I wish the American people had the will to impeach the conservative members of the Supreme Court.

Please tell us about this mystical case where a dissenting SC Justice overruled the majority

You are an idiot always...I was talking about efforts to remove lower court judges who have offended the majority of the people with their disregard of majority rights...and thus are facing removal from the bench by way of the vote at election time.

Quote:

Please tell us about this mystical case where a dissenting SC Justice overruled the majority

You are an idiot always...I was talking about efforts to remove lower court judges who have offended the majority of the people with their disregard of majority rights...and thus are facing removal from the bench by way of the vote at election time.

So naturally you quoted a guy babbling about impeaching a SC Justice. Pretty clear who the idiot is.

There was a French Revolution that fought for Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. An American Revolution was fought for the same reason.

Giving Corporations the vote is creating a class of economic aristocrats and the breeding ground for a revolution in the making

Quote:

So naturally you quoted a guy babbling about impeaching a SC Justice. Pretty clear who the idiot is.

Look, I realize that you are a special needs student, but I really dont have time to be your aid today..

This thread is about impeaching SCOTUS chair holders for their rulings, CI was saying that talk of this will go no where, and I was pointing out that there is already significant evidence that lower court bench holders are effectively being impeached at election time. The inference being that perhaps the call to impeach SCOTUS bench holders would be a dog that hunts.

Kindly attempt to keep up with the class.

talk7200 wrote:

Giving Corporations the vote is creating a class of economic aristocrats and the breeding ground for a revolution in the making

Maybe it would, but that's irrelevant: In the case of Citizens United, the Supreme Court didn't give corporations the vote. Rather, it affirmed and expanded their right to free speech. The court had already established this right through several decades' worth of earlier decisions. Even justice Stevens, in his dissent to the court's Citizens-United decision, only disagreed about the scope of the right. He never questioned that corporations have free-speech rights in principle.

Quote:

So naturally you quoted a guy babbling about impeaching a SC Justice. Pretty clear who the idiot is.

Look, I realize that you are a special needs student, but I really dont have time to be your aid today..

This thread is about impeaching SCOTUS chair holders for their rulings, CI was saying that talk of this will go no where, and I was pointing out that there is already significant evidence that lower court bench holders are effectively being impeached at election time. The inference being that perhaps the call to impeach SCOTUS bench holders would be a dog that hunts.

Kindly attempt to keep up with the class.

WHEN SOMEONE LOSES AN ELECTION THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY'VE BEEN IMPEACHED

Impeachment" is a particular process to oust someone from their office

im·peach   /ɪmˈpitʃ/ Show Spelled
[im-peech]

–verb (used with object)
1. to accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.
2. Chiefly Law . to challenge the credibility of: to impeach a witness.
3. to bring an accusation against.
4. to call in question; cast an imputation upon: to impeach a person's motives.
5. to call to account

I am not aware that judges can be removed from office through an impeachment process...

Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices "during good behavior." "The phrase "good behavior" has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness 'high crimes and misdemeanors" encompasses.

Even though a Supreme Court justice is appointed to serve a lifetime term, he or she can still be impeached if they do not hold the office during "good behavior," as Article III, Section 1of the Constitution says.

Though the Constitution does not specifically define, "good behavior," it does specify the guidelines for invoking impeachment proceedings for a president, vice president, or other civil officer. Since justices are civil officers, these guidelines are often interpreted as one in the same.

"There is no definition of good behavior," said Jonathan R. Siegel, a professor of law at George Washington University Law School. "I think it is generally believed that that standard is somewhat broader than otherwise stated."

Siegel said that the broadness of the term "good behavior" allows for a judge to be removed because of something other than a crime, although to date, none have.

Impeachment attempts
Question book-new.svg
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2010)

There were two attempts to remove Douglas from office, both unsuccessful.
[edit] Rosenberg case

On June 17, 1953, Representative William M. Wheeler, infuriated by Douglas's brief stay of execution in the Rosenberg case, introduced a resolution to impeach Justice Douglas. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee to investigate the charges the next day. On July 7, the committee voted to end the investigation.
[edit] Parvin Foundation

Justice Douglas maintained a busy speaking and publishing schedule to supplement his income. Douglas became severely burdened financially due to a bitter divorce and settlement with his first wife. He only sank deeper into financial difficulties as settlements with his second and third wives consumed much of his salary as an Associate Justice.[citation needed]

Douglas's steps to supplement his income included the unusual move of becoming president of the Parvin Foundation. His ties with the foundation (which was financed by the sale of the infamous Flamingo Hotel by casino financier and foundation founder Albert Parvin), became a prime target for then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford. Besides being personally disgusted by Douglas's allegedly illicit lifestyle,[citation needed] Representative Ford was also mindful that Douglas protégé Abe Fortas was forced to resign because of ties to a foundation similar to the Parvin.[18] Fortas would later say that he "resigned to save Douglas," thinking that the dual investigations into them would stop with his resignation.[18]

Some scholars[19][20] have argued that Ford's impeachment attempt was politically motivated. Those who support this contention note Ford's well-known disappointment with the Senate over the failed nominations of Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell to succeed Fortas. Thus, in April 1970, Congressman Ford moved to impeach Douglas in an attempt to hit back at the Senate. Despite careful maneuvering by House Judiciary Chairman Emanuel Celler and an apparent lack of proof of any criminal conduct on the part of Douglas (efforts by Attorney General John N. Mitchell and the Nixon administration to gather evidence to the contrary not withstanding),[21] Congressman Ford moved forward in the first major attempt to impeach a Supreme Court Justice in the modern era.

The hearings began in late April 1970. Congressman Ford was the main witness, and attacked Douglas's "liberal opinions," his "defense of the 'filthy' film" I Am Curious (Yellow), and his ties with the aforementioned Parvin. Additionally, Douglas was criticized for accepting $350 for an article he wrote on folk music in the magazine Avant Garde. The magazine's publisher had served a prison sentence for the distribution of another magazine in 1966 that had been deemed pornographic. Describing Douglas' article, Ford stated, "The article itself is not pornographic, although it praises the lusty, lurid, and risqué along with the social protest of left-wing folk singers." Ford also attacked Douglas for his article in Evergreen Magazine, which was infamous for its proclivity for pictures of naked women. The Republican congressmen, however, refused to give the majority Democrats copies of the magazines, prompting Congressman Wayne Hays to remark "Has anybody read the article -- or is everybody over there who has a magazine just looking at the pictures?"[22]

When it became clear that the impeachment proceedings would be unsuccessful, they were brought to a close and no public vote on the matter was taken.[23] The effort to impeach Douglas and the struggles over the Fortas, Haynesworth, and Carswell nominations marked the beginning of a more partisan climate during the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominees.[citation needed]