Kennedy & Roberts Needs To Be Removed From The SCOTUS. They're Incompetent

[KittyWampus]

I'd also argue it's easily demonstrated Kennedy is incompetent and prejudiced against women.

To say that women might regret abortion and offer that as part of his opinion clearly shows him to be both prejudiced and incompetent as a Justice.

Now we find out that the Justices allowed as legal evidence statements from 2000 women who "regret" their abortion.

Or at least Kennedy cites it as evidence:

"Each affidavit was just two or three sentences. They made no legal argument, contained no legal verbiage. Each just vented pain and guilt. "Twenty years later it still hurts, " one Florida woman wrote.

These affidavits helped sway the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on April 18 that for the first time set limits on how abortions are performed. The testimonials were cited by Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion upholding a federal ban on a procedure that opponents call "partial birth" abortions. "The emotional and psychological pain does not go away, " Kennedy wrote.

There were 2, 000 affidavits, 124 written by Florida women, all of whom have had abortions. They constitute "the largest body of legal evidence on how abortions hurt women, " says one of the women who collected testimonials in Florida"


What could possibly be more irrelevant, as LEGAL evidence, than the opinions of these 2000 women in making such an important ruling?

How could Roberts have allowed that to be entered?

Perhaps I need to ask first, WAS IT ROBERTS' DECISION TO ALLOW THOSE 2000 STATEMENTS?

Who determines what evidence is allowed? The chief justice?

And if it wasn't allowed by Roberts or SCOTUS in general then WHY WAS KENNEDY CITING IT?

[hobbit709]

1. What about Scalia and Thomas?

Who in their right mind would call them competent?

[KittyWampus]

2. I am directing this on the actual, specific opinion of Kennedy, not in general.

[still_one]

3. That should have been thought about in 2000 when Nader said it didn't matter who won

or in 2004, when people did not come out to the polls in mass

What did they think would happen when bush said he would appoint supreme court justices in the mold of scalia and thomas?

The only hope we have now is to take back the three branches of government in 2008, whcih incidently I believe we will

[KittyWampus]

4. I'm looking for a solid case for removal of any who are clearly incompetent.

[still_one]

6. I don't think it will happen. The 2008 election is our best hope.

[northzax]

12. incomeptance is not a legal reason to remove a justice

all you have is the same standard as impeaching the President "High crimes and misdemeanors"

and the Supremes can reference anything they want in their decisions.


oh, and by the way, Thanks, Ralph Nader!

[HereSince1628]

5. In 2009 the new Dem government needs to add justices to scotus

I think 3 would do. Let's face it; it's all political all the time. Bush has set huge precedents on stretching tradition past the breaking point. Why wait til the rwing wackos die or get too old to serve? Just appoint what we want, elections have consequences if you decide to make it so.

[KittyWampus]

7. My point, this specific incident isn't political. This is clearly incompetence.

And I agree. Make is 12 Justices.

[HereSince1628]

8. I guess I see Roberts decision to admit the opinions as political

he was looking for something, anything, to be able to say he just wasn't following the directives of religious policy.

I agree it challenges the nature of legal justice to have justive based on statements of personal opinion of a tiny fraction of US citizenry.

[jwirr]

11. That is how FDR saved the SCOTUS. I have thought that for a long

time now.

[charlie]

9. Kennedy is the handwringing idiot who accepted Bush v Gore

and spent the bulk of his time shitting his pants over the enormity of what he had done. Souter tried to snag his vote, but he vacillated from day to day, landing on the wrong side at decision time. Souter insisted that if he had another 24 hours, he could've turned him. And the world would be an ENTIRELY different place, no thanks to that fucking moron.

[elocs]

10. Easy to remove them--simply change the U.S. Constitution

See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-01-12-mauro_x.htm

"...There is no such way to remove a Supreme Court justice, impaired or otherwise, except through the daunting process of impeachment."

I assume we all really know this, right? Now let's turn this around.
When a liberal or left leaning Justice with whom you agree is claimed to be incompetent by conservatives, do you favor removal of that Justice also? Just checking for the sake of consistency. I see your point. Change the Constitution. Also, check history because FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court when he didn't like their rulings and that did not work either. Change the Constitution.