Well, if we are going under strict interpretation of a true gentleman, a gentleman does not have sexual relations of any kind with someone other than his wife in the first place.
Wait, something embarassing happened to Bill Clinton?
I think, as a show of bipartianship and for old times’ sake, Bush ought to bomb something.
Yes he was. The House of Representatives adopted three articles of impeachment, including obstruction of justice. Nixon resigned before he could be tried in the Senate.
Nixon was NOT impeached!
drawing up articles is not the same thing.
Bill Clinton is the only elected President to be impeached.
And Andrew Johnson was impeached, but he took over after Lincoln, soooo…
Kiffa:
<<Ok, the guy was impeached for lying about Monica [what gentleman would not have?].>>
I would not have. As would any honest man with respect for the law and for his oath. Gentlemen do not swear an oath and then lie.
Moreover…
First you say,
<<>Yes, I agree that it is a case of ergo; disbarred in his home state ergo “disbarred” from the Supreme Court.>>
Then, in the same post, you say,
<<<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.>>>
Frankly, I don’t think you even know WHAT you’re arguing. Unless you want to argue that there are, in fact, no procedures already in place at SCOTUS which mandate the disbarment of lawyers not in good standing with the bars in their home states.
I think once again we have one of Clinton’s supporters moaning and whining that the rules which apply to the rest of us shouldn’t apply to him.
I’m so sick of it.
Otto, you are quite mistaken.
President Nixon was not impeached. Although three articles of impeachment against the President were approved in August 1974 by the House Judiciary Committee, the full House never acted on those articles. (By the way: obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and failure to comply with committee demands were the three specifics).
The final bombshell was the Supreme Court-ordered release of additional White House Oval Office tapes, which revealed Nixon had explictly directed the FBI to limit its investigation of Watergate. With that final nail-in-the-coffin disclosure, the full House was thought to be virtually certain to adopt the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee.
But Nixon forestalled that action. On August 8th, 1974, President Nixon resigned his office before the full House had a chance to act on the impeachment charges.
As should be abundantly clear, the House Judiciary Committee’s action, while devastating, does not constitute impeachment - only the House may do that, and they did not. There are roughly a zillion cites for this timeline - see, e.g., Grolier’s on-line encyclopedia, the Smithsonian’s American History page, or University of Illinois at Chicago’s Impeachment Page.
More cites available on request.
- Rick
No he wasn’t!
Sorry, no such animal exists.
Law can not rule, only people can. The law means whatever the courts say it means. We live under the rule of judges.
I’m pretty sure that judges can be impeached if they do not uphold the laws as written. Yes, human interpretation of the law is needed, but that’s not the same thing as judges having the power to make the law be anything they like.
a lying, equivocating purjerer should not be allowed to practice law, especially in front of the Supreme Court.
This is just further proof that the SCOTUS cares about justice, order, and respect for the law.
Of course, Bubba will contest it, I guarantee you.
I fail to see how the fact that judges are themselves subject to judgement affects my assertion.
The opinion rendered remains in effect until it is overturned by the opinion of another judge(s).
Just my 2sense
Screw the Supreme Court and put Bill on the Bench!!
pkbites wrote:
Look, this isn’t an argument; you’re just contradicting me!
Are you saying Reihnquist and Ted Olson should be disbarred too? Oh sorry, Olson was only disingenuous and misleading before congress accoprding to the independant council’s report. Of course, that was all Clinton’s testimony was found to be but that is close enough for you lot.
While I do agree that in practice this result would normally be a given following a suspension by the state bar I have a couple of questions. What was Ken Star in court for? Why does the order use the name Bill Clinton rather than William J. Clinton?
I’m a bit confused about this.
I now understand that they did what they are expected to do, when a lawyer is disbarred from his state. So the fact that the SCOTUS disbarred him seems fair to me.
Why not back in January when he agreed to the deal? Wasn’t today the very first day they returned to work? Were they that bored today? Was it because Billy-boy has become a bit more visible now than he was in January?
You can convince me that he deserves it (as it sounds like he does), but the timing still seems a bit fishy.
Would anyone who doesn’t have a vitriolic hatred for Bill, but experience in these matters, care to share why this happened today?
Thanks.
bump. You’ll understand why.
Starr was there with Seth Waxman to give support to Ted Olsen on his first day before the Court after the death of his wife. Starr and Waxman are both former Solicitors General.
I wondered about the “Bill Clinton” thing, too. I can’t find a listing of members of the SC bar, but I’m guessing that’s the name he used in his application.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. When the Supreme Court returns to work they issue a list of orders. Clinton’s disbarment was among those orders. Since disbarment is more administrative than judicial, they dispose of these things quickly and early. The timing isn’t fishy, it’s just the way it’s done.
Thanks, Zoff. That certainly takes the tuna smell out of the situation for me.
Although the court was in session for several months after Clinton agreed to the deal, it doesn’t act on these matters until it has received notice from the state bar that a given attorney has been suspended. So although everyone knew this was coming when Clinton and the IC (what was his name? Ray?) inked the deal, the paperwork likely wasn’t processed until sometime this summer when the Court was not in session.
–Cliffy