2022, that right will CEASE TO EXIST; as will every right that has been described under the “privacy” and Roe precedent.
Many times in our country’s history, the Court has been called upon to apply the fundamental nature of our democracy and freedom in terms more broadly construed than the existing precedent recognized. Many times, they refused (eg. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)). When they have, history has UNIVERSALLY panned the decisions as unprincipled and erroneously decided.
This case is different. Never has the Court acted to ELIMINATE an existing recognized Constitutional right, NEVER.
This is exactly what this Court is about to do; ELIMINATE a long-standing, recognized federal constitutional right. Further, their motivation for doing so is simply that THEY NOW HAVE A COURT WITH FIVE MEMBERS WILLING TO IGNOR THEIR OATHS AND DUTIES, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A GOAL THAT ONLY HAS BASIS WITHIN THEIR OWN PERSONAL DOGMA. Nothing more. That is TYRANNY AT ITS WORST. More so, in that a vast majority of the public DO NOT SUPPORT THIS POSTION, DECISION, OR DOGMA.
We need to start calling this for what it REALLY IS: a JUDICIAL COUP; acting in operation to OVERTHROW the elected government, by judicial fiat. Upon this precedence, these five member could decide to declare the Pope the new president of the United States (and have in essence done just exactly that).
In addition, these justices have done exactly what they asserted (under oath) that they would not do: ignore the doctrine of Stare Decisis and overturn Roe.
I assert, that the Congress can and must, declare that these Justice NO LONGER SERVE UNDER THE TERMS OF “GOOD BEHAVIOUR”; and remove them from their positions.
The Constitution of the United States presents that the President must be Impeached (by The House of Representatives) and Convicted (by the Senate) to be removed from office (upon the qualifying offenses). It further presents that the individual body of the Congress, shall have the authority to determine the qualifications of its member to serve or continue serving. This process DOES NOT REQUIRE IMPEACHMENT (under the clear text of the constitution and its construction; “impeachment” is reserved for removal of the President, Vice-President, and the EXECUTIUVE BRANCH “OFFICERS”, as a necessity for removal from office. It is presented within the context of Article I (Legislative branch) and Article II (Executive branch): BUT IT IS NOT REPEATED under Article III (in regards to the Judicial branch). Thus, removal from office of a judicial branch member, requires only the CAUSE OF ACTION (violation of the “Good Behaviour” provision) and a majority vote of the Congress. As the Constitution provides the President the authority to nominate judges. This would suggest that any action to declare that a Judicial Officer is no longer qualified to hold a judicial position, because they are no longer compliant with the requirement of “Good Behaviour”, would likewise require the President to declare such to the Congress (stating the case against the Judicial Officer), in a Writ of Removal.
It is thus, that President Biden MUST IMMEDIATELTY DECLARE THESE FIVE JUSTICES NO LONGER FIT FOR OFFICE, AND REQUEST THAT CONGRESS VOTE TO REMOVE THEM DUE TO “BAD BEHAVIOUR”.
Copyright 2022 D. J. Adams, All rights reserved