Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

markpkessinger

(8,401 posts)
Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:10 PM Feb 2013

(1) Yes, Scalia's an asshat; and (2) No, we shouldn't call for his impeachment . . .

. . . at least not on the basis of what is likely to be his ruling in the case involving the Voting Rights Act, how ever vile his reasoning. Look, it goes without saying that the man's statements in this case (among many others) were utterly despicable. But, leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that impeachment doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in the House, consider this: if we were to go down the path of impeaching a Supreme Court justice based on his ideologoical stance, it would set a dangerous precedent -- a precedent Republicans would seize upon at the first available opportunity in order to remove a more moderate or liberal justice whose rulings they disliked. Do you really want to open up that can of worms?

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
(1) Yes, Scalia's an asshat; and (2) No, we shouldn't call for his impeachment . . . (Original Post) markpkessinger Feb 2013 OP
Right. elleng Feb 2013 #1
He is not going to be impeached and I know that. But it felt good to sign that petition. MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #2
Would electroshock therapy TexasTowelie Feb 2013 #3
I was thinking more along the lines of a hunting trip with Dick . . . n/t markpkessinger Mar 2013 #5
Sounds just like the reasoning for give em head Harry not changing the fillibuster. OffWithTheirHeads Feb 2013 #4
I have never defended Harry Reid on that issue . . . markpkessinger Mar 2013 #6
You need 2/3rds of the Senate for impeachment, plus half the House. davidn3600 Mar 2013 #7
uh, no. But do inform yourself of why it impeaching a SC Justice is just slightly cali Mar 2013 #9
You are, of course, correct RudynJack Mar 2013 #8

markpkessinger

(8,401 posts)
6. I have never defended Harry Reid on that issue . . .
Fri Mar 1, 2013, 01:38 AM
Mar 2013

. . . In fact, I have been quite critical of him (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022349850 , http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2298036 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2370366 ). But if you think for one minute that an attempted impeachment of Scalia or any other justice that is based on ideology would result in anything but an onslaught of unfounded attempts by the GOP in return, you are seriously kidding yourself.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
7. You need 2/3rds of the Senate for impeachment, plus half the House.
Fri Mar 1, 2013, 01:57 AM
Mar 2013

The Constitution mandates a supermajority for such purposes. Why? To purposely stop what many here want to do...remove a judge based on ideological differences.

Where the heck do you think you are going to get the votes from?

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
9. uh, no. But do inform yourself of why it impeaching a SC Justice is just slightly
Fri Mar 1, 2013, 06:54 AM
Mar 2013

different than the majority party in the Senate changing Senate rules.

RudynJack

(1,044 posts)
8. You are, of course, correct
Fri Mar 1, 2013, 02:58 AM
Mar 2013

but you'll be soundly beaten about the head and neck for expressing a reasonable view.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»(1) Yes, Scalia's an assh...