|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
solara (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:36 PM Original message |
SCOTUS justices can be impeached can't they? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
UrbScotty (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:37 PM Response to Original message |
1. It's happened at least once |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jobycom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:41 PM Response to Original message |
2. They can be impeached, and possibly even removed more easily. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
solara (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:43 PM Response to Reply #2 |
4. I agree with you and I think there was a movement in the 1950s to impeach Justice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
terrya (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:44 PM Response to Reply #4 |
6. Yes. It was spearheaded by then Minority Leader Gerald Ford, I believe. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:52 PM Response to Reply #6 |
9. nope. that was william o douglas |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
terrya (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:53 PM Response to Reply #9 |
13. Oops. My bad. You're right. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jgraz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:42 PM Response to Original message |
3. As much as I hate those four, impeaching a Justice for a dissent gives me the willies |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
solara (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:46 PM Response to Reply #3 |
7. Exactly.. I was just using their dissent as a jumping off point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:44 PM Response to Original message |
5. Those are my least favorite four justices. I cannot condone impeaching a Supreme Court justice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
solara (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:52 PM Response to Reply #5 |
11. As I said.. the dissents are just a jumping off point - they have committed far worse offenses |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:54 PM Response to Reply #11 |
14. Removing justices for their legal opinions is counter to the very idea of rule of law. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Virginia Dare (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:57 PM Response to Reply #14 |
15. Scalia is in collusion with his "friend" Dick Cheney.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:02 PM Response to Reply #15 |
20. "Some of his political statements have been questionable" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jobycom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:53 PM Response to Reply #20 |
34. I agree they shouldn't be removed for legal or judicial decisions. However |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:15 PM Response to Reply #15 |
26. Scalia's refusal to recuse himself was not an impeachable act |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Romulox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:21 PM Response to Reply #26 |
29. To put a slightly finer point on it, the decision to impeach, like the decision to recuse oneself |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
solara (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:09 PM Response to Reply #14 |
22. OK I will say it one more time |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:14 PM Response to Reply #22 |
25. Those "variety of offenses" are legal opinions you disagree with. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
solara (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:27 PM Response to Reply #25 |
31. Yeah, I guess you are right.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:57 PM Response to Reply #5 |
17. Exactly |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Virginia Dare (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:47 PM Response to Original message |
8. Dems need to make impeaching Scalia a priority.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
solara (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:53 PM Response to Reply #8 |
12. Yeppers.. I totally agree |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mr. Blonde (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:01 PM Response to Reply #8 |
19. For what exactly? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GrpCaptMandrake (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:05 PM Response to Reply #19 |
21. Among other things |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Romulox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:24 PM Response to Reply #21 |
30. I don't see how buying a piece of property with an unenforceable covenant is an impeachable offense. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GrpCaptMandrake (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 04:30 PM Response to Reply #30 |
36. Scalia was already a judge |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Romulox (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 04:40 PM Response to Reply #36 |
38. A person does not "sign" covenants that run with the land |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:32 PM Response to Reply #21 |
33. do you have a link to the restrictive covenant story involving Scalia |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GrpCaptMandrake (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 03:51 PM Response to Reply #33 |
35. Not off the top of my head |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mmonk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:52 PM Response to Original message |
10. Absolutely. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mr. Blonde (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:57 PM Response to Reply #10 |
18. I agree they were |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mmonk (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:21 PM Response to Reply #18 |
28. Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DavidDvorkin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 01:57 PM Response to Original message |
16. It's probably off the table. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dmosh42 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:10 PM Response to Original message |
23. How about increase to eleven justices! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
solara (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:11 PM Response to Reply #23 |
24. Now there's an idea! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
onenote (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:17 PM Response to Reply #23 |
27. and how well did that work out? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TahitiNut (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 02:32 PM Response to Original message |
32. "Impeach Earl Warrren!" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DCKit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jun-13-08 04:35 PM Response to Original message |
37. K&R for a civil and informative discussion. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Mon Sep 16th 2024, 02:21 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC