Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Impeach judge’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 27 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

The Senate would never vote to convict and the House would look like a bunch of sore losers on something that the American people are increasingly in favor of. If you're angry at a lack of stay, that's been denied by judges on several levels at this point. His decision was done at the speed both sides agreed to.

micawber
Centerville, UT

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that "[t]he President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' Judge Shelby has not committed any impeachable offense. He was called upon to make a decision, and he made it. That is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

If the State thinks Judge Shelby misapplied the law, its remedy is to appeal his decision. It has done so. Let's see how the Supreme Court rules on the stay issue and how the Tenth Circuit rules on the appeal.

I think the Deseret News, with its overly critical pieces about Judge Shelby, bears some responsibility for this kind of letter.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

"He based his decision on pre-trial proceedings without allowing the democratic process to play out"

What part of the "democratic process" are you expecting the judge to have honored? I think I must have missed part of the story. The purpose of the courts is to ensure that majorities don't deny minorities rights. It has failed horribly at times in the past of doing.... and has succeeded in other instances. But the exact goal of the courts is to prevent "democracy processes" from denying any group their rights.

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

This is reality Mona. This is the real world.
We work on a system of laws based on books of law, not other books.
Judge Shelby is doing noble work here.
Happy New Year.

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

"Activist" judge. That's funny. If the Governor didn't say that, nobody else would have.

Your guys Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch supported Shelby's appointment to the bench.
And I'll bet you would follow those two into battle.

Why are you so against equal rights? Or are you only for equal rights according to your OWN narrow beliefs?

PolishBear
Charleston, WV

It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

"...Even if Shelby were acquitted, impeachment proceedings would be a warning to other activist judges...".

Conservative activist judges are ok.

Other activist judges are not ok.

Ranch
Here, UT

Calm down, Mona.

Equal protection and due process are part of the US Constitution. Guess what, YOU never ever had the right to vote on Amendment 3 to begin with. The rights of others are NOT yours to vote away.

Turtles Run
Houston, TX

Mona

Exactly what has Judge Shelby done that warrants impeachment. The states have the right to regulate marriage but those laws must ultimately conform to the US Constitution. The Utah amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause and Judge Shelby had to strike down the law. You are the one that is advocating that Judge Shelby become an "activist" judge.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The judge was called upon to make a summary decision, and he did. In light of the law of the land, the outcome was all but pre determined. In the end, the will of the people was strengthened, as now each of us has a choice in the matter. Individual rights are a wonderful thing. Happy new year.

airnaut
Everett, 00

Judges are NOT supposed to edict the "will of the people".
which is precisely why Judges are Selected for Life terms...

So they don't have to look over their shoulders,
make back room deals, campaign, go to fund raisers,
hand out candy, kiss babies and
tell people exactly what they want to hear.

That is what ELECTED officials do.

Judges rule by LAW, not popular opinion.

BTW -- Impeaching someone just to send a message to other Judges is an abuse of power.
It's called Extortion.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"BTW -- Impeaching someone just to send a message to other Judges is an abuse of power.
It's called Extortion."

Absolutely correct. In addition it's whaaaa, whaaaaa, we lost again.

Sal
Provo, UT

Good letter, Mona. Judge Shelby ruled on the thinnest of proceedings not on the majority rulings of the Supreme Court.

isrred
South Jordan, UT

"He based his decision on pre-trial proceedings without allowing the democratic process to play out."
I'm sorry, but it was the STATE OF UTAH, not the plaintiffs that asked the Judge for a summary judgment without trial. He simply followed their wishes. They just didn't like the ruling.

Sal
Provo, UT

Tolerance is not an attribute of the Left. The Judge could have ruled in favor of civil unions for gays leaving the state of Utah with its right to define traditional marriage. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will uphold its own ruling that states have the right to define marriage.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@Sal --

"Hopefully, the Supreme Court will uphold its own ruling that states have the right to define marriage."

States do not have an UNRESTRICTED right to define marriage. All state laws must conform to the US Constitution.

If states could define marriage however they wished, then we would still have bans on interracial marriages. This is precisely what Loving v. Virginia was all about.

FreedomFighter41
Provo, UT

Does the right need more cheese with its whine today?

Anthropogus
Montgomery, AL

Mona - the public doesn't vote on "impeachment" of a federal judge, the U.S. House of Representatives votes and the Senate convicts. Which will not happen, nor should it. You are suggesting "mob rule", which is precisely what the Constitution prevents. You can not "impeach" a judge because you disagree with the outcome.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

We don't like Bill Clinton, let's impeach him!
We don't like Obamacare, let's shut-down the Government!
We don't like Judge Shelby's ruling, let's impeach him!

Something about the far-right-wing,
WE are the true patriots, who love the Constitution, and defend it,
rah-rah-rah!

and

we they don't have enough votes,
or
things aren't going their way,
impeach them all,
shut-it all down,
as we will Trample the Constitution --

[shaking my head]
...it's just is not adding up!

FreedomFighter41
Provo, UT

Where were all these repubs when "mob rule" was rejected on guns?

It's funny how the right flip flops even within a year!

Just a year ago we were a country ruled by law, not popular opinion.

Now, it appears that the law doesn't matter but whatever popular opinion is.

Which is it repubs?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments