Bill Clinton Kicked Out by Supremes!!!?!

Great Debates
1

This news really, really pisses me off. http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/01/scotus.clinton/ The Supreme Injustices have blocked Clinton from arguing in front of the Supreme Court. Ok, the guy was impeached for lying about Monica [what gentleman would not have?]. But this appears to be a continuation of the vindictive behavior of rabid Republicans to forever smear the Clinton name as part of the so-called revenge for impeaching Nixon.

Come on SDMB ladies and gentlemen, tell me what is a more serious crime? Lying about Monica [yes, it was sordid, but where was the threat to national security?to our democracy?to our American values?] or the Supremes committing what some consider the ultimate injustice by BYPASSING the US Constitution in order to appoint Bush to the presidency? They acted in self interest, just as Clinton did. But the consequences impacted all of us much more which makes it even more awful.

Let me state here, right now, that I think that Bush has done a tremendous job in handling the 9/11 disaster. While supporting the admin in this effort against global terrorism, I cannot forget that they came in without the majority vote, started to withdraw from just about any international treaty/agreement, decided not to continue to pressure the Israelis and Palestinians to end their war, started to re-engineer the Defense Dept to emphasize missle defense… then those bastards at the SC do this. Makes me want to puke.

I vote for impeaching the whole damn bunch of them; let’s throw those bastards out!

2

To be admitted to the Supreme Court bar, an attorney must be in good standing with his or her state bar. Bill Clinton, having surrendered his law license for five years, is not in good standing with his state bar. This is simply standard practice, newsworthy only because it’s an ex-president who has been/is being disbarred. Clinton has 40 days to respond to the Court’s action. If he does not respond (which he probably won’t) then the disbarment becomes “permanent,” which just means that if/when he is again in good standing with the Arkansas bar he may re-apply to the Supreme Court bar.

3

[yawwwwwnnnnnnnnn]

He wasn’t kicked out. They suspened him from practicing law in front of the Supreme Court. Since he wasn’t currently doing that, then there is nothing to be kicked out of. It would be like kicking me out. Big deal. He’s not a practicing lawyer. He already had his law licenses suspended for 5 years in Arkansas.

All the other stuff you mention seem so irrelevant considering what we are facing now.

4

Ack.

First, I gather it is the custom, when a lawyer who has been admitted to the Supreme Court bar is disbarred in his home state, to disbar him at SCOTUS as well. One of our practicing attorneys can confirm or refute that; it’s merely my recall of something read long ago, and I have no cite.

Second, this is not a political ploy, much as it might seem so.

Third, I disagree strongly with the stance of the majority in Bush vs. Gore – but they made a ruling based on their understanding of the Constitution – the job they’re supposed to do.

Fourth, if we never again even contemplate impeaching anybody because he/she is our political opponent, we’ll be a much better country for it.

That goes for everybody from Justice Chase to Bill Clinton to Antonin Scalia (who has a personality that makes wolverines cringe in embarrassment, but at least does the job he was appointed to do).

Finally, we operate under the rule of law. Whether or not we agree with the Electoral College, the recounting of votes, whether hanging chads are valid, whether Gore or Bush should have made any of those motions that led to the SCOTUS case between them, etc., what separates us from the Taliban is that we live based on the rule of law, under a Constitution.

Guess what? Whether you or I or Jodi or Sua Sponte or IzzyR or Uncle Beer think something is unconstitutional does not matter the least bit. It depends on the opinions of a majority of legislators and a chief executive (state legislature and governor, assuming he has the right to sign/veto legislation, as most but not all do, or Congress and President), and if made law on the opinions of the judges ruling on cases under it, with the SCOTUS as final say. (Short of amending the Constitution, four Supreme Court decisions having been reversed in that way.)

Bush is President. Clinton is disbarred. Not the way you or I would have decided, but live with it.

Or start a revolution. And see how far you get.

5

What??? Are Diana Ross and the girls are touring again??
oh… not those Supremes?.. never mind :wink:

6

Hell, that’s why I was thinking.

I saw the thread title and thought, “Oh christ, what’s he done now?”

7

>Yes, I agree that it is a case of ergo; disbarred in his home state ergo “disbarred” from the Supreme Court.
> No, I do not agree that the Supreme Court acted legally or based on precedent. This particular court has fallen on the side of local control/state’s right and, in the case of election administration, the constitution clearly delegates election administration to local control. Their Bush v Gore decision grabbed back that delegation. In addition, federal law also clearly spells out what should happen when there is a dispute about a particular state’s electoral college slate… this was sidejumped by the Supreme’s intervention.
> Yes, I do believe that this court made its decision based on members’ agendas and political party/orientation. Case by case, folks who follow the court can say who will fall pretty much where on a particular issue. They did not want a Democrat president appointing liberal justices. Dershowitz’s book pretty much spells out this particular argument.
> Yes, this is a country based on laws which should be applied equally to all. We aren’t like the vast majority of countries where decisions are made by fiat.

What pisses me off is the long, long history of spending public monies to get Clinton who, by the way, wasn’t perfect. This action strikes me as a poorly disguised political slap, hahaha and the dog back-kicking his feet on his own shit. The action was unnecessary. It was an case of “ergo” that did not need to be said.

It might also seem irrelevant considering what we are facing now. OTOH, don’t you think that it is important to pay attention to the behavior of national decision-makers? I suppose one could rant and rave about our democratic values, rule of law, what are we defending; what should be clear to all is that we cannot forfeit or modify our civil liberties in face of terrorists.

What’s in it for Bill? Probably not much, he definitely will not turn into a second Jimmy Carter who has flourished after his presidency.

What’s it mean for bipartisanship? Probably not much singularly, but it will add to the memory pile of dirty politics which in turn will continue negative campaigning and result in voter disservice.

Bottomline: the announcement will not go down in history as having a great impact, but it does leave a bad taste in own’s mouth.

8

Clinton was never a practicing lawyer anyway, I wonder why he applied for membership in the USSC bar in the first place.

9

It’s a ministerial function. He’s not in good standing; therefore, he’s ineligible for the U.S. SupCt Bar. If you ever read the Court’s Orders list (comes out every Monday, I believe) then you’ll see a list of attorneys at the end of it who are being suspended because they’re no longer in good standing with their state bar. If he didn’t want to be disbarred from the U.S. SupCt, he shouldn’t have taken the deal whereby he was suspended from the Arkansas Bar. He knew this would be a consequence; we all do.

–Cliffy,
law-school graduate

10

Is anyone else finding this line as amusing as I am?

11

haha, you got me. I meant to say that we should pay attention to how they do their jobs. I stand corrected on that point.

12

Text of Rule 8 of the United States Supreme Court Rules:

13

Nixon wasn’t impeached.

14

I, as a gentleman, would not lie under oath, nor would I use any power that I may yield to influence others to lie under oath for me either. I have more respect for myself and for the law than that.

You man now carry on with you whinning, bitching and moaning now.

15

No, MQ, kiffa is right.

A gentleman should not under any circumstances, besmirch the honor of a lady. Even at the cost of personal honor.

That said, the proper answer is, “I refuse to answer that question.” Even under pain of perjury, a gentlemen never tells.

16

KIFFA –

A “poorly disguised political slap”? To follow the rules of the Court and insist they be applied equally to all attorneys is a “poorly disguised political slap”? What?

Look, as has already been explained to you, an attorney who is not in good standing to practice in a state court cannot be in good standing to practice in a federal court, including the Supreme Court. Why? Because the federal system does not independently test attorneys for competency or character. The states do that. Then, if you are admitted to practice is a state (and in good standing), you can move to be admitted to practice in the federal system as well – based on the fact that you are already admitted in good standing in some state. The feds require nothing further of you, except payment of a licensing fee. If you’re not in good standing in at least one state, you cannot practice in the federal courts.

My understanding is that the U.S. Supreme Court routinely informs attorneys who were formerly admitted to practice before it but who are now “not in good standing” that they cannot appear before it. This is an administrative or ministerial function which probably does not even require the attention of the Court, except for the one justice who likely signs such orders.

To argue that this should not happen to President Clinton is in effect an argument that he should receive special treatement – that because of who he is, he should not suffer the sanction that every other attorney in his position would suffer. You probably won’t be surprised to hear that I do not believe he should be treated differently. Being “not in good standing” in his underlying state jurisdiction, he can no longer practice in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. They were not out of line, much less vindictive, to so inform him.

17

Actually, it sounds like he will respond:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/01/scotus.clinton/

18

And other gentlemen (and ladies) never ask such questions.

19

kiffa,

Since several people have posted explaining the rules and practice of federal courts, and since it should be clear to you now that the Supreme Court acted in accord with those rules, and not out of any political or vindictive motive… it would be nice if you posted an acknowledgement of same.

My mistake. While I still believe the attacks on Clinton and the perjury charges were baseless and politically motivated, and I still believe the Supreme Court acted wrongly in Bush v. Gore, I now see that they acted properly in this case.

Something like that.

Just trying to help.

  • Rick
20

Of course, you’re right, O mighty King. Proper behavior for a gentlemen involved never placing another in the position of having to duck such a question.

I salute you, sir.