Skip to main content

View Diary: If The SCOTUS Five Strike Down VRA, Impeach Them. (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If the SCOTUS struck down just Section 5 (14+ / 0-)

    I don't think you could find 50 Democratic House members who would vote for an impeachment inquiry. Impeachment is a political act not a criminal trial, but most members of Congress think of it as reserved for removing someone for criminal activity and certainly not for their legal opinions. The House has only impeached one sitting member of the SCOTUS, who was not convicted and removed by the Senate. We have yet to remove a member of the SCOTUS by impeachment and no member of the current Court will be the first.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:58:50 PM PDT

    •  First of all, you're pulling that out of thin air. (0+ / 0-)

      I specifically cited the reasons why this would be an extraordinary abuse of power by the Court, and why the nature of that abuse lawlessly attacks the Democratic Party and the voting rights of millions who support it.  That is not a "legal opinion" - that is five partisans using their position on the bench to determine the outcome of elections with arbitrary fiats having nothing to do with the law, for a third time in a dozen years.  

      And if your standard for doing anything is that other people have done it before, I'm glad you weren't in Congress when VRA was originally passed.  The objections you and other have made were easily anticipated, and I addressed them fully.  

      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

      by Troubadour on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:12:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am just telling you what to expect (14+ / 0-)

        There is no legal consensus that Section 5 is necessary so it is preposterous that any Justice would be impeached because they held the opinion that it was time to sunset Section 5. And yes, that is a legal opinion and one supported by many legal scholars. Members of Congress don't believe that Justices should be impeached for opinions.  Section 2 is an enforcement mechanism that is used throughout the rest of the states and communities that are not subject to Section 5. While you stated your opinion that doesn't mean that members of Congress will agree with you and it is my opinion that there will be no series effort to impeach any SCOTUS Justice in the 113th Congress, regardless of how they opine on the law.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:12:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What a bunch of corrupt Villager horseshit. (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:
          Victor Ward
          There is no legal consensus that Section 5 is necessary
          Except for the consensus that passed it in the first place and the two generations of courts that didn't see a problem with it until the GOP lost an election due to minority voting.  Try again.
          And yes, that is a legal opinion and one supported by many legal scholars.
          Gee, you mean there are partisan Republican hacks with law degrees other than the Five on the Supreme Court?  I did not know that - I must have been asleep during Bush v. Gore, the torture memos, and Citizens United.  Strike two.  
          Members of Congress don't believe that Justices should be impeached for opinions.
          1.  Stop making up straw men to defend abuse of power.  Being a judge does not make someone Judge Dredd.  They can be impeached for abusing their power.

          2.  Stop projecting your opinions on to institutional authorities.  I've explained the political circumstances that would make this is an extraordinary case.

          3.  Stop engaging in wishful thinking.  Just because you disagree with impeaching people who abuse power, and have contempt for Americans who stand up for themselves, does not make it the fate of this country to passively accept partisan judicial tyranny that seeks to reimpose Jim Crow.

          Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

          by Troubadour on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:22:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  4. Stop trolling your own diary. As much as... (12+ / 0-)

            you might wish it to happen, no SCOYUS judge is going to be impeached anytime soon.

            You couldn't impeach Chimpy and crew, and they're war criminals. Think about Chimpy McClusterfuck as you re-read your #3.

            So, stop abusing people who have a different opinion to you.

            'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

            by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:48:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I addressed your points in the diary. (0+ / 0-)

              And I've already dealt with this ludicrous John Yoo-school claim that abuse of power is a legitimate legal opinion elsewhere.

              Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

              by Troubadour on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:58:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, I totally forgot about Yoo... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wisper, Victor Ward, DeadHead

                getting disbarred after that OPR report... oh wait, that never happened.

                It's too late. You're too late. Your noise should have happened 30 years ago if you were to have any chance, and unless you have the money to buy your judges and politicians back, nothing good that you want to happen, will.

                And things have only gotten worse since Carlin died. You've got Obama, a Democratic Prez entertaining cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, FFS.

                So go ahead and launch a futile crusade against something that hasn't happened yet. A man needs a hobby, I guess. Just so you know, your behaviour in the threads isn't winning many converts.

                'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

                by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:04:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And you agree with Yoo not being disbarred, right? (0+ / 0-)
                  It's too late. You're too late.
                  Don't take this wrong way, but just because you don't intend to help doesn't mean the rest of us are doomed.
                  Your noise should have happened 30 years ago if you were to have any chance
                  I wasn't born 30 years ago.  And I don't care what any previous generation failed to accomplish.  
                  So go ahead and launch a futile crusade against something that hasn't happened yet.
                  Nice attitude.
                  A man needs a hobby, I guess.
                  Yeah, voting rights are a hobby - like gardening or knitting.  (shakes head)  Jesus.  
                  Just so you know, your behaviour in the threads isn't winning many converts.
                  What behavior is that?  

                  Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

                  by Troubadour on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:21:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf... (0+ / 0-)

                    1. It's 'too late' when torturing prisoners is excused and nobody has yet been prosecuted. It's too late when your telephone companies are turned into data collection agencies for the State, and that shit isn't shut down.

                    It's too late when your Habeas corpus rights are removed.

                    2. The collective 'your' and 'you'. Not everything is about you. (That last 'you' really is all about you - and so on.)

                    3. Nothing has happened, therefore a preemptive action in retaliation to nothing happening is not only futile, but inane.

                    4. 'Voting rights' is a noun. 'Gardening' or 'knitting' are verbs. Completely different. If you had said 'fighting for voting rights', then you would have produced a valid simile.

                    5. What behaviour? This behaviour.

                    'If you want to be a hero, well just follow me.' - J. Lennon

                    by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:48:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Why are we here, again? (0+ / 0-)

                  It's to mobilize to fight.

                  Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

                  by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:07:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Troubadour - wishful thinking? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward, DeadHead

            That would be you.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:32:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Separation of powers (0+ / 0-)

          "There is no legal consensus that Section 5 is necessary"

          There is a legal consensus that it passed Congress. There is clear Constitutional authorization for it in the Fifteenth Amendment.

          Overturning the VRA would not be a matter of finding Congress to be in violation of constitutional law. It would be an assertion that the Supreme Court can overturn political actions for political reasons.

          The "political question" rule is in full force in this case, and it is widely accepted in the legal community.

          Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:06:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  There are others out there who quite (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward, DeadHead

        agree with you. They also think a judge should be impeached for nothing more than issuing a ruling that Congress doesn't agree with.

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        •  And there are others who agree with you (0+ / 0-)

          that nothing a legal professional does in the course of abusing power is worthy of removal from office.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          Or maybe we can dispense with the straw man game?  Do you have any reality-based criticisms?

          Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

          by Troubadour on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:13:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Now you're just flailing (5+ / 0-)

            Bybee and Yoo never addressed the issue of judicial impeachment.

            And you've got some nerve to ask for "reality based" criticism when you claim that a Republican House will impeach a judge solely for a ruling (that probably aids them politically themselves!) and a Senate with 45 Republicans in it will find a 2/3 majority to convict.

            To quote Barney Frank, what planet do you live on?

            •  Bybee and Yoo are examples of abuse (0+ / 0-)

              of the law by officers of the court, and based on your comments, I take it you would have been against even investigating them let alone removing and disbarring them.

              And you've got some nerve to ask for "reality based" criticism when you claim that a Republican House will impeach a judge solely for a ruling (that probably aids them politically themselves!) and a Senate with 45 Republicans in it will find a 2/3 majority to convict.
              I've already addressed your ludicrous demand that the entire process be guaranteed in advance before even investigating.
              To quote Barney Frank, what planet do you live on?
              The one where America has a Constitution.  You must live on the other planet.

              Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

              by Troubadour on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:45:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You use the term "abuse of the law" (6+ / 0-)

                as though you understand what it means. You don't. It isn't an "abuse of the law" to develop and hold a legal opinion that you find faulty and/or morally objectionable. If that were the standard,  it would have been perfectly acceptable for the justices on the Warren court to have been impeached and removed. And consider whether justices who had to be worried about being removed from office based on the popularity of their rulings would be willing to issue a decision as controversial as Brown v. Board of Education.

                I don't demand that an investigation's outcome be "guaranteed," just that it be based in reality, at least somewhat.  What you are suggesting is essentially a witch hunt. Be honest. You know there's no witch.

                •  Basically you're saying abuse of power (0+ / 0-)

                  is impossible in the Judicial branch of government.  Absolutely nothing that a judge or lawyer does in the course of their job, even if deliberately designed to subvert or outright eliminate Constitutional law by fiat, represents an impeachable offense.  

                  This negates the very concept of the law, since it means they can arbitrarily interpret laws to be whatever they want, no matter what is actually written in the law.  Just rule whatever you want, making up non sequitur excuses that have no rational basis, and that magically becomes The Law, right?  "I hereby declare jury trials to be unconstitutional, because they violate the 1st Amendment.  Arguments that jury trials are protected in the Constitution are unpersuasive.  Because I say so."

                  I don't demand that an investigation's outcome be "guaranteed," just that it be based in reality, at least somewhat.
                  So the clear and immediate appearance of wrongdoing is not a valid reason to investigate unless such an investigation would be moot?  In other words, the whole legislative oversight and investigative function of government is, as you see it, totally worthless and redundant?

                  Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

                  by Troubadour on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:37:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Of course I'm not suggesting anything like (4+ / 0-)

                    the strawman argument you concoct. And let's be clear here: when a lower court judge goes off the rails, the judicial system has a self correction mechanism through the appellate courts. No single judge gets to say what the law is.

                    With respect to the Supreme Court, of course, there is no appellate review. But a ruling of the Supreme Court does require a majority to join it, at least in the result if not the reasoning.

                    I notice that you do not even bother to try to attempt a legal analysis of the issues in question in the Voting Rights Act case before the Court now. Let's just say that the real legal issues are not the cartoon level stuff you imagine in your comment.

                    I note that you are calling for impeachment of judges if they should happen to vote in future in a particular case in a way you dislike, without even caring to read what their legal reasoning is. You do realize that Supreme Court opinions include often quite lengthy analysis and discussion about why the judges are ruling the way they are ruling, right?

                    I'm sure that Justice Warren's detractors were just as convinced of his "clear and immediate wrongdoing" after the Brown decision as you are now of the five Justices you suspect of political bias on the Supreme Court.

                    You're just as wrong as they were, sorry.

                    •  So only judges below the Supreme Court (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Musial

                      can commit abuses of power?  I'm having a hard time understanding what position you're taking here: Is the Supreme Court above the law, or are they subject to a set of plainly-written rules like everyone else and merely given authority to interpret and reconcile where there is some rational basis to dispute?  

                      But a ruling of the Supreme Court does require a majority to join it, at least in the result if not the reasoning.
                      Which is why holding the Supreme Court above the Constitution would make the United States a five-person oligarchy in the same way that holding a President above it would make it a dictatorship.  But that's never been part of the social contract, and certainly not part of any philosophy of liberal democratic governance ever articulated - courts are bound by the logic of the Constitution they apply and interpret, which is why Congress has judicial oversight authority including the authority to impeach judges.  
                      I note that you are calling for impeachment of judges if they should happen to vote in future in a particular case in a way you dislike, without even caring to read what their legal reasoning is.
                      My point is that there would be a face-value appearance of wrongdoing if they were to strike down parts of the VRA in a 5-4 ruling via the same majority involved in Citizens United, and Congressional investigations would be justified - preferably in both chambers, although of course the House has initial impeachment authority.

                      And if you seriously equate the lawless, nakedly partisan actions of the Five seeking to subvert the electoral process on numerous occasions with Earl Warren upholding the Constitution...I just don't know what to do for you.

                      Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

                      by Troubadour on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:22:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  this is a separation of powers crisis (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Troubadour

                        between a supine Congress and a usurping court. FDR was involved the last time with a popular New Deal and Congress. Now it's different, more like educating the public as did Lincoln in his Douglas debates which provide a sense of the type of legal education required to get a political consensus during a constitutional crisis. That means being prepared to answer questions about the political question doctrine, while you're demanding that it be restored.

                      •  You seem to be making the argument (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Villanova Rhodes

                        that the Supreme Court is "above the law" if they rule in a way you don't agree with. You don't bother to describe what your legal analysis is. Do you have any? Do you think any is necessary, or do you think the only thing that matters is the bottom line?

                        Can you construct a legal argument to distinguish what the the  conservatives on Roberts court did in Citizens United, with what the liberals on the Warren court did in Brown or Roe? And I mean an argument that doesn't essential rely on "I like the result in one, but not in the other." I'm talking about neutral, legal principles.

                        The bottom line is that the Constitution is not like a set of plainly written rules. Its vague and often nonspecific, and the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret it in the context of the cases that come before it. You're sounding dangerously like the wingnuts who rail about judges legislating from the bench. Of course they do no such thing.

                        If we impeach judges because we don't like how they rule on voting rights cases, where does it end? You've destroyed judicial independence, and made it so that there will never be any more landmark civil rights cases like Brown or Roe ever again.

                •  "Abuse of discretion" is an established legal term (0+ / 0-)

                  Decisions not based on law merit no deference.

                  Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

                  by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:12:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Um no (0+ / 0-)
                    Decisions not based on law merit no deference.
                    If a party to a lawsuit believes it was wrongly decided, they must appeal. They can't just ignore it.

                    Abuse of discretion means something else.

                    http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

                    Interestingly, this diary fails to even mention what is the constitutional standard for judicial impeachment. It mentions none of the history of judicial impeachments, nor any of the caselaw that exists.  That would have been interesting.

                    But this diary? It's just an ill informed rant.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site