I heard recently that the Senate has the power to impeach all federal officers. The person I heard was speculating that IF the senate flips and is democrat majority they can impeach the newest judge.
Assuming a new majority, is this possible? I don’t see how it would ever happen, but is it possible?
There would have to be an impeachable offense. “We don’t like her” doesn’t rise to the threshold.
Right. Let’s assume that it’s true that she lied in her filing information.
“I don’t like her” is just fine since there is no authority to appeal an impeachment to. It may not play well with the public but they could do it that way if they really wanted to.
And yes, any federal officer can be impeached including Supreme Court justices. That said it takes a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove the person which is a very steep vote to get. As it stands today it is exceptionally unlikely.
That’s pretty much the threshold I’m referring to. You could do it, but you need to get far more votes than you could ever hope of getting, all while dashing your hopes of reelection completely out the window even if you fail at the attempt.
That does not necessarily follow. I have seen plenty of discussion that impeachment proceedings can be important to hold even if they know before they start that there is zero chance of success.
Where?
I dislike the confirmation of Amy Coney Barret. But I think it’s incredibly terrible precedent to attempt to impeach someone for something other than treason, bribery or other high crime/misdemeanor. I’ve not seen any meaningful discussion that would lay out what exactly she would be on trial for.
I thought you meant impeaching a generic person for discussion. I have not seen anyone say they should impeach Coney Barrett.
The OP said that the talk about town was that a blue Senate should “impeach the newest judge”.
They can impeach for anything. But without a 2/3 majority in the Senate to remove from office, it’s all ceremonial.
Sure, but can a justice under impeachment continue to rule on cases?
I mean, it could be total bullshit, but it could delay any nonsense related to the orderly transfer of power if they were to impeach Kavanaugh or Barrett at the right time, assuming that they’d be bound to recuse themselves or something.
It’s the kind of thing the GOP would do…
Cite: Art I sec 3
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
It is theoretically possible for the Senate to convict a judge with less than 67 votes, if they do so when less than 100 Senators are present. For example, this tactic was used by radical Republicans to impeach judge West Hughes Humphreys in 1862 (during the Civil War).
~Max
Was Trump able to continue to serve act as President during his impeachment trial?
Yes. Even after being impeached, an officeholder under impeachment continues to serve until and unless the Senate votes to convict them.
Which makes sense, because if not, you could effectively remove them from their position by just putting them on endless impeachment trials after trials after trials.
Moderating
Actually, the OP was pretty clearly referring to Coney Barret. This being GQ, let’s keep this to the technical legalities under the Constitution, that is, a generic person. If you want to discuss the political aspects open a new thread in P&E.
And in particular, keep political jabs like this out of GQ.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
A justice in the process of being impeached could certainly recuse themself from cases, for the duration of the process.
Or they could not do so. A Supreme Court justice decides entirely on their own whether and when to recuse themself, and there is no authority to say that they’re deciding wrongly.
Could not the SCOTUS then declare the impeachment unconstitutional/invalid for whatever reason they desire and it would end there? Doesn’t the court have the final say on this?
No. “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.” If the Senate convicts, it’s over. And if they don’t, it’s also over.
Wouldn’t that depend on the interpretation which is solely determined by the SCOTUS? No matter how crystal clear it is, is not it up to the court to determine what it means, and they can do whatever they want?
Impeachment is not a legal proceeding despite what it looks like. It does not happen within the judicial system…at all. There is no appeal process to be done.