Judge Roberts backlash

Yeah, right. Judges are appointed se bene geserit (while being well behaved), including Supreme Court justices. So you'd play hell getting an impeachment bill out of the House--no cause. Even in the hilariously unlikely event that the House did impeach a Justice, you need two thirds of the Senate to convict. Good luck, Bubba.

Unicorns could fly out of my ass this evening, too.

Article Three, Section One reads, in its entirety:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. (emphasis added)

What would the charge against Roberts be? Not voting in a politically correct manner? You're a barrel of laughs.

You don't think we could get two thirds of the Senate to get rid of John Roberts? You don't think most of the Democrats would vote "yes"? I certainly would, particularly after President Obama wins a second term and gets to name the replacement.

Most Democrats would love this outcome.

First, you have to have the idictment, and it has to have a plausible basis. Second, you have to have a trial which is more than a rush to dump the man. Finally, you have to have an assurance that it would not open the floodgates of polemic revenge visited on any justice or justices who were not politically correct in the view of whichever party controlled the House and the Senate. The so-called nuclear option to end debate in the Senate is called that because neither party wants to encourage the other party to use a point of order to end debate. The constitution allows the houses of Congress to make their own rules of order, so the Senate's requirement of a "super majority" of 60% to end debate is perfectly legal in the constitutional sense. Since 1957, on several occasions, party leaders in the Senate (the first example was Richard Nixon, the Vice President, acting as the President of the Senate) have threatened to use a point of order to bypass the Senate's own rule. However, that risks the other party moving to block all Senature business, and to block all nominations if the President is not from their party. The two parties have always understood that because of precedent, and the desire for political revenge, they dare not push to rules too far.

The same applies in this instance. (Yes, i did think about how much the Democrats would relish the opportunity to get a Chief Justice appointed by Mr. Obama.) If once a justice were removed on a frivolous pretext simply to get the opportunity to appoint someone else, no sitting justice would ever again be assured of keeping her or his seat on that bench.

In the end, though, for an impeachment to proceed, there must be a plausible pretext to indict. Pissing off the tea baggers does not constitute a plausible pretext to impeach a justice. Whether or not people here who are Democrats or have sympathies with the Democratic Party are willing to acknowledge it, Republicans in Congress do have their own notions of integrity and probity. They're not going to make the House a kangaroo court, and Democrats with the same sense of integrity and probity are not going to vote to convict a justice on a flimsy pretext.

I would only approve that if Obama was still president and could appoint a new Democrat Justice to make five justices.

BBB

I would never approve of such a low, partisan trick which undermines the balance of powers.

I hate when Setanta is all reasonable and stuff. Makes me think there is something wrong in the world when we agree on something.

It's a crap shoot, when you confirm a new judge. Replacing one with your own pick can backfire. That aside, it is wrong to want to impeach for partisan reasons and I think even those voicing the wish know that.

Roberts being a glaring case in point.

Remember Clinton and the house impeachment. What was that about a kangroo court?

I did a quick search on Wikipedia and it turns out the Clinton was not actually a supreme court judge.

What are the reasons we can only speak of among ourselves?

C'mon snood, if you're going to make a nasty accusation don't play coy...spit it out.

Denzel would never be such a punk.

Fortunately, few, if any, Democrat Senators are not so nakedly partisan as you.

They would never move to impeach Roberts, and it would be to their everlasting shame if they did

Dude, where do you get this "Denzel" shite from? You're not only a bitter desperate Republican gnashing your teeth at the prospect of 4 more years of Obama - you're nuts, too.

And if you were paying attention, I've already told you I think you're a backwards-assed racist 1000 times, so it shouldn't be hard to figure out what you will only speak to other bitter Republicans about. And who you calling a punk, you bad old cyber machoman you?

What is a far more likely political scenario and far less egregious would involve Justice Ginzburg retiring after an election which Obama loses and allowing a lame duck appointment.

She might yet do it before the election, just to make sure she gets replaced by another liberal.

If she were to wait until Obama lost, I doubt any Republican Senator would break ranks on a filibuster, but before the election? I'm not so sure.

I hope she has many years left in her life and her position, but the reality is that she may not be able to make it beyond a Romney first term, and assuming that she sincerely believe her judicial philosophy is what's best for the nation, it wouldn't be surprising to see her try to assure that it lives on in at least one seat.

It's a big deal of course. If Romney wins and Ginzburg can't last at least another four years (sadly, she looks very frail of late), he can cement a conservative court for years to come.

I hadn't been keeping up with this one... Are the demoKKKrats talking about impeaching Roberts now and, if so, wouldn't that be a bit like impeaching Pontius Pilate??

I mean, the Bible doesn't indicate that idea occurred to anybody.

Not really going to be a problem for Ginsburg, as Obama is pretty likely to win re-election here in four months. In large part because Romney is running an incompetent campaign that has, to date, not impacted Obama or his chances a single iota.

Cycloptichorn

No, they're not---at least I haven't heard such nonsense.

It's just The Red Max having a wet dream.

One more bet...what do you say?

Nope, I apparently have the Jinxy Mojo when I bet. I'm just going to stick with confident assertions this year.

Cycloptichorn