Shouldn't we try and remove a Supreme Court Justice?

[icymist]

It's just a thought. I saw today on the 'breaking news' section of conservatives trying to remove judges because they judged in favor of the Gay marriage issue. Shouldn't us Liberals, then, in a counter move, begin proceedings to remove Thomas or Scalia for their equally biased rulings in the 2000 election? Mind you, not biased on the Gay issue, but in a idealogical, political, and (election fixing) way?!

I found this on MSN's (puke) Encarta encyclopedia:

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States.html

"Justices serve lifetime appointments. Under the Constitution they can be removed from the Court only by first being impeached (accused) by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. There is no precise standard for determining whether a justice has committed an impeachable offense, though the consensus is that removal should be for criminal or ethical lapses, not for partisan political reasons. No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached. In 1805 Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in the House by his political enemies, but the Senate failed to convict when it became apparent that Chase’s opponents were after him not because he had committed any wrongdoing but because they disagreed with his decisions."

I know that MSN isn't the last word in legal affairs, but this is what we are teaching our children with!

So. What do you think? One of ours for one of theirs? Even if it doesn't work, just to put the heat up? Like THEY are doing?

[WI_DEM]

1. Scalia would be a prime choice

especially if he doesn't recuse (is that how you spell it?) in the Cheney case.

[mstrsplinter326]

2. It's a hard sell

Because the democratic party leaders have no back bone. If they did it wouldn't even be an issue. If Kerry or ANYONE (Dean, Liberman, Edwards) would go after Bush on his desertion, tax breaks, civil rights, then we wouldn't have to worry about judges.

But who am I kidding, we can't even rally support to save our own circuit court judges.

[icymist]

6. Yeah, It's a hard sell. Look at it like this:

While a project like this would turn up the heat on the Repub's (i.e. running to defend their judge, his decisions, etc....) they would either escalate or drop the frivolous attempts to oust judges that make pro-Gay decisions. Meanwhile, just think of all the bad press drawn to the attention of precedent setting story about the Supreme Court!

[onehandle]

3. Republican Congress.

Not a chance.

Bush and Scalia could beat a Girl Scout to death on live TV and no Republican would raise a finger.

[jono]

4. No

"There is no precise standard for determining whether a justice has committed an impeachable offense, though the consensus is that removal should be for criminal or ethical lapses, not for partisan political reasons. No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached."

on edit: I suppose you could make a case for Scalia's "ethical lapses," but it ain't gonna happen. Let's focus on the WH and Congress instead.

[Leilani]

5. Tiny problem with your scenario

The Repubs are in control of the House & the Senate.

[icymist]

7. Yeah. And the Repub's have used such to their advantage in past.

We have to try harder. So far all the attempts have been "Let's look at sensibable ways of thinking" from the Dems. I think we should counter with some wildcards.

[theboss]

8. The standard has never been faulty legal reasoning

Impeaching a judge should be reserved for severe ethical lapses, but for poor judgment. I think this is true of "liberal" judges or "conservative" judges." Because once we start down this path, it's open season on the judiciary, the rule of law means nothing, and we are three steps away from Thunderdome.

I don't agree with Scalia 95 percent of the time (though I have to admit that I love reading his decisions), but unless you can find a $250,000 deposit in his account from the Halliburton, Corp. this is going nowhere.

And, no, I don't consider his hunting with Cheney as an ethical lapse rising to the level of impeachment. Censure maybe.

[icymist]

9. A start down this path is a warning.

It's a fire across the bow of the Repub's. It's also the way that the Repub's are playing (against) us! We should look REAL close at their judges. It may be the only way we can fire back.

[theboss]

10. It also puts the integrity of the entire judicial system at risk

One major area I've disagreed with the Dems in the last two years is the treatment of judicial appointees. I don't think the process should be politicized in any way, shape or form.

[gottaB]

11. I strongly disagree--especially regarding the SCOTUS

Where is the political check on judicial power if not in the Congress?

Impeach Scalia

[theboss]

13. The appointment/impeachment process

There frankly shouldn't be a "political" check on judges.

Here is how we should decide judges:

1. Are they qualified?
2. Are they experienced?
3. Do they have a record that shows fairness and respect for the law?
4. Are they ethical?

That's it; that's the list. And - to be honest - I've felt Republicans treated Clinton's appointees to the bench better than we have.

I may, of course, have been born in the wrong century.

[icymist]

14. Bless you gottaB. Please read

what this citizen has to offer.

[icymist]

12. And what the Repub's are doing; have done; aren't?

If judicial appointees are not politicized, then why the highly biased vote in 2000? Frankly, the Supreme Court had no business deciding a Presidential election that was being decided in A SINGLE STATE! If that isn't politicized, then I don't know what is. Anyway, what I'm saying here is that we need to go after the Repub's and counter that they're going after OUR judges.

[Gothmog]

15. If Kerry wins

He will get several picks fairly early on. Ginsberg and Stevens are holding on waiting for a democrat. Rehnquist and Sandra Day both want to retire soon.

It takes control of congress to impeach a supreme court justice. Unless we win control of the House, then this is not possible. Hearings could be held on Scalia's refusal to recuse himself but the only way to remove him is by the impeachment route.

[icymist]

16. No! Not control of the House. Sway of the House.

Believe me man! If enough Repub's feel a conscience, than this will happen.

[Peregrine]

17. Repus tried it several times with Douglas

They tried to impeach William Douglas several times once for issuing a stay of execution in the Rosenberg case, once led by Gerald Ford due to Douglas' outspoken opposition to the Vietnam war and his marriage to a much younger women, and several other times.

I fully expect if Bush wins in November, the repubs will go after Ginsberg for her "unethical" relationship with women's health groups.