Carson Wants Pro-Equality Justices Impeached Too

Ben Carson is jumping aboard the right-wing bandwagon demanding that any Supreme Court justice who joins a ruling that allows gay people to get married be impeached. And he demonstrates his total ignorance of the Constitution and of the role of judges in it.

“Some people think that I hate gay people, that I’m a homophobe; I’m not,” Carson said. “Jesus Christ was not a homophobe. Jesus Christ loved everybody regardless of their lifestyle but he offered them other ways to do things. It’s a free country, people can do what they want to do, but they don’t get to change the definition of marriage, which is between one man and one woman. I’m concerned by the fact that we’re not paying attention to the Constitution the way we should.”

Carson said that Congress should exercise its “right to rein in judges who don’t abide by the will of the people,” adding that “what we the people have got to do is insist that Congress carry out their duties.”

Dunning and Kruger, call your office. The Constitution does not say that Congress has a “right to rein in judges who don’t abide by the will of the people.” In fact, judges are specifically and intentionally empowered to not “abide by the will of the people.” That’s the whole reason we have judicial review and lifetime appointments for judges, so they “will of the people” cannot influence their decisions. The founding fathers intentionally designed it that way and, as Federalist 78 argues, without such judicial independence, the entire scheme of individual rights protected by the constitution would be irrelevant.

And all this talk of impeaching judges is patently ridiculous. Only one Supreme Court justice in the entire history of the country has ever been impeached, Samuel Chase in 1804, and he was acquitted by the Senate. We didn’t impeach justices who voted for Dred Scot or for Plessy v Ferguson. We didn’t impeach a single justice for allowing the Japanese internment camps or for allowing the total suspension of the First Amendment during World War I. But they want justices impeached for allowing gay people to get married? This is bullshit on roller skates.

Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mr Ed

    So what happens after five justices are impeached, convicted and removed from office. Obama gets to pick five new people to take their place including a younger RBG and a more liberal Kennedy. If you want to be president you have to think more than one step ahead.

  • eric

    Jesus Christ loved everybody regardless of their lifestyle but he offered them other ways to do things.

    He offered them voluntary ways to do things. He hung out with prostitutes and forgave them their sins, but he didn’t demand the Romans create laws keeping/making prostitution illegal.

    Though I am sympathetic to the argument that Congress doesn’t exercise their powers. IMO they’ve delegated (tacitly or intentionally) too much discretionary power to the executive branch when it comes to war-making and espionage. They frankly should’ve slapped the executive silly over CIA spying on the Senate.

  • blf

    This is bullshit on roller skates.

    Nah, shite — be it bull’s, hedgehogs’s, or other’s (even fundie’s) — mounted a rollerskate probably will go somewhere, leaving a trail, before crashing and (hopefully) being cleaned up and disposed of properly. This nutter’s claim is more like a plush toy on a roller skate stuck in a pile of bullshite. It ain’t going nowhere, the whole mess smells, and is perhaps best burnt.

    Also, the plush toy is smarter.

  • Hoosier X

    But but but …

    It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It says so in the bibble.

    It’s probably right next to “marriage has been defined as “one man and one woman” for thousands of years.”

    And “If men came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    THE CONSTITUTION HAS CHECKS AND BALANCES TO ENSURE THAT THE LEGISLATIVE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICAIRY BRANHCES OF GOVERNMENT DONT HAVE ENOUGH POWER TO DISAGREE WITH ME!!!

  • scienceavenger

    Some people think that I hate gay people, that I’m a homophobe;

    I’ll bet even more people think you don’t know what “homophobe” means. HINT: Racist slaveowners didn’t hate their slaves, yet racists they were.

  • Alverant

    Wasn’t the definition of marriage changed in 1982 when the USSC said laws considering the husband as head of the household were unconstitutional? Also Carson, if you don’t hate homosexuals why are you trying to deny them the same rights you enjoy?

  • caseloweraz

    Poor Ben! He seems to be caught between a rock (reality) and the hard Right. If he toes the wingnut line, he looks ridiculous to the rest of us. If he veers away from it, they blast him as not pure enough. As Ed said, he can’t win.

  • reasonbe

    bullshit on roller skates. I like that.

  • dhall

    “It’s a free country, people can do what they want to do, but they don’t get to change the definition of marriage . . .”

    So . . . it’s a free country, but only for people who agree with you. I’m just taking a break from grading final papers. If a student had written that in my critical thinking class, his/her passing grade for that paper would have been in big trouble. But then, I expect a modicum of logic or at least internal consistency.

  • anubisprime

    Like a kiddy spitting the dummy because he can’t get his way!

    Just childish spite and hubris….and all this resentment, is all presumption anyway.

    One might conclude that the wingnuts have given up the quest to actually stop the vote, but having decided that the die is cast, they have surely consulted legal advice as to the likely outcome, hence their despair, desperation, and obvious meltdowns witnessed the last few days!

    They think they are on the losing side, so most seem to be circling wagons or working hard to establish a fallback position, they are for all intents and purposes retreating from the trenches.

    …..not sure that will fly, but that will not stop them trying, after all they have fuck all else going for them!

    But in the main they are all spitting that dummy and blurting out the most ridiculous. obnoxious trash….quite funny really. if it were not for the actual seriousness of the situation.

  • Anri

    According to the bible, Jesus said he supported and would fulfill Old Testament law. So regardless of ‘love’ or not, Jesus’ ‘other way of doing things’ for gay people was for them to be hit with rocks until dead.

    I’m frankly quite tired of having to know the content of a book better than people who claim to revere it above all else and use it as their guide to all things.