The Supreme Court must accept certain kinds of cases for review.

[galtgulch]

As we have all come to know the Supreme Court of the United States may pick and choose which cases brought to its attention for review it will actually hear.

I gather the nine have to cast a vote as to whether to hear a case or not.

But are there certain kinds of cases which are thought to be in a category which demands that they be heard?

As I understand it it is the purpose of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution and the Amendments to it. IF that is the case then if a case is brought to it which rests on a portion of the United States Constitution which has never been adjudicated, where the SCOTUS has never rendered an opinion as to its meaning in the past, then it would be the case that the SCOTUS must accept such a case for review in order to render an opinion so that the citizenry will understand how to properly interpret the Constitution.

A case was recently brought before the SCOTUS which it refused to hear. It continued to refuse to hear it on appeal of its initial refusal. This despite the argument in the appeal that it would be considered to be treason for it to refuse! In fact, because of the SCOTUS' refusal it now stands open to a charge of TREASON!

As I understand it all that is necessary would be for a courageous Congressman to bring a charge of TREASON against the SCOTUS for an impeachment process to begin. It is not entirely clear to me but I think in that case it would be the U.S. Senate which would sit in judgment.

The case involves the petitions submitted to Congress, both houses, by the We THe People Foundation. They can be found and read in detail at www.GiveMeLiberty.org including all the charges, injunctions, appeals which ensued.

The petitions were met with silence and a court injunction forbidding the petitioner from continuing to circulate his petitions, and it add insult to injury, a charge of illegal tax evasion scheme!

The petitioner refers to the Magna Carta, which is evidently not considered to be part of the Law of the land hereabouts. Towards the very end of the Magna Carta you will find the following:

>>>"* (61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:

The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.

If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us."<<<

The process by which ""the offence is made known" and "to declare it and claim immediate redress" is well known to the Founders of America who made use of petitions to King George of England many times. It was so important to them that they included the right to petition in the very First Amendment to the Constitution in the last ten words of it. The Supreme Court of the United States has never in its history ever commented on those last ten words of the First Amendment.

I am unaware that anyone has ever submitted a petition for redress of grievances to our own government until now either but I am a product of the public schools and remain quite ignorant of many things.

Let the Impeachment proceedings for High Treason begin!

Wm

aka galt

[galtgulch]

A case was recently brought before the SCOTUS which it refused to hear. It continued to refuse to hear it on appeal of its initial refusal. This despite the argument in the appeal that it would be considered to be treason for it to refuse! In fact, because of the SCOTUS' refusal it now stands open to a charge of TREASON!

As I understand it all that is necessary would be for a courageous Congressman to bring a charge of TREASON against the SCOTUS for an impeachment process to begin. It is not entirely clear to me but I think in that case it would be the U.S. Senate which would sit in judgment.

Let the Impeachment proceedings for High Treason begin!

Wm

aka galt

I found this post on www.dailypaul.com

"Under the Constitution, Supreme Court justices can be removed from the Court only by first being impeached by a *majority* vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a *two-thirds* vote of the Senate.

While it's *possible* that all of them could be impeached at the same time, well....not likely, I think, based on nothing less than the fact that you probably couldn't get a majority of the House to vote in favor of impeaching even one without some irrefutable proof of egregious corruption.

Then there's that whole idea that they're all committing "treason" at the same time by choosing not to hear a case; trying to win the Congress over to that one will be tough....I don't think you're going to get any traction on this, but I wish you luck if you believe in it."

The real question is how important is it to get the Supreme Court to review and interpret something which has a clear meaning to any rational person. What would it mean if they acknowledge that a citizen has the right to petition? Who would answer the grievance? Each Congressman who voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq? The petition only asks for the Congressman to "admit or deny." Maybe that is why the SCOTUS refused to hear the case!

See for yourself by reading the petitions at www.GiveMeLiberty.org

Wm

aka galt