Term Limits on the Supremes By Jayne Lyn Stahl

OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jayne_ly_070616_term_limits_on_the_s.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 16, 2007

Term Limits on the Supremes

By Jayne Lyn Stahl



Yesterday, consistent with what appears to be a trend, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to throw out the challenge to his murder conviction by an Ohio inmate, Keith Bowles, who was sentenced to 15 years to life, back in 1999. Mr Bowles sought to appeal his sentence on constitutional grounds, but the federal court denied his application due to a technicality---he was 3 days late in filing his papers. After being denied on first appeal, he reopened the case years later, and a federal district judge erroneously gave him 17 days instead of 14 to file. So, his appeal was thrown out of appeals court as he passed the deadline, and the Supreme Court upheld their ruling which precluded Bowles from legal remedy to challenge his sentence. Bottom line: regardless of whether Mr. Bowles deserves to do the time he was given, his Eighth Amendment appeal was tossed because of a mistake made by a federal judge, and he missed out on his legal right to appeal. (NYT)

The decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the U.S. Court of Appeal ruling was, in a word, callous, and calluses are for feet not courts. Indeed, since the president's appointment of two new justices to the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Samuel Alito, recent rulings increasingly demonstrate that the hard, bony tissue which often develops around the ends of a fractured bone now exemplifies the body politic, too. After all, what is it if not crude and callous to deny someone the right to appeal because he was late for filing his paperwork due to a judge's mistake?

So it is then that we can no longer talk about the composition, but the decomposition of the Supreme Court in light of this ruling, as well as one, in mid-April, in which the court upheld the ban on partial birth abortions, also by a 5-4 ratio, again reflecting a slim majority. And, here, too,, we can thank the usual suspects, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, for a ruling that represents the first step in overturning the constitutional amendment that protects reproductive choice. But, whether you're for choice or against it, think that the inmate in Ohio was guilty and had no case for appeal, this literalism, and rigid adherence to technicality, may someday jeopardize your rights, too.

While a prisoner in Ohio just lost out on his constitutional right to appeal what he thinks is a sentence that imposes "cruel and unusual punishment," fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court heard arguments about executing a Texas man who was convicted of murder despite the fact that new evidence surfaced, 10 years after the crime, which strongly supported his claims of innocence. Leonel Herrera was sentenced to be put to death for murdering two police officers. He was scheduled to be executed back in 1992, but won a stay of execution while his attorneys went before the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of executing an innocent man. While Herrera confessed to the murders, he later recanted. And, more importantly, his nephew came forward and told authorities that it was Herrera's brother, Raul Herrera, who killed the officers....

(This article originally appeared on AlterNet)





Authors Website: http://ladyjaynestahl.blogspot.com

Authors Bio: Widely published, poet, playwright, essayist, and screenwriter; member of PEN American Center, and PEN USA.

PERSONALLY, I THINK IMPEACHING THE BASTARDS AND NULLIFYING ANY RULINGS THEY PROMULGATED WOULD BE MUCH MORE USEFUL, BOTH NOW AND IN FUTURE CASES.

The fact that there are (presently) two members of the Supreme Court who are there by virtue of probable election fraud and one who got there after repeatedly perjuring himself during his confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate (Justice Thomas) is reason enough to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices.

The fact that the last 2 were confirmed by the Senate makes their status more regular. They would have to be impeached and convicted of violations.

WE give the RW Justices a choice.

1 Resign.
2 We appoint 3 new JUSTICES including a NEW CHIEF JUSTICE.

I think there should be personality tests for criminal disorders.

of course, they won't have the same high quality of corruption and sleaziness, but with practice...

. . .we assert our sovereignty over any official in the judicial or executive branch.



Whether we delegate power by election or appointment, we make the rules. Whatever the term of service, we have the power to impeach and remove -- effectively withdraw our consent -- at any time.

Making the impeachment of Bush and Cheney a reality is the first and most urgent priority, but there are a few other tasks that run a close second.

Impeaching the felonious five for Bush v. Gore is one of those tasks. (And yes, I do mean ALL Five -- Rehnquist posthumously and O'Conner "in absentia." Bush v. Gore is evil seed of the horrors that have followed. By impeaching the felonious five, we can confront the truth as a nation and unequivocally reject that edict for all time.

The fascist fantasy that the American presidency is an office with unitary authoritarian power to break our laws at will "to protect us" is an intolerable threat to our constitutional democracy. We must purge our judiciary and justice department of the promoters and apologists for that fascist doctrine, starting with the impeachment of Alito and Roberts.

A lot of "We the People" need to be reminded that we have surrendered NONE of our soveriegnty to any institution or office we've created. No executive or court action can trump our will. Government is not some abstract system. It is driven by the actions of people. The power to remove the people who corrupt the system is the means by which we enforce our sovereign will over the workings of our government.

And contrary to what many on "our side" seem to believe, you can't "fix the system" if you refuse to go after wrong-doers. "Exposing them" is not enough. Removal from office is a defensive first step. Prosecution must follow. If you don't go after the wrong-doers, and just seek to "make sure it doesn't happen again" you can guarantee that "it" will happen again in some form.

The power to impeach is of absolute necessity to maintaining our sovereignty. We delegated the power to initiate proceedings to the House, the body closest to and most responsive to "We the People." Bush and Cheney are violating the terms of our common contract. With her arrogant "off the table" edict, Pelosi has attempted to strip us of our enforcement power.

If she succeeds in her attempt by abusing her power as speaker to enforce her edict, she will have committed a violation more fundamentally devastating to the integrity of our constitutional democracy than teh horrors Bush and Cheney have wrought. Her abuse of power doeesn't just enable Bush and Cheney to continue their abuses. Her abuses tell the American people that they have no power. When people believe they have no power, fascists thrive. Anything goes. War crimes. Torture. Babies on spikes on the White House lawn.