Should we impeach a Supreme Court justice?

[unkachuck]

Poll question: Should we impeach a Supreme Court justice?

If what many have said is correct, that the recent Supreme Court decision removing limitations on corporate money in elections is a threat to our democracy, surely a decision that threatens our democracy warrants impeachment.

[ZombieHorde]

1. How did each individual vote? nt

[tmyers09]

4. .

For Fascism:
Kennedy
Roberts
Thomas
Scalia
Alito

Against Fascism:

Ginsburg
Stevens
Breyer
Sotomayor

[ZombieHorde]

7. Thank you! nt

[tmyers09]

8. Right on ideological basis too.

All the Fors were Reagan and Bush I and II appointees. All the Againsts were Clinton, Obama, and Ford (obviously before the right got so extreme) appointees.

[timeforpeace]

14. "If what many have said is correct" Ah yes, that is the rub, isn't it.

[Ter]

12. Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer voted against overturning the DC gun ban

Is that impeachable too? No? I agree. Terrible decisions are not impeachable offenses.

[LakeSamish706]

2. The question is, how is this done and what would be the reason? n/t

[Mike Nelson]

3. Start with Lying under Oath...

Clarence Thomas

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. What can you prove he lied about?

[Mike Nelson]

16. It was some years ago, but...

I watched the hearings and was certain he lied under oath before Anita Hill arrived on the scene. It was something about abortion, about his views... he expressed apathy that would not be true for a law student in the 1970s. And, I thought, if he really had no opinion about the issue, he's too stupid to put on the Court. Now, when Anita Hill arrived, he continued to lie. At first, he tried to be, like, these comments are so... this is a lynching. He called it a lynching. He tried not to answer specific questions, but was, finally, on the record lying. This is my opinion, of course. I am not a lawyer and cannot "prove" anything. I do believe that someone like Vincent Bugliosi might be clearer on this... he is a lawyer. But, the sad fact is that Democrats will NOT impeach a conservative judge. In my opinion, the Republicans will be the first political party to impeach a judge... a "liberal" judge. The Republicans/Conservatives are much more likely to take this step, unfortunately.

[Kaleva]

5. How the Supreme Court defines treason:

"In Ex Parte Bollman (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution

[Jackpine Radical]

6. We have some thoroughly despicable SC Justices, but I voted not to impeach.

Impeachment is a tool that should be used rarely if at all, and not as a means to political ends. The Citizens United decision was very wrong. Only time will show us how wrong. Maybe it's the end of democracy, I don't know. If so, impeachment won't save us. I'm old enough to remember the perennial Impeach Earl Warren movement. That would have been terrible, and anything that increases the feasibility of impeachment for sitting SC Justices is very bad, much as I want to see them gone. They are byproducts of too many years of Reagans and Bushes; solve the problem by making changes in the country that will preclude more Reagans and Bushes. We have gotten through our entire history as a nation with only 1 SC impeachment, which didn't end up in a conviction. It's easier to survive bad decisions (think Dred Scott) than to survive the destruction of the SC, which will one day be back on our side.

[Warpy]

9. Scalia and Thomas are both very vulnerable

over their massive conflicts of interest in the 2000 decision that handed the presidency to Stupid.

Those two should have been out of there years ago. Thomas is incompetent and has never grown into the job. Scalia is showing clear signs of organic mental disease.

[nimvg]

11. None Of Those Guys...

...are going anywhere.

Scalia and Thomas and Alito and Roberts are what happens when you lose elections.

That's all there is to say.

[elocs]

13. This reminds me of the Bushco days when the DU answer for everything seemed to be

impeach, impeach, impeach! Well get it out of your system and for all of the reality of it start wishing to win the lottery as well. Then again, DU is not big on reality.

[Meldread]

15. Agreed.

I voted no for fairly obvious reasons. Eventually some day Democrats would lose control of Congress and the White House, and then we'd have Republican's trying to impeach the liberal justices on the Court... and we'd end up in a pathetic tug-of-war, completely destroying the Supreme Court in the process.

Instead, I think the more rational approach would be to support a Constitutional Amendment limiting the time a Justice can serve on the Supreme Court. This makes sense for a number of reasons, the least of which being that life expectancy will only grow longer with time. Do we really want Justices that are 110 years old still sitting on the Court, when 110 is considered the new 65 - I think not. :P