In general, the federal judges---and justices---that Trump and McConnell have elevated

[Atticus]

to the bench will continue to be a festering wound on the body politic until they are reviewed and many, if not most, of them removed. Many were rated "unqualified" by the ABA; others were known racists, homophobes and ideologues. Several have absolutely NO COURTROOM EXPERIENCE---have never tried a case. As a whole, they are the most unqualified collection of sycophants and toadies ever to be called "Your Honor"!

It matters not if they are removed by impeachment or if their appointments are deemed "invalid nullities" or if they are "persuaded to resign". They have to be excised from the judiciary if we hope to ever again have "a nation of laws, not men".

Please, let's INSIST that this be addressed when we take the reins and begin the reconstruction of the United States of America.

[Lochloosa]

1. I agree, but easier said than done.

Resign? Not going to happen.

Invalid Nullities is a constitutional argument. We would be tied up in the same courts for years.

Impeachment would take 67 votes. We are a long way from that.

I think expanding the Supreme Court would be the most effective way to nullify these judges.

[Atticus]

3. Without going into detail, it is obvious that we are going to need folks who know

how to play "hardball" or "smashmouth politics". "Nice" will be laughed at by these fascist bastards.

[Lochloosa]

6. Yep.

[calimary]

22. Yep.

Many of us have, for years - even decades - yearned for our Dems to stop being “nice.”

Lordy I wish they’d stop. Being “nice” with the GOP just gets you run over.

[Newest Reality]

52. True.

There are not many examples of gritty, tough and resilient dems, but Gov. Cuomo is starting to look like an example of that in some ways. Tough and effective.

[SergeStorms]

60. That old axiom....

of Democrats "keeping their powder dry" always stuck in my craw as well. Democrats should have so much dry powder stored away by now that we should be able to blow every trace of Donald Trump away from United States history. I'm willing to spend a lot of that dry powder to that end.

[lagomorph777]

21. +1 Expanding SCROTUS seems the least infeasible option.

We'll need a big win in November to make that possible though.

[Amishman]

2. What would be the legal basis for removal?

There are no required qualifications specified in law, so it would not be possible to remove them for being unqualified.

Nor is there a mechanism to nullify their appointments.

The only option would be to dig into every one of their backgrounds and hope to find some hidden crime or misconduct to use for impeachment charges. We could definitely get cases against some of them that way, as based on their character they have more skeletons in their closets than most. Still would need 67 in the Senate, which isn't possible.

Overall though we are stuck with them.

[Atticus]

4. See #2 above. There "is no mechanism" until one is "created". nt

[Amishman]

11. still will need a specific reason

nine are ABA unqualified, which would be easy https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration

After that we would still be down to digging into their closets for skeletons.

Removing the rest just because we don't like their politics should absolutely NOT be an option. It sets a terrible precedent, and is even more fascist than the bullshit the republicans are pulling.

[Atticus]

12. Some of the "skeletons" are not in closets. They were already pointed out by Democrats

who opposed them.

And, I am not proposing getting rid of Republicans because they are Republicans. I am proposing getting rid of grossly unqualified and transparent racists, bigots, homophobes misogynists and some who may be subject to bar association sanctions. Some have publicly advocated and supported white supremacist and anti-semitic groups.


Will it be messy? Absolutely. Is it necessary? Absolutely.

[Amishman]

16. are those skeletons criminal offenses?

much of what you are condemning is not a crime, and would not and should not be grounds for removal.

what you seem to want to do is remove people just because they do not align with our values. That is not valid and is stepping over the line into rather nasty authoritarianism. It would be no different than bible thumpers claiming morality as a reason for removing those they do not agree with.

[Atticus]

18. I do not have dossiers on all of McConnell's misfits. In my view, it is reasonable to say

that any objective reason that SHOULD have prevented their confirmation can be the basis for their impeachment. "Crimes" are, to my knowledge, not required to be alleged.

I do NOT advocate removal simply because they do not "align with our values" so please put that strawman away. I DO advocate removal of all for whom the concept of "American values" is irrelevant. In general, people who have publicly made it clear that they believe people of color, LBGTQ folks, women and non-Christians are inferior beings and not entitled to the full protection of our laws and Constitution should not be sitting in judgment of anyone. I do not believe that is a radical view.

[Amishman]

37. so you want a morality based removal of those without 'American Values'?

Jesus tapdancing Christ that is scary shit, even coming from someone on the same side.

And yes, a crime is needed for removal. We are into the same 'high crimes and misdemeanors' definition we discussed in depth with the SCOTUS.

[Atticus]

46. I'll see your "Jesus tapdancing Christ" and raise you one "Christ on a soda cracker"!

In my post, "American values" was in quotes and was followed by several EXAMPLES of what that referred to. Which of those do you think would be okay to hear federal cases? The "out" racist"? The one who believes discrimination against gays is not just legal but "Biblically mandated"? Hm-m-m?

Further, " high crimes and misdemeanors" HAS been determined to mean whatever Congress says it means. A specific statutory "crime" is NOT required. Your position is identical to what the Republicans argued unpersuasively in an attempt to prevent Trump's impeachment. It is still bogus.

I suspect that you will find the above unsatisfactory as you seem more concerned with painting me as some sort of "morality police" than you are with civil discussion. I will give you the last word in this exchange as I do not believe we are currently contributing anything productive with this back-and-forth.

[The Magistrate]

53. Grounds For Impeachment, Sir, Are What A Majority Of The House Says They Are

There really is no other standard. If two thirds of the Senate concur, there is an end to it.

A charge of 'he accepted appointment from Trump' would stand if the votes were there, and the resolve.

Note also there is no 'double jeopardy' where impeachment is concerned, because someone impeached again is not again put in peril 'of life and limb', but suffers only dismissal from office, and a bar from holding in future any Federal office.

[onenote]

5. Wanting something and having a means for it to happen are different things.

And there are no legal means to remove a Federal judge outside of impeachment and any attempt to do so would be summarily laughed out of court - by any and every judge currently sitting on the bench -- and therefore would never happen.

[Atticus]

7. And accepting that "nothing can be done" is the surest way to guarantee that

nothing WILL be done. Do not think for an instant that "they" are not relying on that attitude.

[onenote]

9. Sorry that the real world isn't living up to your fantasies.

One of the features of living in a nation of laws, I guess.

[Atticus]

13. "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."---Orwell. nt

[onenote]

15. And I'm the one telling the truth here.

Sorry.

[Atticus]

17. I have no doubt you believe that. nt

[onenote]

28. And I have no doubt that there is no way any judges appointed by trump are being removed

and I've yet to see you suggest any means for doing so. Maybe you think a comet will pass over the US and magically cause them to disappear?

[Atticus]

33. ---face palm---------------- nt

[onenote]

38. Okay, then. What exactly is your plan?

[in2herbs]

14. We'd have to keep paying these judges for life but as long as we agree to pay them and

let them keep their title I don't see why we can't move them to a newly created judicial position that doesn't allow them setting precedent. Or start divisioning the courts into topics (taxes, medical, corporations, etc.) and allow trump appointed judges to handle only cases that would cause the least disruption to the greater good. Then, if reviewed by the USSC, the expansion of the USSC would nullify their decisions.

[calimary]

30. Creative solutions are MUCH needed.

This sounds like it might be one.

Seems to me the shrewdest strategy is, immediately upon seizing power, to use the same over-inflated powers trump abused - to clean house and/or make any emergency adjustments. Like rerouting or reassigning these “judges” we’re stuck with.

How ‘bout we design a new court “division” where, if indeed we are stuck with these neanderthals, they can’t do as much harm. Appoint decent replacements to fill ALL those vacancies in the important positions that just opened up. And immediately.

Get so much done so fast that it’ll be the GOP who start feeling that sense of overwhelm - that deluge when you’re “trying to drink out of a firehose” syndrome.

[onenote]

48. An interesting concept, but with potential constitutional issues

There isn't much in the way of precedent for Congress transferring judges from one court to another. The standard, to the extent one exists, is that it may be okay to transfer a judge from one court to a comparable court, but not to a position that is substantially different. In 1980, the Carter DOJ opined on this subject (see OLC opinion starting on page 538).
https://books.google.com/books?id=8_62FkxZ-AkC&pg=PA538&lpg=PA538&dq=s.+1477+transfer+judges&source=bl&ots=p6nLzo8X5P&sig=ACfU3U20ax1U9-TeuDBwKAEHbPFIqNMTGg&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwic5_6R3-XoAhVNhXIEHW0XAJ4Q6AEwCnoECAYQKA#v=onepage&q=s.%201477%20transfer%20judges&f=false

The power to nominate judges is vested by the Constitution in the President. It would be a tricky thing for Congress to step in and designate specific judges for transfer to a court different from the one the president selected.

Also, as a practical matter, court cases don't always break down into neat categories like "medical" or "taxes" or "corporations" so that seems like a particularly impractical solution.

[Archae]

8. It won't be anything new.

Back when I was a kid, Richard Nixon nominated a guy named Haynsworth for the Supreme Court.
As Herblock called him "Vend-A-Justice."
He dropped out.

Nixon nominated a known racist named Carswell, who had given a white supremacy speech.

The Senate gave him the boot.

Nixon and his people covered up Rehnquist's past, and he got in.

[Hortensis]

10. What it's built to is. Over the past 40 years since the nation shifted

more conservative, whenever the Republicans had the power to cram intellectually and morally unfit, and even blatantly corrupt, far-right agents into the judiciary, they did.

The sheer volume of court packing during this administration, on top of and accelerating over that of Bush II's admin, itself accelerating over court packing of 20 years before that has become an enormous problem and corruption of government of, by and for the people, and even an enormous threat to its very continuance. Right now we're seeing the Supreme Court itself blatantly upholding various techniques Republicans are using to subvert elections.

What the Republican leadership has become is America's current counterpart to the RW criminals and authoritarianism that have taken over in places like Russia, Hungary, and Syria. What we're seeing now is nothing to what's coming if we don't succeed in rescuing our liberal democracy.

Btw, in many nations, not just ours, RW authoritarians are using the coronavirus pandemic to seize and consolidate greater power. Many RW conspiracies have grown far more powerful since the end of the last century when Hillary spoke out to a populace she knew had become increasingly conservative and reactionary over the past 20 years and was in no mood to listen. And those were the good old days comparatively.

[fescuerescue]

19. Very very few will be removed

99% will be there till death or retirement.

[Atticus]

23. If we allow it that will certainly be true. nt

[fescuerescue]

32. There are no legal means to NOT allow it

But I suppose there are non-legal means to fight it.

You know anyone who's up for fighting Federal judges? Most lawyers won't do it in an ethical and legal manner.

Not even going to get into the fallout from other means.

[calimary]

36. THIS.

[lagomorph777]

20. Agreed - with REAL background investigations, most will have disqualifying criminality...

...in past or PRESENT behavior. They need to be lined up and impeached en masse.

[Scruffy1]

24. There is only one way that I can think of.

Increase the number of federal judges to at least dilute there effect. Especially, the Supreme court.

[lastlib]

43. This would be our best hope---

But (to be a realist) you know where it got FDR.

And as another poster above suggested, realign the courts into divisions and move the bad apples into positions where they can do little harm. It's problematic, but if we get a big enough Senate majority in 2021, it might be doable.

[Delmette2.0]

25. We have to try to remove the worst of these incompetent judges.

We have to do this or at least try before there is too much damage.

[bucolic_frolic]

26. Glenn Kirschner often tweets on this subject

in favor of a Trump Crimes Commission. I think he called for review or revote on unqualified judges. Be assured something will be done about this when the next Democratic majority ensues. Perhaps they could be persuaded to resign because they don't understand the job, and people don't usually like what they don't or can't understand, or perhaps they could just be laughed off the bench!

[onenote]

31. What i saw was his calling for investigation, perjury charges and impeachment.

I seriously doubt any of that is going to happen.

[fescuerescue]

34. How would one "persuade" someone to leave a LIFETIME job for which they aren't qualified for?

When they in fact firmly believe that they ARE qualified for it.

The number of lifetime jobs available for lawyers is pretty limited.

[bucolic_frolic]

35. Well ... Trump is frustrated

Being unqualified and incompetent does lead to dissatisfaction with a job. Some might leave on that basis. It's unhappy to be humiliated often, forced to examine your own failings and lack of credentials. Superiors rule against you. Lawyers force you to confront what you don't agree with as you ignore the law. Most people, and I daresay at least some of these people, perhaps a majority, aren't immune to criticism unless they are narcissists like Trump and can let it roll off.

[onenote]

40. these folks don't think they're incompetent and unqualified

And their decisions are likely to be affirmed by higher courts as often as not.

[Atticus]

47. "these folks" is an over-generalization. Some ARE qualified. Some know damn well they are

not qualified. And, some are too damn STUPID---literally---to know they are unqualified or even understand the concept of "qualified".

The first category, of course, should stay. The other two categories should be flushed.

[fescuerescue]

49. So you think the stupid and non qualified ones

Will jump at the chance to give up 2nd most prestigious legal job available?

One with lifetime security?

Maybe the dumb ones i guess.

[Atticus]

55. Who said that? Not me. nt

[Ponietz]

27. FBI Director and AG are Biden's most important picks

The law—RICO—may be the best way to bury them.

[fescuerescue]

50. Proving that an Federal individual judge is running a corrupt organization

Will be a ground breaking legal precedent if it's done once.

Several hundreds times. That quite optimistic.

[Ponietz]

56. I think we need to gut the NRA and GOP 1st

[fescuerescue]

58. Yes. Might as well start with the easier stuff

[Ponietz]

59. Murderers of truth deserve open scorn and public shame--their ideology needs

a stake through the heart. They are our enemies, now.

[fescuerescue]

61. exactly.

I don't know what everyone is waiting for.

[Ponietz]

62. If Scump and the GOP face RICO counts Republican appointees can be forced to recuse

[turbinetree]

29. I second your motion................it is always about the courts, always..............

and that is why we should be voting, it is the main reason why I vote.....................

[calimary]

39. This, too!

[Tactical Peek]

41. Anyone who was appointed to office by an agent of the Kremlin should resign or be impeached.

Anyone who was appointed to their office by an agent of the Kremlin or any other foreign power should resign and reapply for the position subject to confirmation, or be impeached and removed with prejudice. Yes, this includes Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, especially them.

And yes, this is radical but the rule of law under our Constitution is in the balance. Establishing the Constitution also was radical.

[olegramps]

42. There is a solution. Then nation's founders didn't hesitate.

[lastlib]

44. "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design..."

'...to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such forms...."

[Pepsidog]

45. I love the thought but I don't know how to achieve your goal. These appointments are for life and as

a lawyer disgust me that so many young, right-wing extremists were and are being appointed. The first goal should be to fully investigate and remove Kavenaugh for his lies during his confirmation hearing. Stupid lies about the meaning of “Boof”, “Renata Club” and other references he could have attributes to youthful immaturity. Those lies were the most audacious to me because they were so blatant. Did he assault women, of course he did. I was went to an exclusive private Catholic school at the same time as Kavenaugh and was one of the”cool kids” and I know what was going on in my school. Girls being cornered and grabbed all over in cars, blackout drinking, drugs etc. I recall the word “Boof” and it didn’t mean “fart”. These lies were blatant and disqualifying to sit on SCOTUS. I was far from an angel in high school but never touched a girl inappropriately. In fact, I started dating my future and current wife of 35 years during My Junior year and had to bang some heads around and threaten some of my fellow students who tried to grab her in a car. It wasn’t known that we were dating at the time and because I matured earlier than most and had a mans body nobody would mess with me or my girlfriend. Kavenaugh must go then we can deal with some of the radicals Trump appointee to the Federal bench.

[DenverJared]

51. Removing them will be near impossible

However, we can dilute them by increasing the size of the SCOTUS and all circuits. That will require a simple majority in the senate. Then appoint liberals to the vacant slots by the thousands.

[kurtcagle]

54. Reversing the tide

I'd not be that much in haste to remove these judges. It's worth noting that in several cases Trump appointed justices voted against Trump's actions, not for him. Additionally, judges do not actually need to be lawyers first, and the one thing that Trump may have done, albeit inadvertently, was to seed the courts with different viewpoints. My expectation is that should we regain the Senate (as I believe we will), we'll also be in a position to balance these judges out. Yes, it sucks, but the one thing I've noticed is that when you're seeding judgeships by patronage, when that patron goes, so too goes a lot of the perks of being in office.

[Six117]

57. If we learn nothing else from the past 3 years:

Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2020, 08:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Let's learn that nothing is written in stone. Republicans have shown us time and again that there are no laws (constitutional emoluments, federal election, campaign finance, etc.. add to that tools of the law -subpoenas... Congressional or otherwise... the list goes on and on.) that they will not violate in letter and spirit to maintain their death grip on the people of this country. It is understood that, as a society, we need the framework of law to function cohesively. However we cannot allow ourselves to be tied up in knots and not do what is needed to protect ourselves and those most vulnerable among us from what amounts to tyranny.

What they did to the people of Wisconsin during the election was unconscionable and blessed by the right wing majority on the Supreme Court. Republican judges upholding the republican agenda.

Chattel slavery, Jim Crow, etc. were enshrined in the laws of this land. That changed -because we the people made it change.