Even if found guilty, Bybee could remain a Federal Judge.

Some disgusting facts:

If found guilty of breaking any or all the laws involved in Bybee's writing the pro-torture memos,
he could be disbarred in Nevada, which gave him the lawyer license.
( isn't that DINO Reid's state??)

Let's say he is dis-barred.

But...
"there is no requirement that a federal judge have a law degree or be a lawyer , much less be a licensed one. While every judge on the federal bench is, in fact, a lawyer in good standing with their state bar, technically they do not have to be."

Therefore, he could stay on as a Federal judge, with no law license.

"federal judges can only be “disciplined” by the federal judicial system’s office of judicial conduct, not removed from office.
A disciplined judge might be prevented from hearing cases or from signing court orders,
but removal from office, under the Constitution,
requires impeachment by a majority of the House of Representatives, and conviction by a two-thirds vote of the US Senate."

Link to much more....from a May 7th newspaper column I just found.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/050709Lindorff.shtml

is much ado about nothing. A big bunch of words that mean nothing.

Here's the only salient feature anyone can take from it:

Prof. Deborah Rhode, director of the Center for the Legal Profession at the Stanford University School of Law, commented, “I would imaging that anything that would be enough to disbar you would be enough to remove you from the bench,” when asked what the impact of a disbarment of a judge would be in the federal courts.

Theory is one thing - reality is another. If Bybee were disbarred, he'd resign and that would end it. He would be instructed as to what to do, and he would do it.

That's how it works.....................

do you think Bybee would step down calmly?

Dunno...seems uncharacteristic of how the Neo-cons have worked so far.

When the President of the United States tells you to step down, you step down.....................

Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments. Its one of the things that make the Judicial branch independent of the executive branch. A President can tell a Judge to step down and the Judge can disclose the request and give the President the finger.

If Bybee is convicted, he has to be impeached, convicted and removed by Congress to pry his corrupt carcass out of that chair. Now, of course, an ethical person would resign his seat on the bench immediately, but then we'd be talking about someone else. An honorable and ethical person, say Oliver Wendell Holmes, would step down right now if he were in Bybee's position. But honorable and ethical people don't usually find themselves in Bybee's situation because they're, well, you know.

And then there is reality. The reality is what prevails.

Think about it for a minute, and you'll understand .........................

our opinion of him not withstanding

and ignoring the political realities. Seriously, consider what real life is like, how it works, and how the politics of power function........

Trying to explain to you that you must include how politics works when you consider legal procedure is hardly a theoretical point I'm trying ot make.

The real world - embrace it ......................

US District Judge Walter Nixon was convicted of federal crime, disbarred and was impeached - he lost his retirement and benefits. He fought to keep his judgeship and appealed his impeachment.

Nixon appealed his removal to the United States Supreme Court, which rejected his appeal as a nonjusticiable political question in the case of Nixon v. United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Nixon

Nixon was allowed to be reinstated to the practice of law after he had served his sentence. He had to petition for reinstatement and pass the bar exam, but he was admitted to the practice again, after his conviction, impeachment and completion of his sentence.

Judge Alcee Hastings was charged with federal crimes, was found not guilty at trial but was still impeached.

SIGNIFICANCE: This is the only instance in American history where a Federal official was first tried by a criminal court and, after being acquitted, was then impeached by the U.S. Congress for the same crime. What makes it even more extraordinary is that the individual in question then went on to be elected to the very U.S. House of Representatives that had impeached him.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/3376/Alcee-Hastings-Trial-Impeachment-1983-1989.html

I'm not getting whatever point you're trying to make.............

which allows for the removal of a sitting judge other than impeachment.

It is argued by some that Congress could enact laws to allow for the removal, could set up procedures that allow for the removal, but no such laws exist.

and must remain on the table until the people of the United States discharges you from doing so.

Hawkeye-X

sitting judge. Otherwise any time there was a major change in the political winds, any judges who did not meet the new majority's litmus tests would be up for impeachment.

Bottom line is short of a conviction, he is going to be on the bench

is completely wrong. I don't know where you got that kind of information, but it's 'way off.

Anything that is grounds for impeachment is grounds for impeachment, regardless of when it occurred.

Your bottom line is also wrong. Should he lose his license to practice law, the horror that that scenario would open would grease the slide for his departure even faster. For my money, that scenario would be an appellate attorney's dream, but the political realities are that his disbarment would just be the condition precedent to his resignation.......................

Yes a sitting judge could be removed for eating a ham sandwich, and yes, technically, someone could be impeached for anything at anytime. However, it does not work that way in the real world. Short of a conviction, no one gets thrown out of office. Clinton's was a media circus, he was never going to get removed, and it clearly backfired on the repukes who set it up.

Not sure how my bottom line is wrong as a practical matter. If he is convicted, he is out. Either by resignation or impeachment. If he is not convicted, based on what is out there today, no Wash DC pol is going to seriously push for impeachment since the precedent of throwing out judges for things we don't like is not one that anyone wants to set. It would have been fine during confirmation, but not now.

that "ham sandwich" line is a giveaway.

Although, good, it's good that you understand that your first line was incorrect. It was an absurd contention, and only someone completely oblivious to the political realities of the judiciary would believe something so off-the-wall.

You are completely sold on the perfectly erroneous contention that, short of a conviction, a sitting judge who has been disbarred and publicly shamed in a variety of ways is going to retain his seat. That is so wrong as to be delusional, but you can believe what you want. Ignoring political realities is a terrible disability, and having a mind so closed to how things operate is a sure-fire way to miss all that is going on around you.

Subtext. Machinations. Power. They're beautiful things, and for those who don't recognize them, they're invisible, I suppose............

I'll take the GWU law faculty over web based opinions...

What I said was that short of conviction he would remain on the bench. I did not address disbarment, but that too would be a very hard road to go for similar reasons.

I am looking at the practical side of things...not wish fufillment

the line is that a semi-competent prosecutor, on any given day, with any given set of grand jurors, can get an indictment against a ham sandwich. That's part of the joke of the grand jury system.

You're weaseling now, and backpedaling. A closed mind is, well, a closed mind, and there's nowhere to go. So I'm outta here.

But, I'm just thankful that my law students, and those of my colleagues, were never as slavish and unquestioning in their acceptance of what we gave them in lectures. Socrates gave us all a great gift, and one of the things you should understand - this might not be available to people attending a lecture - is that it is within the give-and-take of a session that the best views and most valuable information are discovered.

Good luck, and stay away from that widipedia ...............

See my post #34 - Alcee Hastings was not convicted but was still impeached.

Would the people before him simply sit by with him as their judge?

Would the community?

I'm going to agree with the posters above who said he will step down; the GOP have dozens of think tanks that will give him a soft landing.

I'm sure Liberty University would hire him as a professor.

for a judge to be recusal.

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

wrong, wrong, wrong.

Professor, you need to talk to a lawyer who understands politics, and stop using wikipedia as your source.

You should know better................

and what I posted is pretty much what they said...short of a felony conviction, there is very little likely hood of him being removed due to the precedent it would set.

As for using Wiki, its a fine good cursory level source to define words like recusal that many may not know.

that's worked for a long, long time when you want to know what a word means. It's a great concept, the dictionary.

Tenured law faculty, huh? Well, that tenured law faculty must be hovering somewhere in the rarefied atmosphere that surrounds the academe, but they lack the basic knowledge of the practitioners - especially the Washington, DC practitioners. It's unfortunate that they left you with such a narrow, and, alas, not terribly enlightened impression.

They are wrong. They are overlooking, or perhaps they don't even know how the political realities of such a situation function. They hardly gave you proper information.

Tell you what - next time you're in the company of "tenured law faculty," see if they can tell what "judicial notice" means, as a practical matter, and see if they can apply it to the hypothetical of a removal of a Federal judge. If they can do that, they will be able to give you a much more comprehensive, and, consequently, accurate answer as to how these things are managed.

And, seriously, ditch the wikipedia....................

They seemed solid on no conviction no impeachment. They also pointed out that no President would dare try and push a judge out. The rest of the judicial branch would not stand for it. I'll go with them...

You opinion of Wiki is noted.

you're trying to change the terms of our exchange.

It was not about "impeachment."

It was about removal from the bench. There are ways other than impeachment, and I am telling you that the political realities are such that a judge in such a position as Jay Bybee may find himself - publicly shamed, disbarred - would have no choice but to resign.

Never change the terms in the middle of the negotiations. It's not a valid way to operate.

"... push a judge out"? Are you serious? Do you honestly believe everything that happens in government is visible? Or memorialized in any lasting way?

George Washington University Law School is a terrific place. I've studied there and I've lectured there. I'm glad you had exposure to such top-flight minds, but if you want to enjoy a truly enhanced experience, understand that what they said in that discussion, like all good legal exchanges, was but a starting point, and infinitely flexible, just like the law. You are charged with putting your own understanding of the world onto the template the law professors - tenured, no less - have given you, and that will require a certain amount of worldly experience and the ability to integrate them into the legal opinions.....................

federal judges that have been removed from office by impeachment.

that I am not talking about impeachment.

I am talking about how, in the cold reality of the political world, judges are removed from office.

Is that so hard to understand? Apparently it is......................

removal of federal judges. They get to hold their jobs until they die, unless of course, they are impeached.

The claims being made about "plaintiffs" and "defendants" are so wrong as to be laughable.

Trust your instincts - the reality is that the politics will prevail, should such a situation arise. No judge would remain if he were disbarred - the party and, if necessary, the Executive Branch would let it be known that his time was up.

That's how it works ..................

They are appointed for life and can only be removed from office if they are impeached.

If Bybee is disbarred, he can still serve. If he is convicted, he could still sit as a judge and hear appeals. He could even choose to take senior status and retire from active participation, but he would still be a judge and entitled to retirement and the benefits of office.

I am talking about the political realities of the world. I am talking about how Bybee, as a hypothetical, if he were disbarred, would leave office.

Do you honestly think the line about "wanting to spend more time with my family" is why someone resigns a high-profile government job? It's code for "I was told to get out of here, and I'm smart, so I'm going, since I'd like to have a future and a job when I leave."

The real world. It is not separate and apart from the rules of law, something non-lawyers cannot be expected to understand.......

reality. It would appear you are uninformed and that you have no desire to become informed.

It would be you that is not dealing with the real world. Go read the case of Nixon v. USA or the information on Alcee Hasting's impeachment.

and I'm quite familiar with the Nixon case.

They are fascinating reading, but have absolutely no bearing on what I've been talking about here.

Reading comprehension is clearly not the long suit today, I can tell........................

Bybee can sit on the bench and serve even if he is convicted and/or disbarred. He can only be removed if he is impeached.

He could take senior status and "retire" to the nonactive position, but he would still hold the title, he would still be an Appeals court judge entitled to the salary and the benefits and retirement.

and this is honestly the last time I'm going to state what I've stated right through this hopeless thread:

I am not talking about impeachment. There are other ways that a judge or justice may leave the bench, and if you don't understand that, well, that's the way it goes....................................

Of course there are ways that judges may leave the bench other than impeachment. That is a given.

They can die, they can retire, take senior status and no longer take an active role on the court, or they can resign.

If they are not impeached and if they have not died in office, they are still entitled to the benefits of office, the retirement salary, the health care, etc. They still are allowed to benefit from the life time appointment.

They cannot be forced to resign.

that's an appellate branch, and they don't have "plaintiffs" and "defendants," which are the appellations used at the trial level.

"Petitioners" and "Respondents" are the terms used at the Circuit Court level, and if you're using widipedia as your authoritative source, it's no wonder you're making such wildly incorrect assertions.......................

The Federal Appellate Rules seem to reflect otherwise. See Rule 28(d)

http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/appel2007.pdf

I believe it is SCOTUS that refers to the parties as Petitioner/Respondent (as in, a party seeking review of the appellate decision files a Petition for Writ of Certiorari and is thus, the Petitioner. The party opposing the Petition would be the Respondent).

are the appellations used in the Rules. For practical purposes, pettioner and respondent are exactly the same as appellant and appellee, and the terms are not limited to any Supreme Court. But they are never used at trial level.

For example, in courts of equity, they're the given terms, ab initio.

The problem with reading Rules of Procedure is that they're guidelines, not hard and fast rules, and they never encompass all the jurisdictional eccentricities that are contained within the worlds of law and equity........................

File an appeal to one of the Circuit Courts and do no use the Appellant/Appellee distinctions and see how fast your brief is rejected.

and everything went fine. In the Seventh and the Fourth Circuits. No problem..................

I'd like to go read the opinion.

but, let's get real here now - it's a message board. You may not agree with what I say, and you may even doubt my veracity. That's fine.

But if you honestly think I'd expend any effort beyond what it takes to move these fingers over these keys, you're living in a world that doesn't recognize my reality.

Feel free to draw your own conclusions. It's a message board ..........................

yes, it is a message board.

You just found him a post-judicial career. As a Mormon, he might have to swallow hard before taking the job, but, YES, that is precisely where he'd go.

Good catch ..........................

I think that withholding of information at confirmation would be grounds for removal.

And Justice Roberts flat out lied during his confirmation hearings. He should be removed. But, in the real world of Washington politics, absolutely nothing will happen.

There is also the bad precedent it would set if he were not convicted of a felony prior.