what is the process for removing a supreme court justice?
ruth bader Ginsburg seems to getting a bit senile.
it really should be addressed soon.
removing Justices....
-
Burning Petard
- Posts: 4596
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
- Location: Near Bear, Delaware
Re: removing Justices....
Impeachment. Not all that rare among lower federal court judges. It happens but does not get much publicity.
However, the grounds must high crimes and misdemeanors, not senility or incompetence, or not liking the cut of their jib.
I invite any lawyer to correct me.
snailgate
However, the grounds must high crimes and misdemeanors, not senility or incompetence, or not liking the cut of their jib.
I invite any lawyer to correct me.
snailgate
Re: removing Justices....
Burning--you are right about the requirement of high crimes and misdemeanors, but since the constitution does not define it, I do not think there is any impeachment that could be challenged using that (nor am I sure what body could rule on it). as the Clinton impeachment showed, "high crimes and misdemeanors" are what the Congress says it is.
Is anyone aware of a different standard for judicial impeachments than presidential ones?
Is anyone aware of a different standard for judicial impeachments than presidential ones?
Re: removing Justices....
There's a little difference with executive officer Impeachment standards because of the "good behavior" clause in the Constitution pertaining Judicial service...
Some argue that this creates a more flexible standard, but as Big RR has pointed out as a practical matter an "impeachable offense" is whatever a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate says it is...
Since I don't generally read wes's posts (never have I been more grateful for the ignore feature than the past several days) I don't know which Justice he is proposing to put on the chopping block, but it really doesn't matter...
With a 67 vote Constitutionally mandated super-majority in the Senate required for Removal, the odds of any of the current Justices being removed from office are equivalent to the odds that Mexico will pay for a border wall...
Some argue that this creates a more flexible standard, but as Big RR has pointed out as a practical matter an "impeachable offense" is whatever a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate says it is...
Since I don't generally read wes's posts (never have I been more grateful for the ignore feature than the past several days) I don't know which Justice he is proposing to put on the chopping block, but it really doesn't matter...
With a 67 vote Constitutionally mandated super-majority in the Senate required for Removal, the odds of any of the current Justices being removed from office are equivalent to the odds that Mexico will pay for a border wall...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: removing Justices....
OFFS. Go read the Constitution.Not the amendments. The Articles that set up our government. Educate yourself. Federal judges (except bankruptcy judges) are a lifetime appointment.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: removing Justices....
Someone who has long complained about the characterization of trump supporters of nazism certainly has spent the last couple of days acting like one.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: removing Justices....
nah, I was screwing with guin...
a bright shiny object, just to annoy her...
she knew what I was doing......
ruth will fall out of her chair soon enough....
she will serve til the end, I d guess....
a bright shiny object, just to annoy her...
she knew what I was doing......
ruth will fall out of her chair soon enough....
she will serve til the end, I d guess....
Re: removing Justices....
Ye gods, man...would you PLEASE limit the postwhoring to ONE fucking thread!
Treat Gaza like Carthage.
Re: removing Justices....
There's an antidote for this:Jarlaxle wrote:Ye gods, man...would you PLEASE limit the postwhoring to ONE fucking thread!
Though he's posted so voluminously the past few days, that even those one line notices are starting to take up a lot of screen space...This post was made by wesw who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
Re: removing Justices....
A quick glance at page one of this forum room reveals that of the 25 topics that currently appear, 12 of them are threads started by wes since Tuesday...
ETA:
Sorry, I miscounted...
It's actually 13...
ETA:
Sorry, I miscounted...
It's actually 13...
Re: removing Justices....
wes--your admitted starting of threads to "screw" with someone (rather than stimulate a meaningful discussion may well lead to fewer and fewer persons responding to your posts.
Re: removing Justices....
Oh, and of those 13 threads, 7 of them have collectively stimulated a grand total of 5 non-wes follow-up posts...
(Yes, I've got some time on my hands this afternoon...
)
And then of course there's the thread he started he started in News & Suggestions for the sole purpose of trolling Crackpot...
(Yes, I've got some time on my hands this afternoon...
)And then of course there's the thread he started he started in News & Suggestions for the sole purpose of trolling Crackpot...
Re: removing Justices....
at least I was honest about it.
I didn t fool guin a bit. I didn t think that I would.
I should have left it as an inside joke, I guess, but once her legal curiosity over rode her unwillingness to respond i let the cat out of the bag.
also the supreme court was and is a major issue, and i was curious as to the answer to my question. i just thru bader Ginsburg in there because i knew that it would piss guin off.
and RR, i know that you don t dish out insult...., much..., and that you don t try to anger people, others here do.
they dish it out, they can take it.
as far as the legal aspects of it, i think that you had it right.
a misdemeanor is behaving badly, correct? not necessarily criminal behavior....
so..., if someone was senile they may behave badly...
again, i am interested in the legal aspects, and i have all these lawyers...., so i killed two birds with one stone.
but your assessment is probably right.
discouraging some here from responding to my posts would be welcome, but i don t want to throw out the wheat with the chaff.....
eta- i was killing two birds with that crackpot stone too. i had been wondering about tpk@w. i know that she doesn t care for me, but i kinda like her.
I didn t fool guin a bit. I didn t think that I would.
I should have left it as an inside joke, I guess, but once her legal curiosity over rode her unwillingness to respond i let the cat out of the bag.
also the supreme court was and is a major issue, and i was curious as to the answer to my question. i just thru bader Ginsburg in there because i knew that it would piss guin off.
and RR, i know that you don t dish out insult...., much..., and that you don t try to anger people, others here do.
they dish it out, they can take it.
as far as the legal aspects of it, i think that you had it right.
a misdemeanor is behaving badly, correct? not necessarily criminal behavior....
so..., if someone was senile they may behave badly...
again, i am interested in the legal aspects, and i have all these lawyers...., so i killed two birds with one stone.
but your assessment is probably right.
discouraging some here from responding to my posts would be welcome, but i don t want to throw out the wheat with the chaff.....
eta- i was killing two birds with that crackpot stone too. i had been wondering about tpk@w. i know that she doesn t care for me, but i kinda like her.