Impeach Scalia

[gottaB]

A. The Congress has the power and the duty to impeach civil officers for high crimes and misdemeanors.

About impeachment:

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article02/18.html#1
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/impeach.htm

B. Scalia's refusal to recuse himself from the Energy Task Force case is a violation of judicial ethics.

A story from Kos with relevant links:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/18/225328/410


Documents and resources from Findlaw:

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/energytaskforce/index.html

Scalia argues, "Since I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned, I do not think it would be proper for me to recuse." In fact his impartiality has been reasonably questioned, as argued by Sierra Club and thoroughly documented by them in their brief. Scalia's defense seems to be that the editorials and opinions expressed in the press are not representatitve of the public?

Even the questions of our elected representatives are brushed aside as "unreasonable" by the imperious Scalia. I say, impeach him now.

Is that unreasonable? Tell me, citizens, is that unreasonable? I don't believe for a minute that this man can impartially pass judgement on his friend, Richard Cheney. Do you? Are you unreasonable to question his impartiality?

Impeach Scalia.



House Judiciary Members:

mailto:[e-mail]
mailto:[e-mail]

[galadrium]

1. I totally support that idea

But do you think it is likely to happen? Seems like things this good happen only once in a lifetime.

[gottaB]

6. I don't know if it's likely, but I do know that it's just and proper

The rightwing has been agitating against the SCOTUS and floating the idea of impeaching justices since Roe v Wade. This is different. This is not about ideology. This is about judicial misconduct. Scalia's actions make it seem like he has a conflict of interests, that he is favoring his friends and ignoring the interests of justice and the United States. It is highly inapporpriate.

Impeach Scalia.

[strategery blunder]

2. Unfortunately, violating ethics rules is not a high crime

or misdemeanor--UNLESS Scalia took bribes to rule on the case. (Which he may have.)

[aquart]

5. Is a high crime required? I thought it was cloudier than that.

[strategery blunder]

8. He could also be impeached for misdemeanors...

but I do not know if the ethics rules are codified in law or if they are just professional standards that justices voluntarily adhere to.

[gottaB]

12. asccording to Meteor Blades' post at Kos, it is illegal too

Here's a more direct link to USC Title 28, Part 1, Chapter 21, Section 455:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/28/parts/i/chapters/21/sections/section_455.html

"(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

That's just the first instance. There are more in the list. Scalia had a legal obligation to recuse himself. Is there some weak definition of shall that would allow him to duck this? I don't think so, and neither does Scalia. His defense hinges upon the definition of "reasonably." I say our questions about Scalia's impartiality are reasonable.

Impeach Scalia.

[strategery blunder]

13. OK, you've convinced me

Scalia's impartiality can be reasonably questioned. I want his head on a silver platter!

[Dookus]

17. No

the constitution only says that justices shall serve during "good behavior"

Article. III.
Section. 1.
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 Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

28. No High Crime is required!

If a Justice refuses to recuse him/her self from an action where it is clear that the recusal is reasonably called, then the people can move to have that Justice impeached.

What we need is a majority in both the House and Senate, and Dem leaders with a high level of intestinal fortitude.

[gottaB]

9. What's the legal reason for having ethical guidelines

if not to avert a constitutional crisis at every turn?

You question whether Scalia may have been bribed. That's not unreasonable given the circumstances. So the guidelines say he needs to recuse himself. By violating those guidelines, Scalia is pushing the limits of his authority and inviting a confrontation with the people and their elected representatives. That ought to constitute a high crime or misdemeanor.

Impeach Scalia.

[aquart]

3. My note.

Justice Scalia is tarnishing the Supreme Court. His refusal to recuse himself from his buddy's case is an outrage.

No one asks that he forego a minute's frolicking with the rich, but to then sit in judgement of the people he partied with?

He lacks the ability to see distinct lines obvious to all the rest of us.

When he rules in favor of Dick Cheney, will you be quiet?

Because I won't.

[absyntheNsugar]

4. All for that...can we get Justice Thomas while we're at it?

eom

[Donkeyboy75]

7. Of course, we could always use a Repug tactic

and start impeachment procedure anyway. Bringing about proceedings would really raise the public awareness level on this issue, if nothing else.

[PaDUer]

14. He's not the only one who

should be impeached. Start all the proceedings now instead of talking about it unless you enjoy playing the role of the battered and abused wife syndrome. Impeachments are way overdue.

[patricia92243]

10. NO! Not now - we would just get another pub in his place. Wait til we get

our guy in the White House and Dean helps get people into the senate, etc.

[gottaB]

11. Several Points

1. Scalia stands out as worthy of impeachment. Full stop.

2. Strategically, I don't know that it matters because (a) Scalia's as wingnut as they come; (b) he's not on the short list for retirement anyway; (c) it probably won't succeed in the current Congress, but it's still worth doing.

Will the Republicans be the party of bribery and high shenanigans? The public deserves to know.

The prospect of a Chief Justice Scalia mocks our government and our democratic ideals. Stop the mockery.

Impeach Scalia.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chaska]

16. Two possible positive outcomes

1) Scalia prides himself on being a "srict constructionist" (yeah, right). That (long shot, admitedly) could mean a vote against Cheney.
and 2) This decision by Scalia could swing the other justices against Cheney.

Where there's life, there's hope. Damn you, hope. Hope's gotta go - let the rioting begin.

[tabasco]

32. Scalia will never vote against Cheney.

Republicans are only "strict constructionists" when it suits their purposes. They will bend the law to the breaking point if it is something they don't agree with. Scalia is irrational. He has no set of rules he will stick by, other than serve his conservative masters.

[ArkDem]

26. They already have, Ginsburg and NOW.

.

[gottaB]

27. not in the same league

The thing with Ginsburg is ideology. Is there a suggestion of social contacts that would be relevant to any particular decision? I don't know. The Republicans are arguing that it's ideological.

The thing with Scalia is judicial misconduct. A violation of codes of ethical conduct, and the law. He has set himself above the law. He must be impeached.

[ArkDem]

29. Ginsburg has several speaking engagements a year at NOW functions.

Now lawyers argue many cases before the supreme court.

[gottaB]

30. apples and oranges

here's a rightwing article critical of Ginsburg:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat389.html

Their criticism is not about personal friendships or the suggestion that Ginsburg has pecuniary interests that would bias her decisions. They object to her opinions. "Pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice," they call her.

The Scalia case is completely different. As much as you and I object to his opinions, that is not what this is about. This is a case of one justice setting himself above the law, making a mockery of the people's government.

If the Republicans want to nominate another extremist kook, fine, we can let the process play itself out. We can treat that as a separate battle. Even if it does seem noteworthy that ideological extremists seem to disqualify themselves by their very nature, we can momentarily set aside that argument in the interests of justice and good government. For the good of the Republic, Scalia must be impeached.

Impeach Scalia.

[murielm99]

33. This is just a distraction designed by the wingnuts.

Ginsburg did not accept any hospitality or trips from any NOW members who have a current high-profile case before the court. If she had, then the argument would be the same.

Should Thomas recuse himself every time a civil rights case is brought before the court? For that matter, should he recuse himself any time a black defendant or lawyer is involved?

The repukes are trying to compare apples and oranges. Just let me see this in our local paper. I will be writing LTTEs again.

Stupid pukes!

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. Two totally different situations

Ginsburg gave a speech at a luncheon. Supreme Court Justices give speeches to all sorts of groups, on a fairly regular basis. When Renquist speaks at the American Enterprise Institute, no one has had a problem with that?


Scalia went on vacation and hunted with the subject of a case that is to be heard by the Supreme Court within the next few months.

It would be like Judge Ito going on vacaction with OJ Simpson before the start of the OJ trial.

[gottaB]

35. good analogy

Can you imagine Simpson inviting Ito on a golfing trip, luxury transportation and lodging--it's that corrupt.

[MadProphetMargin]

18. How long, O Lord, how long?

Scalia argues, "Since I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned, I do not think it would be proper for me to recuse."

Is there NO end to the sheer, unmitigated GALL of these scumbags?

[gottaB]

21. no natural end--it's up to us to put a stop to it

Greetings, MPM. Welcome to DU.

[Gordon25]

19. Scalia: "Government drives its authority from God."

All our founding documents, in fact the entire experiment in democracy that is America, is predicated on one fundamental principle: government derives its authority from the consent of the governed.

Scalia (who has sworn to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution) said in a speech last year that government derived its authority from God and that Democracy had an unfortunate tendency to obscure that truth, but that the faithful should not give up but continue their struggle to set things right.

That comes mighty near sounding like treason to me. At a minimum a violation of his oath of office.

The judicial code of ethics, by the way, advises a judge recuse him or herself whenever there is even an appearance of a potential conflict of interest. Scalia personally stopped the vote counting in Florida in 2000. While hearing arguments on that case his wife, if I remember rightly, was working for the Bush campaign recruiting and vetting possible cabinet members.

So if you are going to impeach him, which I have been advocating for four year, don't forget to include all his offenses, including the fact that with his wife's employment, he had no business hearing the appeal from Bush's people in the first place. And while we are at it, let's include the entire felonious five who put Bush in place. Each of them had something creating the appearance of conflict of interest. O'Conner was heard in a public place on election night saying it was terrible that Gore was winning. One of them (Rhenquist?) had a son working for the law firm representing Bush.

Scalia is especially dangerous because he is an absolutist theocrat at heart. But all of them are guilty of subversion of an election. And the ghosts of ten thousand Iraqui dead and nearly six hundred American service personnel must trod heavily through their dreams if not their hearts. It is not a karma I would willingly carry.

Gordon25

[gottaB]

20. I share your disdain for the five*

I also agree with your assessment of Scalia's theocratic, anti-democratic beliefs. But while you and I may agree that his ideological crusade undermines the legitimacy of the courts and represents a betrayal of his oath of office, others don't see it that way. That's a route to endless argumentation about the purpose and meaning of law for our republic.

Now, however, with Scalia's memorandum of the 18th, there is a clear sign of wrongdoing. The question is no longer whether the courts, and indeed the nation, are humbled by his misconduct, but rather how much chicanery and insousiance we as a people are willing to tolerate. Enough, I say.

Impeach Scalia now.

[gottaB]

22. Additional Argument

Scalia argues that "While the political branches can perhaps survive the constant baseless allegations of impropriety, this Court cannot. The people must have confidence in the integrity of the Justices, and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor" (emphasis added). In other words, we must not pose reasonable questions about whether Scalia's friendships might cloud his judgement, because to do so would undermine the Republic.

Contrast Scalia's view with that of Cindy Gray, the director of the American Judicature Society's Center for Judicial Ethics. She says "It is important that the public have confidence that judicial decisions are impartial." So does she agree with Scalia, that in order to have confidence we should refrain from asking reasonable questions? Heck no, she doesn't. She says regarding the so-called duck hunting trip, "Most Justices would not do what Justice Scalia has done" (citation, a csmonitor story).

I say "so-called" duck hunting trip because the more facts we learn about this episode (thank you, Antonin), the more reasonable persons must question its true purpose. The longer this drags on, the more we regret the codes of civility and netizenship which prevent us from earnestly noting that the guillotine, though not depicted on any frieze or sculpture surrounding the Court, has, like the sword, also served as an instrument of justice.

Impeach Scalia.

[dusty64]

23. Kick!

:kick:

[YIMA]

24. Totally Reasonable

n/t

[gottaB]

25. hiya, YIMA

and a kick for daylight people

[gottaB]

31. another kick

cause I mean it

:kick:

[gottaB]

36. more editorials

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2459352

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/auto/epaper/editions/sunday/opinion_04b557a9747e802f002c.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/opinion/21DOWD.html?ex=1080450000&en=e66452a472ab221c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

The last is from Dowd, and it's a doozy. An Excerpt:

Justice Scalia says, "The people must have confidence in the integrity of the justices, and that cannot exist in a system that assumes them to be corruptible by the slightest friendship or favor, in an atmosphere where the press will be eager to find foot-faults." He observes that it would be nonsensical for him to recuse himself simply because the press has the effrontery to point out when someone has done something wrong.

We, the press, are supposed to be the handmaidens and the manservants of our rulers. If we fulfilled our duties properly, our reports would go something like this:

In an admirable spirit of uncommon objectivity, in the pursuit of truth, justice and the American way, Associate Justice Scalia made time to poke around in the marshes of Louisiana with the equally scrupulous Dick Cheney, and then, refreshed by a well-deserved plane trip at our expense, he continued to transmit his enlightenment to a grateful nation.

[gottaB]

37. one more time

:kick:

[9215]

38. All must read: Bugliosi's "BetrayaL"

This is about the selection 2000. Scalia, IMHO, has to have more than just a political interest in all of this. Somehow he has a strong vested interest in keeping these fascists in power. I remember his sons worked for the Bushies.

[gottaB]

39. More Opinion Pieces

A few more opinions critical of Scalia

1. From Edward Lazarus, at Findlaw:
   
   http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20040205.html
   
   Lazarus interprets Scalia's service to the Court charitably, but still criticizes the failure to recuse and calls for Scalia to change his mind. Hmmm.
   
   
   
2. A Letter to the Editor at the Globe makes the Case for impeachment:
   
   http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2004/03/24/challenging_scalias_actions/
   
   Reasonable. Points to Article 3, section 1, which states that Judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour."
   
   
   
3. The editors of the San Antonio Express-News make the point that the hunting trip was easily avoidable--in case you missed that from reading Scalia's opinion. It's an embarassment, alright.
   
   http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/stories/MYSA24.06B.scalia2ed0324.168c3301.html
   
   
4. Here's a piece by Grist columnist Amanda Griscom
   
   http://www.gristmagazine.com/muck/muck032304.asp
   
   Griscom concludes that although Scalia is behaving reprehensibly, the Scalia affair is in the final analysis a sideshow from the Cheney scandal. Personally, I'm having a hard time telling where one stops and the other begins. Impeach Scalia, and it won't be an issue.
   
   
5. E.J. Dionne says Scalia's right:
   
   http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16634
   
   That is, his impartiality can't be questioned--it can't even be imagined.
   
   Take Griscom's piece, and instead of consulting the lawyers from Sierra and Judicial Watch, think about it in terms of constitutional government, and that should lead you towards Dionne's conclusion:
   

   
   This is a scandal. Because of ideological connivance across the branches of our political system, we are abandoning the checks and balances that make our government work.
   

   
   
   
6. Finally, a lark of sorts. Scalia in his memorandum admitted to "promissory fraud" against the airlines.
   
   http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/opinion/24AYRE.html?ex=1080709200&en=5c44fb6f7602ccdb&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE