Democrats Introduce Bill that Could Lead to Impeachment for Justices Thomas and Scalia

[Tx4obama]

Democrats Introduce Bill that Could Lead to Impeachment for Justices Thomas and Scalia

On Thursday, a group of Democratic lawmakers proposed a law to establish a Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court.

It’s surely to have Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Scalia quaking in their Tea Party boots because it would mean they would actually have to be independent of political and other influences. They would also have to have the appearance of independence. They would have to stay away from political activity. That part would be really hard.

As it stands, this law would help guarantee that Supreme Court Justices are held to the same ethical standards we expect of other judges.

Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, joined by Senators Chris Murphy, Richard Blumenthal and Sheldon Whitehouse, introduced the bill. It would make ethics mandatory, rather than an option left to the discretion of Justices like Thomas and Scalia. It would mean all the Justices would have to live by the sort of ethical standards that Justice Kagan applied when she recused herself from Arizona’s ”papers please” law because she was Solicitor General at the time the Federal government filed suit. She did the same thing in 24 other cases on the same grounds.

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/03/democrats-introduce-bill-impeach-scotus-justices-thomas-scalia.html

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Think it'll withstand a Supreme Court challenge?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

2. That's some seriously refined sarcasm ya got there. n/t

[rhett o rick]

3. It wont make it thru the House and probably not thru the Senate. But at least they are

trying. We need much more of that. We at the grass-roots level need to know that they actually are fighting for us, even if they lose.

[davidpdx]

6. Yep

It is a start even though it has no chance of in either chamber.

[Tx4obama]

12. Yep. Even though we do not know when - 'someday' the Democrats will have...

... both the House and Senate and the White House.

THEN it can pass

At least the bill is now written and folks are working on it, and it will be ready for the day that it will have enough votes

[rhett o rick]

13. The PTB will use terror to keep the conservatives in power.

We may eventually get Democrats in control, but IMO they will be conservatives and not that interested in our well being.

[Orrex]

16. I look forward to the day when we control both the House and the Senate

When that day arrives, we'll really be able to start keeping our powder dry.

[struggle4progress]

19. The bill title "To require the Supreme Court of the United States to promulgate a code of ethics"

suggests that the bill will skirt any issue of Congress telling SCOTUS what the code of ethics must contain -- though since the bill text has not yet been provided to GPO, no text currently appears on Thomas

[lordsummerisle]

4. i don't see

how anyone, no matter what their stripe, could be against holding the SCOTUS to the same standards as the other federal judges...

[indepat]

5. No Republican House ain't gonna pass no Bill that might crimp the style of Justices Scalia and

Thomas who, imo, surely hold the record for having given the American people the most middle fingers on record, all with zestfully derisive aplomb and panache, i.e., a good ole fuck you and yours.

[tumtum]

7. Yeah, ok.

Wake me when it's actually signed into law.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Air Cav? When?

2/5 Cav '67-68.

[tumtum]

15. 3/17 Cav 67-68, UH-1 Huey.

3/17 Cav 69-70 AH-1 Cobra.

Drove a 'Hawk in Grenada and drove an Apache in Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

[PlanetBev]

8. Ain't gonna happen

Forty years ago when I was young, hopeful and idealistic, I believed that assholes of this caliber could possibly be impeached.

Unfortunately, they're in for life. Scalia and Thomas are a mirror reflection of how fucked up this country's politcal system has become.

[Dustin DeWinde]

9. even if the law passes

And it won't, it still wouldn't mean impeachment for Scalia or Thomas.
Mind you they fully deserve to be impeached, but no person can be punished under a law that wasn't on the books at the time they committed their offenses

The constitution calls that " ex post facto" law and explicitly forbids it.

[burrowowl]

10. You are right

but it would be nice.

[RudynJack]

11. Exactly

And Supreme Court Justices aren't immune to impeachment due to the law. The standard is "good behavior", which doesn't require explicit laws.

[struggle4progress]

18. Impeachment, not a criminal matter, is not affected by the prohibition of ex post facto laws:

the Constitutional requirement is merely "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour"

[Dustin DeWinde]

20. please lets leave the fantasy to the gop

There isn't a snowball's chance in help of impeaching Thomas or Scalia. And by the way the constitution prohibits ALL ex post facto laws. Article 1 section 9 says no bill of attainder nor any ex post facto law shall be passed. Period. End of story


As for impeaching them on the "good behavior" clause, are you seriously arguing that john Boehner's house of representatives would even consider that? Seriously.

No point in continuing this discussion, but if you really are a dem I implore you once again to leave the crazy talk to the other side.

[struggle4progress]

22. (1) I agree there's no chance of impeachment; but (2) impeachment, and the related trial, are not

ordinary criminal process -- some aspects are laid out in part by the Constitution, as follows:

Art I Sec 2 Par 5: The House of Representatives .. shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Art I Sec 3 Par 6: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation ... And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Art I Sec 3 Par 7: Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

Art II Sec 2 Par 1: The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Art II Sec 4 Par 1: ... all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Art III Sec 1 Par 1: The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour.
Art III Sec 2 Par 3: The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury ...

Note there is no requirement for a Grand Jury (which is in some respects replaced by the House forwarding of the case to the Senate), and the trial itself cannot result in anything more than removal from office and disqualification from further office. The language describing conditions for impeachment are also extraordinarily vague, by the standards of US criminal law: civil officers must be removed if the Senate convicts on "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," while for judges there is the broader possibility of removal for failure to maintain "good behaviour"

Terms such as "high crimes and misdemeanors" or "good behaviour" are undefined: it is thus left to the House to forward such charges as it considers meet the description and left to the Senate to try whether the case forwarded by the House is adequate; such determinations are obviously entirely political

It would, of course, be idiotic -- and bad politics -- for the House to forward charges explicitly referencing "X USC x," if X USC x became law only after the explicit acts alleged have occurred. But nothing whatsoever prevents the House from regarding certain acts as "high crimes and misdemeanors," or as failure of "good behaviour," without basis in any particular X USC x, and nothing whatsoever prevents a Senate conviction in such a case

[struggle4progress]

17. H.R.2902, introduced 8/1, no text up on Thomas yet

"To require the Supreme Court of the United States to promulgate a code of ethics"

[Lugal Zaggesi]

21. Legislating mandatory ethics for Republicans

is like ordering your cat to be a vegetarian.

[Jakes Progress]

23. Yea! Four Democrats. Real Democrats it seems.