How do SCOTUS Justices ever get removed? n/t

[RKP5637]

[louis-t]

1. Impeachment, but I don't believe any have ever been removed.

[Dale Neiburg]

4. Removal of SCOTUS justices

Actually, iirc, one was removed in the early 19th century on grounds of insanity (and if some of the current crop don't qualify, I don't know who would!)

[RKP5637]

9. IMO a few of them sure are the test case for insanity! n/t

[samsingh]

12. i would think some of the current crop qualify for impeachment

they are just making stuff as they go along, knowing that they keep saying it's a 'restrictive' application. Meaning, they know the decision is bullcrap, but they want to do it - e.g. screw Al Gore - but the decision should not apply to anything else.

[former9thward]

21. That is a urban myth.

There was no language like that in Gore v. Bush and the case has been cited since then in many voter rights lawsuits.

[samsingh]

22. here's the language - i wish it were only an urban myth

According to the Court, the statewide standard (that a "legal vote" is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter'"[35]) could not guarantee that each county would count the votes in a constitutionally permissible fashion. The Court stated that the per curiam opinion's applicability was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

[former9thward]

24. No, that language does not mean anything.

Of course it was "limited to the present circumstances". They were deciding that case, not anything case in the future. That is the same as any case before the court. It does not mean it can't be used as precedent and the court NEVER said that. As I posted, the case HAS been cited in many voter rights lawsuits since then.

[rock]

30. OK which is it?

1) There was no language like that in Gore v. Bush;
2) No, that language does not mean anything.
This discussion is confusing me quite badly. It appears the language is there and simply ignored.

[former9thward]

34. Posters have said over and over again

that Gore v Bush had the language that it "was not to be used as precedent in any other case". That language is NOT in the opinion and there is NO language in the case that means that legally.

[rock]

35. OK thanks

Sorry to harp on it but I'm rather slow, well, easily confused.

[former9thward]

36. It is not your fault.

There are some who seem to intentionally want to confuse people even though they know better.

[former9thward]

20. None have ever been removed.

You are thinking of Samuel Chase who committed the high crime of criticizing Jefferson and Jefferson's allies attempted to remove him. The Senate rejected this attempt and there has been no attempt since then.

[alsame]

2. They die. Only one has

ever been impeached and he was acquitted by the Senate

Has a Justice ever been impeached?
The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. The House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi5

[RKP5637]

8. Thanks! n/t

[Jacoby365]

3. A pitchfork?

I hear they are coming.

[RKP5637]

11. Don't forget the torches! n/t

[ReRe]

5. I don't know...

... but we need to find out. Quick.

[RKP5637]

10. We're in deep trouble with a few of these jokers IMO. n/t

[ReRe]

16. Five of them...

... for sure.

[longship]

6. Usually, a coffin.

They typically die in office, or very shortly after leaving office.

Stevens recently bowed out (retired) gracefully, though. (Wish he hadn't.)

I don't think there's been a SCOTUS impeachment, let alone a removal. But that would be the only other way. (on edit: I see response #2, above, has this one covered -- thanks, alsame.)

[Cayenne]

7. Feet first.

[RKP5637]

13. I can't see why these were life appointments. ... has always been a

WTF to me.

[Goblinmonger]

19. It's to provide continuity

House has a fast turn-over. President is a little longer. Senate a little longer again. Even with that legislative and executive branches can turn over pretty quickly. The SCOTUS is supposed to change much more slowly and, thus, provide a check on the volatility of the legislative branch.

[RKP5637]

23. Ah, yes, I remember that now from years ago in school, exactly, to provide

continuity. The exact term, continuity, and reason. Thanks!!!

[HooptieWagon]

26. Rule written when life expectancy was early 60s.

Now that people often live into 80s, maybe the lifetime appointment law should be revisited. Scalia and Alito appear to have dementia, and Thomas never had a brain to begin with.

[RKP5637]

27. I've always wondered about that ... people develop all types of problems ... are

they even required to have yearly physicals or something, or even mental evaluations of some sort. They just wield so much power. And some of their decisions are really sometimes WTF.

[customerserviceguy]

33. Only two ways to revisit that

One is an amendment to the Constitution, and the other is a Constitutional Convention. In any case, I cannot imagine either method of adopting such an amendment applying to anyone other than those who assumed the office after full ratification.

Further, I don't see either thing possibly happening. Constitutional amendments are notoriously difficult to come by, the process for adopting them was deliberately set to be that way. The Framers wanted to make sure that the proposed changes had a broad amount of support over a large amount of the nation, and for a long period of time, and were not simply the passion of the moment of a simple majority of the country. We've only had six of them in the post WWII era, a time of vast changes in the United States when compared to the rest of its history.

[yeoman6987]

29. It is in the Constitution

I imagine in 1700's a WTF might have been said, but over 250 years later it is pretty knowledgeable. I think in theory it is a great idea to have them lifetime appointments. The thing is that the Supreme Court has gotten so political. You can tell immediately which direction Gingsburg is going to go for example....that is not the way it was designed.

[RKP5637]

31. Yes, I agree, it does lend continuity. It's a damn shame SCOTUS has become a political arm, more

about politics today often than justice and fairness.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. So far, they haven't been.

One, Samuel Chase, was impeached by the house in 1805 but was acquitted by the Senate. In practice they can be removed only by a funeral director, feet first.

[stuffmatters]

15. Putting SCOTUS under the Federal Judicial Roles/Ethics would be a start

Right now SCOTUS is immune to even the Federal Judicial rules of ethics and behavior. They have no body of rules
constraining their behavior. Even if one of them got disbarred, they could remain on the Supreme Court.
Maybe if they were accused of a major crime & sent to prison, the fact that they couldn't show up for work might put them out. But current evidence of the rightest 4's imperviousness to public opinion or common decency promise that those justices would still fight tooth and nail to stay on SCOTUS.

This lack of prosecutable judicial ethics for SCOTUS has come up most often re:Clarence Thomas. Witnesses have surfaced over the years confirming Anita hill's charges so he both violated the law & gained SCOTUS by lying. Thomas is also probably the most personally enriched by the KOCH BROS & billionaire minions, including accepting lavish gifts & funding for Museum/Foundation to his Mother in GA. He also signed felonious (under clear penalty of perjury stated right on the form) SCOTUS/IRS annual income statement for many years. Finally his "household" income soared using his judicial insider trader
knowledge to enrich his wife's "LIBERTY/FREEDOM" RWNJ Slushfund months prior to public announcement of CITIZENS UNITED decision. There are also no enforceable SCPTUS recusal rules, a principle Thomas more than anyone has ignored.

If there's ever a Dem majority in the House and the Senate again, first order would be to make the Federal Judicial rules apply to SCOTUS. ( Second on my "If Ever" wish list would be to grant Wash DC fair representation in the Senate and House instead of its residents' impotence now. Third would be to have national elections determined by popular vote. And fourth Overturn Citizen's United.) Just those four immediate actions could do wonders for restoring our democracy.

[femmocrat]

17. LBJ got Authur Goldberg to leave the Court in 1965.

Resignation from the Supreme Court and UN Ambassador[edit]

Goldberg being sworn in as U.N. Ambassador by Justice Hugo Black, July 26, 1965. Lyndon Johnson (left) looks on.
In 1965, Goldberg was persuaded by President Johnson to resign his seat on the court to replace the recently deceased Adlai Stevenson as the Ambassador to the United Nations. Johnson wanted to appoint his friend Abe Fortas to the court,[10] in case any of his Great Society reforms were going to be deemed unconstitutional by the Court; he thought Fortas would notify him in advance.[11] Goldberg had declined an earlier offer to leave his position to be Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.[11] He did take Johnson's offer of the UN ambassadorship when Johnson discussed it with him on Air Force One to Illinois for the burial of Stevenson, however.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Goldberg


Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have LBJ's "persuasive" skills.

[COLGATE4]

18. Retire or die. nt

[davidpdx]

25. Die

That day can't come soon enough for Scalia and Thomas.

[stevenleser]

28. Exactly three ways, 1. Retire, 2. Die, 3. Impeached by congress nt

[valerief]

32. By angry AKKKers? nt

[Orrex]

37. I suggest five doses of industrial-strength laxative.