Thinking ahead to 2008: Impeachment of the Supreme Court justices

Specifically, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 the Senate was granted "sole power" to try impeachments. That doesn't mean just Presidents, but Justices as well.

There is precedent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Archbald

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_E._Claiborne

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._English

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings#Impeachment (I know)

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halsted_L._Ritter

In his questionnaire, Alito provided new details about his financial holdings, including that he owns $161,000 of Exxon Mobil Corp. stock. Altogether, Alito estimated his net worth at $2.1 million, of which $870,000 is in real estate, $789,000 in stocks and mutual funds, $244,000 in cash and $60,000 in federal Series EE bonds.

According to previous financial disclosures reported last month by the Associated Press, the Exxon Mobil stock was a bequest from a family friend.

-snip
http://judicialnetwork.com/cgi-data/in_the_news/files/136.shtml


WHAT "FAMILY FRIEND" BEQUEATHS SOMEONE $161,000 IN EXXON STOCK?

Otherwise it is not a bequeath.

And yes I am a lawyer. Minor point.

"give, devise and bequeath" is the language in the will.
"Bequest" is the noun form.

Never try to out pendanticize a lawyer. :hi:

n/t

If they get a case appealed to them to rule on Bush or others of these claiming executive privilege ala what happened in the Nixon cases, and if they go against the precedent set in those situations and rule in favor of Bush, then they run the risk of increasing the liklihood that the Senate could make an obstruction of justice-based impeachment of these SCOTUS justices later.

They then may realize the potential cost of ruling for the Bushies in terms of putting themselves in this position and rule against them instead. That might make it harder for us to impeach the SCOTUS judges then (might have to find something else to do it with), but it might help us better imipeach Bushco though! Either way, WE WIN!

http://www.thenation.com/doc//bugliosi

article | posted January 18, 2001 (February 5, 2001 issue)
None Dare Call It Treason

Vincent Bugliosi

snip to the very end of a long read:

"That an election for an American President can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening and dangerous events ever to have occurred in this country. Until this act--which is treasonous, though again not technically, in its sweeping implications--is somehow rectified (and I do not know how this can be done), can we be serene about continuing to place the adjective "great" before the name of this country?"

I've been heartbroken and disillusioned for a very long time!

and there is more:
http://www.votermarch.org/Bugliosi.htm

Vincent Bugliosi Guest Speaker at Voter March Event

On July 31, Voter March (New York City) had as our guest speaker, Vincent Bugliosi, legendary prosecutor and author of the New York Times Best Seller "The Betrayal of America - How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President," with forewords by Molly Ivins and Gerry Spence. Vincent Bugliosi's Nation article about the 2000 election, "None Dare Call It Treason," generated more inquiries and online hits than any other article in the magazine's history.

Vincent Bugliosi Reviews: See reviews by Molly Ivins, Gerry Spence and Lou Posner of Voter March from the American Politics Journal.

"Vincent Bugliosi has written the modern equivalent of 'J'accuse'. I am not a lawyer, but I do know that when Bugliosi quotes a Yale law professor as saying the day of the Bush v. Gore decision was 'like the day of the Kennedy assassination' for him and many of his colleagues, this is not an exaggeration."
Molly Ivins

"It is a pathetic spectacle that Bugliosi beckons us to behold - this high, hallowed court and its revered majority sold out to Power."
Gerry Spence, Esq.

"With his powerful, brilliant, and courageous expose of crime by the highest court in the land Vincent Bugliosi takes his place in the pantheon of patriots who have stood up and spoken out against injustice. When an article he wrote on Bush v. Gore appeared in The Nation magazine in February, 2001, it drew the largest outpouring of letters and e-mail in the magazine's 136-year history, tapping a deep reservoir of outrage. Bugliosi's argument is here greatly expanded, amended and amplified."
Lou Posner, Esq., Voter March Founder and Chair

and more:
http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4018

He Still Dares Call It Treason
Monica Friedlander

"What happened here is not the sunlight of democracy, but the dark and ominous shadows of totalitarianism." -- Vincent Bugliosi

What unfolded on August 2 under the elegant, gilded dome of the landmark historic Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, California was one of the harshest, no-holds-barred indictments of the U.S. Supreme Court ever made. Famed prosecutor and writer Vincent Bugliosi blasted the Bush v Gore ruling, calling it the "worst crime in U.S. history" - in effect, the "theft of the Presidency.

The talk was part of promotional tour for his book, "The Betrayal of America," in which he charges that (in)Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, and Kennedy betrayed everything they ever believed in to take the election away from the American people and into their own hands based on an inapplicable constitutional principle.

"I will stake my prosecutorial reputation on the fact that within the pages of this book I prove beyond reasonable doubt that these five Justices deliberately set out to hand the election to George Bush," Bugliosi says. "The evidence against them is absolutely overwhelming. Like typical criminals on the run, they left their dirty fingerprints everywhere."

These formidable charges -- involving a ruling that changed the course of history, made by a nationally respected prosecutor, and in front of a full and vociferous house -- unfolded with virtually no media coverage. This "omission" is in keeping with the media's "move-on-the-election-is-over" mentality, which Bugliosi likened to "Nazi war criminals saying 'the war is over. Let's get on with our lives.'"

Bugliosi announced during the talk that Congressman John Conyers of Michigan asked that "None Dare Call It Treason" -- the article on which Betrayal of America was based -- be entered into the Congressional record, thus bringing the charges against "the felonious five," as Bugliosi calls them, into the permanent annals of Congress.

Bugliosi praised those in the audience who by supporting his cause are finding themselves "in the front lines, in the trenches," fighting "a noble war" -- and added, "I salute you for it."

He also asked the audience to help get his message out. He said that in his long and successful career he never had so much trouble getting invited to speak on the air as he does now, even though his book has been on the New York Times bestseller list for weeks.


Mods please forgive the four paragraph rule this time. Thanks in advance.

Is either to prone to hyperbole to the point of ridiculousness or grossly unaware of this nation's history.

it disregarded the Constitution and has done nothing except bring misery and heartache to the world. If any action by the Supreme Court deserved it's members being impeached, that one did.

number of justices that serve on the Supreme Court. So once Dems gain control of the presidency and congress (in 2008 if there is a God) they could change that number and sidestep Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.

You need 2/3rds majority to remove an official serving by impeachment, but you'd only need majorities to change the law.

of "packing the Supreme Court." Though FDR had to give it up, finally (too much Reichwing yelling), it did have an impact. The Supreme Court had been blocking vitally needed New Deal programs. Under pressure of the threat to "pack the court" (add justices to outvote the dinosaurs), one justice changed his mind. Thus, Social Security was saved.

But I hadn't thought of the relative numbers of votes needed, impeachment vs. expanding the number of justices. The latter is NOT a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution does not specify the number of SC court justices. Nine is arbitrary. Anybody know what law set the number? I presume it can be overturned by majority vote. True?

Wouldn't you love to see them shaken off their fat corporate asses by the threat of "packing the court"! It makes me laugh with joy.

But, friends, really, we have some work to do first on ridding our election system of "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY vote "counting" code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations. That's what's holding things up--why the ship of state cannot be put right--in case you hadn't noticed. Once we have transparent vote counting again, then we will start seeing real reform. This dicking around with Bush on the horror of Iraq (and all the other horrors) is the tipoff. Things aren't right. 75% of the people want this war ended--and Congress can't do it? What's wrong with this picture?

However, in the meantime, it is well to dream about what a real democracy would look like, and strategize toward that end. I've been following things in South America, where leftist (majorityist) governments have been elected in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Here are the lessons I've garnered...

1. Transparent elections (!)
2. Grass roots organization.
3. Think big.

Sure, the right wing opposed it, but they did it with the help of Democrats who thought it was an abuse of power and they were correct. If FDR had packed the court, then every President following him that had the opportunity would've done the same. It's bad enough that we got Roberts and Alito. Could you imagine what the court would look like if Bush got to add five justices?

:shrug:

It is simply removal from office. It is a legal/political proceeding, not a strictly legal one. Gross malfeasance would do. Bush v. Gore would do. That is cause enough in itself. UNCONSTITUTIONAL or grossly un-legal rulings would do. For instance, failure to enforce equal rights (14th amendment) for women. Their support of "unitary executive" theories. Tyranny! Their failure to restore and maintain the "balance of powers" (for instance, the Bushites ignore Congressional subpoenas; the Court upholds the Bushites). WE decide what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are--or rather, we decide, and, after we have restored our right to vote, we elect a Congress that is truly representative and that listens to us and acts on our behalf.

But there are other routes to go. Impeachment is the hardest, because it requires two-thirds. "Packing" the court (adding justices) is one. Invalidating the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, and rescinding all Bush Junta appointments, could be another. Appointing a Special Prosecutor just for the Supreme Court could also be a strategy--somebody to dog their every hunting party, get the goods on them, force them to resign. There are a number of Constitutional amendments that could curtail them--for instance, putting term limits on them, or making them electable, retrospectively (--so that all current justices have to undergo election.) But these, too, require two-thirds (amendments). "Packing" the court would probably be the easiest.

It is almost laughable to think of this Corporate Democrat Congress doing any of this. They won't even investigate 4 out the 5 gross miscarriages of justice in the last elections, and they are fully ENDORSING Diebold/ES&S "trade secret" vote counting. It's "below the radar," and not framed that way, of course, but that's what they're doing.

And that is why I maintain that a grass roots movement to secure vote counting that everyone can see and understand has to come first. It has to become a local/state issue--venues where ordinary people still have some influence. UNTIL we have transparent vote counting, no real reform is possible. It may be desperately needed, but it is literally not possible. The DEMOCRATS--our own party leaders--are blockading any real reform. Their current discussion parades as an antiwar discussion, but all they are talking about is MORE FUNDING FOR THE WAR ON IRAQ. Six months. A year. MORE BILLIONS. MORE DEATH. Trying to wait out the antiwar movement. Trying to wear down, and discourage and demoralize, the SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT of the American people who want this terrible war to be ended. Bush is sending TENS OF THOUSANDS MORE troops into Iraq! He is EXTENDING the tours of troops who are already there. It is unconscionable!

And there is NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT this, or the fascist Supreme Court, or anything else, until we have restored transparent vote counting. Voting is the ONLY mechanism we have to exercise our sovereignty as a people, and they have taken it away. We MUST get it back.

... like NOT hearing Sibel Edmonds' appeal to the court and instead listening to Anna Nicole Smith's case a couple of years ago.

If it can be shown that they intentionally did not listen to that case in efforts to cover up for Bush's or other high level officials unconstitutional actions (therefore facilitating the coverup, and potentially also affecting election results, etc.), I think THAT would be grounds for impeachment! The problem is that you don't have a record on how they voted to hear or not hear her case too. I'm told that if four justices vote to hear a case, that the court has to hear it, or the chief justice can himself rule to hear it. Therefore, not all of "the four" voted to hear Edmonds' case, so one of them might also be liable for impeachment too if if this were ruled an impeachable offense. Since there's no recorded vote on this issue, it might be hard to know what really took place.

It's hard to impeach just based on how they rule in the court. You need to find some sort of abuse of the judicial system, like not recusing themselves in some cases (that might be hard to make stick unless there's an obvious conflict of interest, which is why Roberts did recuse himself earlier on that one ruling that he'd ruled on in an earlier court ruling. That might have given the Dems the ammunition they needed at that time).

Overturning Roe v. Wade won't do it either, sad to say, unless Congress had specifically passed a law to protect womens' rights and the court chose to subsequently ignore that ruling.

I do think our best best in trying to impeach some of these justices is to get them trapped in a case where they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. In other words if in a case they're being forced to rule for Bush (and violate the constitution or be a part of a conspiracy of coverup or one to violate the constitution), or to rule against Bush and help bring down the Bush administration (which might have other side effects for them).

A friend of mine once had a portion of his website devoted to criticizing Scalia. It was entitled "How to Impeach a Supreme Court Justice." He yanked it after '04, though.

for no other reason than you don't like them?

What happened was treason, it is not that "we" just don't like someone.

Read Article III section 3 of the Constitution. While the Court's ruling in the Election case was dead wrong on so many counts, do not see it rising to the level of the Constitutionally defined crime of treason.

level of expertise?

I'm sorry I just stand with Daniel Ellsberg, John Dean, Howard Zinn and many others.

I truly respect Bugliosi and the stand he took very early on. '

Peace.

I never claimed any expertise in the field. If these gentlemen are so firmly convinced that the actions of the court approach the Constitutional definition treason, have the act on their professional opinions. Have they made any attempt to persuade the House of Representatives to start impeachment proceedings against any current court member. Seems that last time I actually heard of anyone trying to impeach a court member, it was Chief Justice Warren during the 1960s. It is very easy to call something treason without having to expend time or professional reputation in backing your accusations on the floor of the House.

And the will to cast them. There is no other real criterion, nor any avenue of appeal or review save the next election. It is not a legal proceeding, but a political one with a few legal airs about it for the comfort of spectators.

I've read the posts that argue "this isn't just that we dislike them, there really are grounds for impeachment". I'd love to see some of those Justices retired, but, to my mind, the arguments just don't cut it. My guess is that quite a few Democrats in Congress would feel the same way (like the principled Republicans who voted against the Clinton impeachment foolishness).

Court-packing is also a nonstarter. The Republicans would scream bloody murder about "politicizing" the Supreme Court. It's a hypocritical accusation, coming from them, but it would resonate with a lot of people -- and, again, with quite a few Democrats in Congress. I doubt you could get a majority in either house for such a bill.

Pushing either of these ideas would only help the Republicans divert attention from the real issues. Instead of trying to exact vengeance for Bush v. Gore, we should be working to make sure that future elections are honest, and aren't again subject to being stolen (with or without judicial connivance).

I'm not sure how you could get an impechment trial going for any of the Supremes when Congress can't even get one going for Bush and/or Cheney.

K&R.

Sorry, but we can't simply start throwing shit and seeing what sticks. We would have to have legitimate reasons for impeachment, otherwise we're no better than criminals.

The Dems had their chance to stop these horrendous nominations, but they fucking blew it, all in the name of "keeping their powder dry." Now we get to live with the consequences of their spinelessness

disagree with their decisions would be a horrible precedent to set.