July 25, 2007 9:48 AM
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who chaired the committee hearings on Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, said yesterday that he intends to
investigate whether the Court's newest Justices "lived up" to their promises during those hearings to respect
stare decisis.
The Chief Justice told Senators during his hearings that "I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness." His remarks were echoed by Justice Alito, who said that "there needs to be a special justification for overruling a prior precedent."
Senator Specter said that he was moved to examine the new Justices' records after a recent conversation he had with Justice Breyer. In that conversation, Breyer told Specter that there were eight closely divided cases last Term in which the new Justices voted to overturn or substantially limit existing precedent.
Supreme Court proves to be ally for Bush
"For the (SCOTUS), this will be remembered as the year of intellectual dishonesty."
Kerry on Supreme Court Ruling on School Diversity
On the SCOTUS' repeal of 100-year-old antitrust lawAny more evidence needed that Alito and Roberts have not "'lived up' to their promises"?
Edited to add, maybe it's time to consider the power of Congress:
1801-1850
November 30, 1804
Samuel Chase
On November 30, 1804, for the third time in its brief history, the Senate began an impeachment trial. The first trial in 1798 and 1799 had involved a senator previously expelled on grounds of treason. Because that senator no longer served, the Senate dismissed the case citing lack of jurisdiction. The second trial, in 1804, removed a federal judge for reasons of drunkenness and probable insanity. More than the first two proceedings, however, third trial challenged the Senate to explore the meaning of impeachable crimes.
Samuel Chase had served on the Supreme Court since 1796. A staunch Federalist and a volcanic personality, Chase showed no willingness to tone down his bitter partisan rhetoric after Jeffersonian Republicans gained control of Congress in 1801. Representative John Randolph of Virginia orchestrated impeachment proceedings against Chase, declaring he would wipe the floor with the obnoxious justice. The House accused Chase of refusing to dismiss biased jurors and of excluding or limiting defense witnesses in two politically sensitive cases. Its trial managers hoped to prove that Chase had "behaved in an arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust way by announcing his legal interpretation on the law of treason before defense counsel had been heard." Highlighting the political nature of this case, the final article of impeachment accused the justice of continually promoting his political agenda on the bench, thereby "tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan."
At the time the Senate took up the case against the Federalist justice, its members included twenty-five Jeffersonian Republicans and nine Federalists. Chase appeared before the Senate on January 4, 1805, to declare that he was being tried for his political convictions rather than for any real crime or misdemeanor. His defense team, which included several of the nation's most eminent attorneys, convinced several wavering senators that Chase's conduct did not warrant his removal from office. With at least six Jeffersonian Republicans joining the nine Federalists who voted not guilty on each article, the Senate on March 1, 1805, acquitted Samuel Chase on all counts. A majority voted guilty on three of the eight articles, but on each article the vote fell far short of the two-thirds required for conviction. The Senate thereby effectively insulated the judiciary from further congressional attacks based on disapproval of judges’ opinions. Chase resumed his duties at the bench, where he remained until his death in 1811.
<...>
Definition of Offenses
Another question, the one debated most hotly by members of Congress, defense attorneys, and legal scholars from the first impeachment trial to the most recent trial of President William Clinton, concerns the issue of what exactly is an impeachable offense. The task of definition left to future legislators by the framers has proved perplexing. Treason and bribery, the two constitutionally designated impeachable crimes, were clear cut. But what were "high crimes and misdemeanors?" Were misdemeanors lesser crimes, or merely misconducts? Did a high crime or misdemeanor have to be a violation of written law? Over the years, "high crimes and misdemeanors" have been anything the prosecutors have wanted them to be. In an unsuccessful attempt to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in 1960, Representative Gerald Ford declared: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." The phrase is the subject of continuing debate, pitting broad constructionists, who view impeachment as a political weapon, against narrow constructionists, who regard impeachment as being limited to offenses indictable at common law.
Narrow constructionists won a major victory when Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was acquitted in 1805, using as his defense the argument that the charges against him were not based on any indictable offense. President Andrew Johnson won acquittal with a similar defense in 1868. But the first two convictions in the twentieth century, those of Judge Robert Archbald in 1913 and Judge Halsted Ritter in 1936, neither of whom had committed indictable offenses, made it clear that the broad constructionists still carried considerable weight. The debate continued during the 1974 investigation into the conduct of President Nixon, with the staff of the House Judiciary Committee arguing for a broad view of "high crimes and misdemeanors" while Nixon's defense attorneys understandably argued for a narrow view.
more
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
