I have an M.A. in Government/Political Science from a major university in the United States. And I know something about American History.

No Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court has been impeached since 1805 and the U.S. Senate acquitted Justice Samuel Chase, which set a precedent in itself. FDR's "Court-packing" plan failed in the early 1930's. And guess who stopped it? The Democratic Party controlled-U.S. Congress. Another precedent.

There is nothing in the Oath of Office taken by a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court that requires him or her to base their decisions on public opinion polls or on a petition no matter how many signatures are on it. If a precedent were never to be reversed then public schools would still be racially segregated. In 1954, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court reversed a precedent set in the decision in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson, a decision made back in 1896. If those Justices had not reversed a precedent there would still be racial segregation in public schools.

Two Justices made a decision on the Court in 1940, then overruled their own decision three years later in 1943. No one tried to pressure them off the Court.

I am referring to Hugo Black and William O. Douglas.

And there is no provision in Article 3 of the United States Constitution which forbids or prohibits Justices on that Court from reversing or overruling decisions made by Justices who were on the Court before they were. The statement in the Third Article of the U.S. Constitution that Justices of the Supreme Court are to hold their offices during "good behavior". It does not define good behavior" as only if the Justices agree with their fellow Americans on what the provisions of that document mean. The Framers of the United States Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 set up in Article 3 of the Constitution establishing the Supreme Court of the United States to make the final decisions on what provisions in the U.S. Constitution mean.

They did not put in the Constition that registered voters or signers of petitions are to have the authority to overule the Supreme Court or to decide what provisions in the Constitution mean.

I admit that I do not always agree with decisions the Justices have made. But I suggest that there is a way petitioners and signers of petitions can make a way to have their authority to pressure or force Justice Clarence Thomas to resign or remove himself from a position the U.S. Senate confirmed him in, and that is the Constitutional Amendment process.

In 1793, the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision in the case of Chisolm vs. Georgia, and Americans, not liking this decision, used the Constitution's amending process to overrule and reverse the U.S. Supreme Court decision made in that case. The U.S. House and Senate by a 2/3's vote passed what became the Eleventh Amendment in 1794, a year after the U.S. Supreme Court made its decision. In 1795, 3/4's of the states ratified and approved what became the Eleventh Amendment.

This is a way set out in the U.S. Constitution for Americans to overrule or reverse Supreme Court decisions they may not like or with which they disagree. But there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution stating that an individual Justice can be removed from his position to which he or she was appointed by a U.S. President and confirmed by the U.S.Senate. There is a legitimate way to reverse or overrule U.S. Supreme Court decisions. That way is the way of the Constitutional Amendment. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says that a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court can be removed by the numbers of signatures on a petition.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.