Hmm. What did that court do in that recent case? It upheld an act of Congress. Something **BG **is claiming they wouldn’t do. Thanks, Elvis, but I don’t need you to help me win this argument. 
Go look up Roe v. Wade sometime. :rolleyes:
That’s even funnier than the stuff you just posted in the Pit thread!
I’d be particularly interested in seeing what a few of our more conservative jurisconsults have to say on the Roberts Court faced with the question of whether to entertain a suit defining an impeachable offense. I suspect strongly that the decision would in fact be not to accept the case, with the decision based on judicial self-restraint, probably with really odd combinations of justices in the majority and dissenting.
It’s my understanding that the SCOTUS rarely agrees to insert itself into a fight between the legislative and the executive branches. I suppose it might if the Congress decided to impeach someone for wearing black shoes and a brown belt. But I think that in any realistic option, the Congress is going to charge the official with something that at least has a legal fig leaf of logic behind it.
Read the Constitution. :rolleyes: There is no way for SCOTUS to insert itsefl into the impeachment process, other than offering the CJ as a ceremonial presiding officer in the Senate “trial” for Presidents. The Constitution makes it quite clear that it’s an administrative political procedure, not related to the realm of law at all.
It *should * be “your understanding” that the judiciary is nevertheless a political branch like the other two, with its own role in making and executing law. It *should * also be your understanding that it is composed of humans with a lot of power and a strong temptation to use it. It *should * also be your understanding that it is quite possible for them to be nominated on the basis of their willingness to act on that temptation.
Now, if you actually had bothered to understand the “partial birth” ruling arguments, or even read them for that matter, you’d have at least some suspicion that the “conservative” wing of it used it to judicially-activistically overturn the longstanding *Roe * precedent to the extent that it was politically possible for them to do so, for no other reason than their own ideology. But the response you gave instead, and the depth of thought shown your last several posts here, demonstrate your true level of interest in debating this topic more eloquently than anyone else can describe.
Elvis, you are indeed the funniest person on this board!!
I don’t really think anything so mundane as “criminal” really applies here. This isn’t stealing a car or selling booty down on Main Street. This is a civil matter, in the highest sense. The proper punishments for this sort of thing is disgrace and banishment from public life. Watching Ms Goodling, I don’t think she quite grasps that she has even done anything wrong, she “didn’t mean to”. She simply doesn’t get it. She’s functional, but there’s a part missing.
I don’t need to see anyone go to jail, I simply want the names and resumes of everyone who participated in this disgraceful attempt to undermine our democracy. Does this scheme have a specific author, or is it a collective skullduggery?
At any rate, criminality is a moot point. Exposed, disgraced, chucked out on their ear…that will be quite enough.
I believe they would refuse such a case, not based on judicial self-restraint, but because of the political question doctrine.
In short, though it pains me to say it, ElvisL1ves is correct, at least as far as that conclusion goes.
I must disagree with Hamlet, as did 28 of the 38 members of the House Judiciary Committee in 1974, that “other high crimes and misdemeanors” have to involve the violation of a particular statute. Their second article of impeachment against Richard Nixon, the one that gained the most support, was for abuses of Executive power with no claim of statutory violations. And the abuses of power in question were very much like those we see in Bush’s Department of Justice today.
Those that claim that the violation of a specific statute is required for impeachment must argue against the validity of the 1974 precedent. Ignoring or dismissing it is not a reasonable option.
But assuming the validity of that precedent, it’s hard to see how there’s an objective standard for impeachment, or (per John Mace’s comment) what exactly would clearly fall outside the category of “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Thanks for that, Bricker. Grudging as that admission was from you, it’s still more than John can manage.
You seem to imply that this SCOTUS would *want * to involve itself with inhibiting an impeachment of a (Republican) President, if it could find an opening to do so. Is that right, or am I reading too much into your post? I’m also curious if you found the “partial birth” decision, when set against Roe, to be “judicial activism” or simply a rubber-stamping of an act of the Congress du jour, as John suggests that it was and properly so.
I think the original question about whether the firing of the attorneys is an important one. My impression is that it was not illegal but that it was incredibly sleazy and corrupt. Apparently these attorneys are responsible for who should and should not be charged with federal crimes, and in any country with a claim to have “justice” as one of its ideals, these decisions should not be overtly political. It seems that the current administration did precisely want these attorneys to push political agendas. In a better world, the press should have made a huge stink about this and the public should be outraged.
Alas, the main scandal involving the issue is about the cover-up. Even though the firings were not illegal, the justice department tried to cover it up to avoid bad publicity and in doing so likely did violate laws. So unfortunately in the furor about the smoke, there is little attention being made to the fire.
Well, obviously. The question is whether the agenda in question – challenging voters – is (1) illegal and/or (2) objectionable. Some Pubs might argue it is neither, on the grounds that fighting “voter fraud” is merely enforcing the law, which is what the DoJ is supposed to do, and if making a vigorous effort happens to freeze out more potential Dem than Pub votes, well, that’s just how it works out.
Against that we have plenty of evidence that “voter fraud” is not a real problem (see study linked in this thread) and that any purported effort to stop is, ipso facto, cover for a partisan vote-suppression agenda, which is illegal (but not necessarily a crime) under the Voting Rights Act. (See posts #45-47 of this thread.) A challenged voter, if not simply frightened off, might be given a provisional ballot, but most people don’t know how likely those are to get tossed out. (See Armed Madhouse, Chapter 4, “The Con,” and the Afterword, “Busted.”)
Grounds for impeachment are whatever a majority the House of Representatives decides they are. However, grounds for conviction have to meet a higher test. No president has been convicted yet. Nixon might have been since it seems that he definitely did convictable things.
Andrew Johnson came within 1 vote of removal for violating an unconstitutional law and making disparaging speeches about Congress. Don’t be so confident.
True, but Johnson had a lot of baggage besides the violation of the Tenure of Office Act.
He was a southern Democrat. He started reconstructing the confederate states while congress was in recess, and he did so on terms that the radical Republicans violently opposed.
When a court makes a decision it sets a precedent, in a legal sense. I don’t think that’s true of a non-legislative decision of Congress.
I think that’s because of the political circumstances of each particular case, not because the Constitution spells out any “higher test” for the Senate to apply; it doesn’t.
It is an EXCELLENT argument. The man who benefitted from the corrupt, partisan 2000 SCOTUS decision has appointed two more justices to the Court that made the decision. Gee, I wonder which way they lean … MORE toward corruption and partisanship, or LESS?
It’s got Rove-stink all over it.