17
   

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

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 07:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Please tell us about this mystical case where a dissenting SC Justice overruled the majority
hawkeye10 wrote:
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.
To WHICH judges has this ever happened ???????????
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 07:06 pm
@Thomas,
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. Give it time and inequality will certainly set in and the tinderbox is ready for a spark. Giving corporations the vote is not interpreting the US Constitution but undermining the US Constitution. The Supreme Court decision on Civil Rights in accordance with democracy as it was giving rights to black minorities who were denied rights by the white majority. Your view of democracy seems to deny blacks their rights.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 07:09 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

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.
Laughing So naturally you quoted a guy babbling about impeaching a SC Justice. Pretty clear who the idiot is.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 07:40 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
In Texas, judges are elected.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 08:09 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
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.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 08:16 pm
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:
There was a French Revolution that fought for Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. An American Revolution was fought for the same reason.

Technically, the American slogan was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I agree the slogans are similar, but the American one already sounds a little less left-wing. In particular, notice the absence of "equality", the concept you later dwell on.

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.
OCCOM BILL
 
  3  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 08:31 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

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.
Laughing Your inability to express yourself (even in fantasies like this) is the product of your own idiocy. Failure to get elected Not Equal impeachment to people who understand both terms. Please enlighten us as to what you think the grounds for impeachment here.

And, even in Texas, judges swear an oath to uphold the constitution, whether it be popular or not. Their duty is to uphold the law, not the majority whim. The fantasy you failed to express fails on both sides, anyway.

(And this clown thinks he’s teaching a class. Laughing)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 08:37 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas, You amaze me with your knowledge about US Constitution and politics. I've been a citizen of this country my whole 75 years of live, and I'm learning American politics from you!

This is what I love about a2k; it's both really entertaining and educational. I hope this balance is never lost.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2010 08:47 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
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.
Irrelevant indeed, but I'd quibble with your use of the words "expanded" and "decades" in that the court merely restored a right that had been developed over centuries, beginning, IMO, with Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  5  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 07:55 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

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.

You are a special kind of a dumb-ass.

Yes, this thread is about impeaching SCOTUS justices, and yet you oddly divert discussion to lower court judges without mentioning your diversion, then claim those that didn't understand you had done that are idiots. "Impeachment" is a particular process to oust someone from their office -- WHEN SOMEONE LOSES AN ELECTION THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY'VE BEEN IMPEACHED. That's true whether they are a judge or some other elected official.

And if you are alluding to lower court federal judges being "impeached at election time," then you have certainly placed the idiot spotlight squarely upon yourself.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 09:26 am
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
WHEN SOMEONE LOSES AN ELECTION THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY'VE BEEN IMPEACHED
I am not aware that judges can be removed from office through an impeachment process, so the discussion here is rhetorical in the first place....however, there is no practical difference between removing a judge at election time for the offense of offending the majority and removing through impeachment for the same reason. Regardless we are talking about demanding that judges rule consistent with the appetites of the people, we are finding that more important than any legal standard of fitness for office.

"
Quote:
Impeachment" is a particular process to oust someone from their office
Your lack of command of the English language is not my problem.
Quote:
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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impeach
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 11:37 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I am not aware that judges can be removed from office through an impeachment process...

Then why are you participating in a thread about the impeachment of judges?
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 11:51 am
@joefromchicago,
Hawkeye10, for your information:

Can a US Supreme Court justice be impeached and removed from office?
In: US Constitution, Supreme Court, US Congress

Yes.

Under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice is awarded a lifetime commission.

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.

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.

In addition, any federal judge may prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.

In the United States, impeachment is most often used to remove corrupt lower-court federal judges from office, but it's not unusual to find disgruntled special interest groups circulating petitions on the internet calling for the impeachment of one or all members of the High Court.

The Impeachment Process

Impeachment is a two-step process; the impeachment phase is similar to a Grand Jury hearing, where charges (called "articles of impeachment") are presented and the House of Representatives determines whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a trial. If the House vote passes by a simple majority, the defendant is "impeached," and proceeds to trial in the Senate.

The House of Representatives indicts the accused on articles of impeachment, and, if impeached, the Senate conducts a trial to determine the party's guilt or innocence.

The Senate trial, while analogous to a criminal trial, only convenes for the purpose of determining whether a Justice, the President (or another officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment.

At the trial a committee from the House of Representatives, called "Managers," act as the prosecutors. Per constitutional mandate (Article I, Section 3), the Chief Justice of the United States (Supreme Court) must preside over the Senate trial of the President. If any other official is on trial, an "Impeachment Trial Committee" of Senators act as the presiding judges to hear testimony and evidence against the accused, which is then presented as a report to the remained of the Senate. The full Senate no longer participates in the hearing phase of the removal trial. This procedure came into practice in 1986 when the Senate amended its rules and procedures for impeachment and has been contested by several federal court judges, but the Supreme Court has declined to interfere in the process, calling the issue a political, not legal, matter.

At the conclusion of the trial, the full Senate votes and must return a two-thirds Super Majority for conviction. Convicted officials are removed from office immediately and barred from holding future office. The Senate trial, while analogous to a criminal trial, only convenes for the purpose of determining whether a Justice, the President (or another officeholder) should be removed from office on the basis of the evidence presented at impeachment.

Impeachment and Near Impeachment

Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June 1811.

In 1957, at the height of McCarthyism, the Georgia General Assembly passed a joint resolution calling for "The Impeachment of Certain U.S. Supreme Court Justices" believed to be enabling Communism with their decisions. The resolution targeted Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom Campbell Clark, Felix Frankfurter, and Stanley Forman Reed (as well as several unnamed deceased Justices) for "...[usurping] the congressional power to make law in violation of Article I, Sections I and 8, and violated Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment and nullified the 10th Amendment of the Constitution."
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 12:43 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BBB, That spells it out pretty clearly. Thx.
I think most of us had that impression; after all, our country is based on laws.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 03:23 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
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.

That's simply not true. The Article II standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" for impeachment applies only to Article II "civil officers," including the president and vice-president. Article III, which applies to the judiciary, sets up a different standard. If the drafters of the constitution had meant for the same standard to apply to judges, they could have very easily said so -- but they didn't. "Good behaviour," therefore, means something different from "high crimes and misdemeanors." And others agree. For instance:

Quote:
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.

I think that's correct: while it's pretty clear that an executive officer can only be removed for bribery, treason, or some other comparable crime (under the rule of ejusdem generis), a judge can be removed simply for behaving badly. The standard of "good behaviour," in other words, is broader than "high crimes and misdemeanors," and there is no requirement that judges can only be impeached on grounds that they violated some law. Indeed, the constitution isn't even clear that judges need to be impeached in order to be removed from office -- although the precedent for impeaching judges was set in the early 19th century, when many of the drafters of the constitution were still alive. Suffice it to say that this is not a settled question of constitutional interpretation.

Consequently, if we want to ask whether a supreme court justice should be impeached for misinterpreting the constitution, it isn't sufficient to answer that misinterpreting the constitution doesn't amount to a crime. That's not the correct standard. Instead, the question should be whether misinterpreting the constitution is equivalent to the kind of "bad behavior" that the drafters were thinking of when they made judicial tenure contingent on the judges' continued "good behaviour."

Frankly, I don't see any constitutional basis for why it shouldn't be. A judge's job, after all, is to interpret the law. If the judge isn't doing that, then what more reason does the legislature need to fire that judge? And it isn't enough to say that the supreme court is in charge of interpreting the constitution, so it's in the best position to say whether its justices are interpreting the constitution correctly. There's nothing in the constitution that says that the judicial branch has a monopoly on interpreting the constitution, and the executive and legislative branches are co-equal with the judiciary. Congress, consequently, is perfectly within its rights to say to a justice: "that may be what you think the constitution says, but we beg to differ."
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 04:08 pm
@joefromchicago,
joe, That seems pretty nebulous, but I wonder if and when congress will ever bring charges against any SC judge based on not "good behavior?"

Will they even consider "high crimes and misdemeanors" as a threshold?
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 05:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You're asking what congress will do as opposed to what it can do or should do. Honestly, I don't think congress has the courage to impeach a federal judge who, it believes, is misinterpreting the constitution. On the other hand, I think it's clear that there's nothing in the constitution that prevents congress from doing so.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 05:29 pm
@joefromchicago,
Unless I grotesquely misremember something, conservative members of Congress tried to impeach associate justice Douglas twice. Both attempts failed, though not because of constitutional obstacles. Also, none of the would-be impeachers stated misinterpretations of the constitution as the official reason to throw him out of his office.

(As an aside: The more I learn about Douglas, the more I like him. It's a shame his term didn't overlap with Scalia's---the conflicting dissents would have been fun.)
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 05:36 pm
@Thomas,
Lots of folks wanted to impeach Earl Warren back in the 1950s and '60s, but it never went much farther than the billboard phase:

http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/tdgh-may/Impeach%20Earl%20Warren%20Sign.jpg

The first time congress tried to impeach a supreme court justice, however, it was mostly for political reasons.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Oct, 2010 05:38 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas, You have a pretty good memory. Here's something from Wiki:
Quote:
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]
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/26/2022 at 06:24:58