View Single Post
Old December 2, 2019, 02:42 PM   #65
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,389
As I understand it, one side is saying the matter is moot, because they amended the law. The other side is saying "we were damaged while the law was in effect before they amended it".

The High Court ALWAYS writes "narrow" decisions. IT is the rest of the govt and court system that applies the narrow decision BROADLY.

Impeachment of lower court judges? not happening.

In order to do so one would have to have PATTERN of mis, or malfeasance of office. A single bad ruling (or even a few) does not qualify as enough.

If they are elected, the cure is simple in principle, vote them out at the end of their term. Not always easy in practice, though.

If they are appointed one must have clear, comprehensive evidence of either incompetence or deliberate, willful disregard for the law.

The whole point of the appeals process and appellate courts, up to the High Court, is that someone who feels a judge ruled wrongly can have other judges review and determine if the ruling was correct, or not. And, like baseball in a way, you get three strikes before you're out.

The original court, appeals court, and the Supreme Court. If you strike out in all 3, you're done.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Page generated in 0.02634 seconds with 8 queries