serious question: can you impeach Supreme Court Justices?

[yurbud]

Has it been done before?

I'm wondering if we ever get things turned around, and a serious investigation is done into the 2000 election, which Roberts may have had a role in, and all the other criminal activity that Mier had to at least be aware of, if they can be removed from the Supreme Court.

If not, the Democrats lack of effective opposition is even more frustrating and perplexing.

[helderheid]

1. I've been wondering the same thing

[CBGLuthier]

2. Yes

Please read this faq

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html

It pretty much shows that impeachment is a power reserved to the legislative branch for dealing with the executive and judicial branch.

But we still have to take the house back as that is the only way it will happen.

[theboss]

3. Yes you can. Read the Constitution.

I can't remember the history but I seem to recall one associate being impeached during Reconstruction. I could be thinking of a state judge though.

[MrBenchley]

4. Yup...Samuel Chase was...

"If not, the Democrats lack of effective opposition is even more frustrating and perplexing."
You mean you're surprised that 44 votes out of 100 cannot win?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. You're right - 44 out of 100 isn't enough.

It's amazing how often that fact eludes us here. And I thought fuzzy math was only for Republicans.

[MrBenchley]

9. And rather than pull together and try to increase the number

some people seem to spend all their effort bashing the 44...

[yurbud]

11. "pull together" seems to mean "and support GOP agenda"

I am more or less sold that we have to keep the bad apple Dems through 2006 at least to get the Bushies out, but if we let the cowards and corporate stooges set the tone, there's no reason Democrats will gain from GOP losses.

People can always just stay home on election day. I'm not sure why I would get out of bed for someone who won't go out on a limb for me. Those who cower before the GOP majority could just as easily cower before a strident minority.

Who the fuck are you people posting here with this "trust us, pretend to get along without standing for anything" shit?

Do you think we don't notice that you just showed up en masse?

What PR firm are you working for?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Who the fuck are you people who just bash anything the Democrats do?

Sorry, but you don't seem much like a Democrat to me. I'm not calling you a Republican or a freeper either, but you defintely don't seem like a Democrat.

[MrBenchley]

16. Sure makes me wonder why anyone would go out on a limb

for a "party loyalist" like that...

[yurbud]

21. Do you think we should have no say in what our elected officials do?

I repeat, I'm not getting you guys, or in what sense this "rope a dope" adds up to victory if you never go in for the kill (metaphorically for you homeland security monitors).

It really sounds like gamesmanship for it's own sake, and as I mentioned before, courting disaffected corporations.

And I've said until I'm blue in the face, I've given people their props when they deserve them.

I sincerely hope that Harry Reid has our best interests at heart, and he did a good job on killing Social Security. I'm not sure why they didn't do that on EVERY important issue though. For from spending political capital on the Social Security fight, they gained it in terms of public stature. But I'm not going to take anything on faith. Kerry said he had the voting scams covered in 2004 too. I voted for him, the GOP cheated, and he folded. Now there may be some long term strategy behind that, but if I'm not let in on the joke, I have no reason to applaud that behavior.

We should be talking about real solutions and how to get from here to there.

Asking who this "rope a dope" is playing to is not an unfair criticism, it's asking for an explanation beyond getting yelled at for bashing Dems.

[MrBenchley]

14. That IS rich....

"I'm not sure why I would get out of bed for someone who won't go out on a limb for me."
I'm not sure why somebody who hates the Democratic party so vehemently would post on a Democratic website.

"Those who cower before the GOP majority"
Whereas those unable to figure ouyt the number of votes needed are just tedious blowhards.

"Do you think we don't notice that you just showed up en masse?"
Yeah, that's me, I just showed up en masse in June 2001.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. I got here before you did, bub.

:hi:

[yurbud]

6. no, I mean they could at least get on the record opposing them

and make the judge look like the extremist they are.

I fail to see the logic of voting for something just because it's going to win anyway.

The GOP is obviously not doing any favors for the Dems in return for their complicity beyond tolerating their presence.

[MrBenchley]

8. And besides giving you a warm feeling

what does that do, exactly?

Besides, many Democrats were on the record opposing Roberts...and many of those were mindlessly bashed here every day for one reason or another.

[yurbud]

10. half of the dems opposed him, and I applaud those who did

this rope a dope strategy is not playing with two audience:

1) Democratic activists, who see it as cowardice at best and complicity and corruption at worst.

2) Moderates and undecideds who probably see this as cowardice and lack of conviction.

This strategy therefore can only be aimed at one of two audiences:

1) conservatives. No Democrat could be stupid enough to believe they can peel the religious right off the GOP. For them, it's GOP or stay home.

2) corporate patrons of the GOP. Corporate America mostly wants what the Bushies are doing--we know because their lobbyists are writing the legislation. The Dems don't want to piss them off by getting on their bad side. Instead, they want to let the GOP prove that they are bad stewards of corporate interests, like the investment advisor who sold you on junk bonds and internet stocks. The Democrats will be the steady hand, long term investment counselor.

Average Americans are not the audience for what the Democratic leadership is doing because it is making most of us sick, embarrassed, and ashamed that they are giving up our democracy without a fight.

[MrBenchley]

12. And they all got bashed strenuously here

"this rope a dope strategy is not playing with two audience"
Says who? It's sure not playing well with the Green party and libertarian wackos.

"It is making most of us sick, embarrassed, and ashamed"
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out then. I get angry at people who refuse to face reality and seem to take every opportunity they can to bash Democrats.

[yurbud]

22. in a confirmation or any vote, you have three choices

yes, no, or abstain.

If the opposing party is in the majority and going to do something you claimed to oppose in principle, I can see abstaining.

I can see voting against the majority even if you don't pull out all the stops, but just get your opposition on the record so voters know what you stand for.

What I cannot see, and no one has even bothered to try to explain, is why you vote with the majority when they put up a bill or nominee your constituents oppose, and as has been the case with several recent nominees, they have perjured themselves under oath to their confirmation committee or in the case of Condi Rice, to the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 families, or when they vote to confirm someone we would not hesitate to call a war criminal if he did the same things in any other country, Alberto Gonzalez. Those are not minor issues, and used to be things that even Republicans would not tolerate.

Also, why is this strategy the exact opposite of what the GOP did when they were in the minority?

It's better to tell the truth, and even if you get some guff for it now, you'll be seen as prescient in the future.

[genius]

7. Yes

[Walt Starr]

15. Impeachment is one check the Legislative Branch holds over the judiciary.

And that's the point those who scream "judicial activism" fail to recognize. If the judges are so damned bad, impeach them or STFU.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. I wish we'd push that meme.

Because they can't impeach them. They haven't done anything wrong.

[yurbud]

23. who hasn't done anything wrong? I mean if it comes to light later

that they were involved in or had direct knowledge of Bush crimes.

[Fescue4u]

19. Yes, but the best chance for "impeachment"

was about a week ago BEFORE he was nominated.

The Senate sure as hell isnt going to convict someone they just finished confirming.

[OneNation]

20. Congressional Republicans tried to impeach Earl Warren back in the 60's

The effort was led by Gerald Ford, House Minority Leader and future President. The Republicans were in the minority in Congress at that time so nothing came from the effort.