If you had the Oklahoma Supreme Court judges in the “who will the Republicans demand be impeached next” pool, please come down to collect your winnings. Seven of the judges on the court agreed that the Ten Commandments monument at the state capitol violated the state constitution, so naturally they have to go.
Oklahoma Republican representatives Tuesday called for judicial reform and the impeachment of seven Oklahoma Supreme Court justices who ruled that the 10 Commandments statue be removed from the Oklahoma Capitol, according to a news release.
The representatives who support impeachment are Kevin Calvey, Oklahoma City; John Bennett, Sallisaw; Casey Murdock, Felt; Lewis Moore, Edmond; Dan Fisher, Yukon; and George Faught, Muskogee. Mike Sanders, Kingfisher, supports judicial reform but not impeachment.
“Our state Supreme Court is playing politics by issuing rulings contrary to the Constitution, and contrary to the will of the clear majority of Oklahoma voters,” Calvey said in the release. “These Supreme Court justices are nothing more than politicians in black robes, masquerading as objective jurists. This ruling is the Court engaging in judicial bullying of the people of Oklahoma, pure and simple. It is time that the people chose jurists, rather than letting a tiny special interest group of lawyers at the Oklahoma Bar Association dictate who can and can’t be a judge.
As usual, the argument here is incoherent and self-contradictory. Oh, the court is “playing politics”? Then let’s make them elected officials rather than appointed because having to be elected totally prevents them from “playing politics.”
“It is becoming increasingly clear that the term ‘judicial independence’ has become a liberal code phrase for ‘undemocratic liberal dictatorial powers,’” Calvey said. “It is sad that the once-worthy concept of ‘judicial independence’ has been perverted by those engaging in politics from the bench.”
Yeah, it’s just a liberal code phrase. Used by liberals like, oh, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78, in which he said that if the judiciary is not independent, the whole idea of protecting individual rights “would amount to nothing.”
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Don’t you love how conservatives claim to practically worship the founding fathers and the Constitution but know almost nothing about them?