SCOTUS justices can be impeached can't they?

[solara]

To: U. S. Congress

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES

We the People of the United States, do hereby demand that our duly elected representatives in both houses of Congress, initiate impeachment proceedings against the following Supreme Court Justices:

John Roberts
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito

We, the undersigned, consider the strongly worded and remorseful dissents from the Supreme Court's conservative justices against the Supreme Court's recent ruling 5 to 4 in favor of Habeas Corpus rights for terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, among other equally reprehensible actions taken by these four right wing, reactionary justices, to be fascistic and even unlawful.

"Justice Antonin Scalia took the unusual step of summarizing his dissent from the bench, calling the court's decision a "self-invited ... incursion into military affairs," and was even stronger in a written dissent in which he was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. "America is at war with radical Islamists," Scalia wrote, adding that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Roberts filed a separate dissent, defending the alternative process to judicial hearings, calling them "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Be advised that We the People regard elected officials to be our public servants. Failure to take action against the Justices specified shall be considered support for their activist dissent and their continued attempts to dismantle the Constitution of the United States of America in the aforementioned case and others, and will result in our resolve to ensure your defeat in the next election.

Being from many different political and ideological spectra, we are united in our belief that the right of every human being to challenge and confront their captors is inalienable.

Sincerely,

Us



Or something like that ( patch worked together from many sources) Edited so as not to be too misleading

Just sayin' :shrug:


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[UrbScotty]

1. It's happened at least once

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

[jobycom]

2. They can be impeached, and possibly even removed more easily.

It's never been attempted to my knowledge, but justices do not serve for "life," as is commonly stated. They serve with no term restriction "on good behavior." That implies to me that they can be removed for failure of that good behavior, and while this is often interpreted as meaning they can be impeached, I believe it means they can be removed by the Senate's withdrawal of confirmation. Meaning, a simple majority.

It's never been done, I doubt anyone will try that unless the Republicans retake the senate.

But at worst, they can be impeached for failure to exercise "good behavior," which should mean good judicial behavior, not good personal behavior. Five should have been impeached for their political anti-judicial decision in Bush v Gore.

My observations, anyway.

[solara]

4. I agree with you and I think there was a movement in the 1950s to impeach Justice

Earl Warren. I am not sure what came of it though


:hi:

INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[terrya]

6. Yes. It was spearheaded by then Minority Leader Gerald Ford, I believe.

[onenote]

9. nope. that was william o douglas

There was never any formal attempt to impeach Earl Warren. Rather "impeach Earl Warren!" was a rallying cry for the loony right of the era, particularly the John Birch Society.

Ford got the House to hold some hearings into whether Douglas should be impeached. While it was clearly Douglas' liberal philosophy that motivated Ford, even he knew that Douglas couldn't be impeached for his opinions in court cases, so Ford tried to dredge up some evidence of financial improprieties by Douglas. The whole effort was a fiasco and the hearings ended, and the attempt to impeach Douglas terminated, without even bothering to take a vote.

[terrya]

13. Oops. My bad. You're right.

Thanks for the correction. You're exactly right.

[jgraz]

3. As much as I hate those four, impeaching a Justice for a dissent gives me the willies

And, there are better reasons to impeach them. Roberts, Alito and (especially) Thomas all likely perjured themselves during their confirmation hearings. Let's investigate that. Fat Tony has had some serious conflicts of interest on cases he's decided. Let's go after him on that.

Also, President Obama and his new majority in the Senate could just render them irrelevant by raising the number of SCOTUS members to 11, 13 or even 15. Let those four write their worthless dissents while the real law is handled by the adults.

[solara]

7. Exactly.. I was just using their dissent as a jumping off point

I agree that blatant perjury and serious conflict of interest are far more relevant.

:hi:

[Occam Bandage]

5. Those are my least favorite four justices. I cannot condone impeaching a Supreme Court justice

for dissenting on an opinion.

[solara]

11. As I said.. the dissents are just a jumping off point - they have committed far worse offenses

and their dissents against Habeas Corpus are just symptomatic of this administration's dangerous and too often victorious attempts to re-arrange our Constitution via a politicized judiciary..


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[Occam Bandage]

14. Removing justices for their legal opinions is counter to the very idea of rule of law.

[Virginia Dare]

15. Scalia is in collusion with his "friend" Dick Cheney..

he has not recused himself from many decisions effecting this administration directly. Most notably Cheney's energy task force decision. That, to me, is an impeachable act. Some of his political statements have been questionable to say the least as well.

[Occam Bandage]

20. "Some of his political statements have been questionable"

You're moving into McCarthyist territory. I do not condone taking the unprecedented act of impeaching a Supreme Court justice on basis of a disagreement on political and legal opinions.

[jobycom]

34. I agree they shouldn't be removed for legal or judicial decisions. However

there are times when a decision can violate law, or when a decision can be nonjudicial. An example would be a judge or justice ruling against precedence in favor of a relative, or against a group of people he dislikes for personal reasons. This can even at times violate law or rules of conduct.

In Bush v Gore, for instance, two justices had family conflicts with the team handling the Bush case--Scalia had a son working for Bush on the same case in Florida's court, and Thomas's wife worked on the Bush transition team. Both under normal circumstances should have recused themselves. Plus, most legal scholars considered the decision to be judicially weak, if not indefensible. Vincent Bugliosi in "None Dare Call it Treason" argued strongly that the decision was political, and had no judicial bases. In short, five justices, or at least three, had a political outcome they wanted, and created a legal case to defend that position. That's what an advocate does, not judge. He believed they should have been impeached.

In a case like that, where a decision is widely regarded as violating rules, and maybe even laws, of proper judicial conduct and procedure, do you think justices should be held to the Constitutional requirement for "good behavior?" (Justices serve "on good behavior," not for life).

I'm like you in that I don't want to see the Senate begin removing justices for decisions they don't like. That cuts both ways politically, and more importantly, undermines the sanctity of the judicial system. On the other hand, I don't think a Justice should be immune to job loss anxiety. To me, good behavior has little to do with ethics outside the courtroom, only with ethics inside. Bribery, special influences, non-judicial decisions, laziness, even a lack of respect or understanding for the judicial process. Someone like Thomas, for instance, who rarely bothers to write decisions, writes weak arguments when he does, and rarely asks questions from the bench.

I'm also not sure that the current system is what was meant by the Founders, nor that it is the best we could do. You know, of course, that the Constitution doesn't require nine justices. There have been fewer at times. FDR once proposed adding two, because the Court kept striking down the laws he signed, leading to the famous "switch in time to save Nine." The Supreme Court should fluctuate less than Congress or the presidency. On the other hand, it was not created for "life terms," and even if it had been, life terms in the day of its creation would not have averaged quite the terms we see now, where justices serve thirty years or more. I think the Court should have more frequent turnover, since society has more frequent turnover and change. I'm not saying we should impeach just to turn over members, but that a little more pressure on the Court from time to time might keep it a little more current, and a little less arrogant, and might make it more responsive to changing legal situations as well. Then again, make it too malleable, and it becomes another political body, and that makes things worse.

Just my long, rambling thoughts.

[onenote]

26. Scalia's refusal to recuse himself was not an impeachable act

Historically, judges and, particularly SCOTUS justices, have been given broad latitude in deciding whether to recuse themselves. There have been numerous instances where justices have not recused themselves in cases where recusal arguably would've been the more appropriate course. Going back to the early days of the nation, Chief Justice Marshall authored the opinion in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison even though that case concerned actions taken by Marshall himself when he was Secretary of State. Later on, Hugo Black famously declined to recuse himself in a case where a former law partner argued for the winning side. And Justice Tom Clark participated in the SCOTUS review of Truman's steel seizure, even though Clark, as Truman's attorney general, allegedly had advised Truman with regard to the legality of that action.

Personally, I think Scalia should've recused himself from the Cheney case, even though Cheney was sued in his official, not personal, capacity. But his failure to do so, by any historical measure, can't be viewed as impeachable. Many SCOTUS judges have been, in the past, advisors and personal friends of the presidents taht appointed them: Whizzer White (JFK) and William O Douglas (FDR) to name just two. And they didn't -- nor were they required to -- recuse themselves every time the administration that nominated them was sued in its official capacity.

[Romulox]

29. To put a slightly finer point on it, the decision to impeach, like the decision to recuse oneself

Is almost entirely in the discretion of the holder of the power. That is to say, failure to recuse oneself is an impeachable offense, if the House says it is...

[solara]

22. OK I will say it one more time

these four justices deserved to be removed from the bench for a variety of offenses against the Constitution, not just their legal opinions which are opinions, even though they carry weight. I was just starting with the dissent, which I feel is symptomatic of the larger problem, the systematic removal and destruction of our inalienable Rights as citizens under the banner of "War on Terrorism"


Just sayin'


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[Occam Bandage]

25. Those "variety of offenses" are legal opinions you disagree with.

That is not a valid reason to impeach a Supreme Court justice. They exist for judicial review; what you propose would turn the Court into nothing but a rubber stamp for the Senate.

[solara]

31. Yeah, I guess you are right..

Whatever the SCOTUS does is right .. it has to be right because there is no chance whatsoever that these four judges might already be a rubber stamp for the Bush administration.


I should be ashamed of myself for even questioning their opinions or their motives.. How wrong of me to think that maybe, just maybe Scalia's "Get over it" statement regarding SCOTUS appointing our President in 2000 was a kind of clue that they just might share a neocon agenda with their good pals in the White House.

I stand corrected.

[onenote]

17. Exactly

It was offensive and nutty when the John Birchers started screaming Impeach Earl Warren because they didn't like his opinions and when Gerald Ford tried to trump up an impeachment case against William O Douglas because he didn't like his opinions.

And it would be nutty and offensive to our system of government to attempt to impeach a federal judge -- SCOTUS or otherwise -- because we don't like the way that they vote in particular cases.

[Virginia Dare]

8. Dems need to make impeaching Scalia a priority..

when they get their 67 member majority...:kick:

[solara]

12. Yeppers.. I totally agree

:hi:

INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[Mr. Blonde]

19. For what exactly?

I mean I'm sure he has done some egregious things during his tenure on the court, but has it risen to the level of a blow job from a woman not his wife? I mean if it isn't at least that bad, can we not live and let live?

:sarcasm:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

21. Among other things

it came out in his confirmation hearing that "Fat Tony" Scalia had purchased property that contained a "no negroes, no Jews" transfer clause. Such clauses were, even at the time, de facto illegal.

There's a starting place.

[Romulox]

30. I don't see how buying a piece of property with an unenforceable covenant is an impeachable offense.

By very definition, it may not be enforced, and by very definition, Scalia was not the author of the repugnant clause (it "runs with the land" you see.)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

36. Scalia was already a judge

when he was nominated for a seat on SCOTUS. He was, if my recollection is correct, ALSO already a judge when he purchased the property in question.

The unenforcability of the provision does not matter. A judge, ANY judge, is commanded to "avoid the APPEARANCE of impropriety." Some have referred to it as the "Caesar's wife" standard.

By signing the covenants, Scalia clearly engaged in the APPEARANCE of impropriety. I add that signing such a covenant makes for actual impropriety, but you see the standard involved. When a judge signs such a covenant, he creates a clear appearance of bias against the persons named. It should've been enough to keep him off the Court, but the milquetoast lick-spittles in the Senate, most of whom probably had similar ethical breaches, confirmed him, to this nation's lasting detriment.

[Romulox]

38. A person does not "sign" covenants that run with the land

Nor is a person's assent necessary to enforce a restrictive covenant.

In other words, if there is a covenant that runs with the land, its enforceability or non-enforceability is not determined by whether a person signs or not, or whether he is a judge or not.

Your argument is the equivalent of arguing that no judge should reside in a state where slavery (or Jim Crow segregation) was once practiced...

[onenote]

33. do you have a link to the restrictive covenant story involving Scalia

I know that during Rehnquist's 1986 confirmation hearing as CJ it came out that he owned property with a restrictive covenant clause, but I don't recall that being the case for Scalia as well. Not saying it didn't happen, just that I can't find anything about it.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

35. Not off the top of my head

But it was fairly widely available at the time of his confirmation. A search should bring it up.

[mmonk]

10. Absolutely.

In fact, I read somewhere that the founding fathers had them in mind also when they came up with the concept. The founding fathers were very suspicious of concentrated power and the courts and Executive branch were where they saw most of the potential for that.

[Mr. Blonde]

18. I agree they were

worried about the Executive branch, but it is highly unlikely they were worried about the court.

In fact it was a worthless post for 10 years. Then John Marshall came up with judicial review and they had a purpose. Before that they didn't do much.

[mmonk]

28. Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804.

[DavidDvorkin]

16. It's probably off the table.

[dmosh42]

23. How about increase to eleven justices!

Roosevelt threatened to do that in the 30s when faced with some borderline decisions while he was fighting the depression.

[solara]

24. Now there's an idea!

INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[onenote]

27. and how well did that work out?

[TahitiNut]

32. "Impeach Earl Warrren!"

Growing up as a teen in the 50s, I don't think a week went by without seeing this signage. Brown v. Board of Education brought the racists and Birchers out of the woodwork.

That said, I'd LOVE to see Thomas, Scalia, and Alito impeached and removed from the Court ... for their outright Fascist ideologies.

[DCKit]

37. K&R for a civil and informative discussion. n/t