About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Impeach!
Author: BobR    Date: 03/08/2013 13:42:35

Impeachment is a concept codified in our Constitution as a mechanism for the federal government to police itself. Lately it seems we hear cries of "impeach!" on a regular basis, but of course very little ever comes of it. There were cries for impeaching president Obama almost before he even took office. In all of U.S. history, only two presidents (Johnson, Clinton) and one Supreme Court Justice (Chase) have ever been impeached. None were successfully convicted of any of the charges.

Although presidents and judges can be impeached, it is interesting that the language for that is in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which is the section defining the Legislative branch (the presidency):
The President, Vice President and 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.

(bold-face mine...)

So the Constitution is fairly clear on what constitutes grounds for impeachment: treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The Constitution also specifies some requirements for Supreme Court Justices. From Article III, Section 1:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

(again: bold-face mine...)

President Thomas Jefferson apparently took that to heart when in 1804 he persuaded Congress to impeach Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase:
President Thomas Jefferson, alarmed at the seizure of power by the judiciary through the claim of exclusive judicial review, led his party's efforts to remove the Federalists from the bench. His allies in Congress had, shortly after his inauguration, repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, abolishing the lower courts created by the legislation and terminating their Federalist judges despite lifetime appointments; Chase, two years after the repeal in May 1803, had denounced it in his charge to a Baltimore grand jury, saying that it would "take away all security for property and personal liberty, and our Republican constitution will sink into a mobocracy[.]" Jefferson saw the attack as indubitable bad behavior and an opportunity to reduce the Federalist influence on the judiciary by impeaching Chase, launching the process from the White House when he wrote to Congressman Joseph Hopper Nicholson of Maryland asking: "Ought the seditious and official attack [by Chase] on the principles of our Constitution . . .to go unpunished?"

Virginia Congressman John Randolph of Roanoke took up the challenge and took charge of the impeachment. The House of Representatives served Chase with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804, one of which involved Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more focused on his conduct in the political libel trial of James Callender. Four articles focused on procedural errors made during Chase's adjudication of various matters, and an eighth was directed at his “intemperate and inflammatory … peculiarly indecent and unbecoming … highly unwarrantable … highly indecent” remarks while "charging" or authorizing a Baltimore grand jury. The Jeffersonian Republicans-controlled United States Senate began the impeachment trial of Chase in early 1805, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding and Randolph leading the prosecution.

All the counts involved Chase's work as a trial judge in lower circuit courts. (In that era, Supreme Court justices had the added duty of serving as individuals on circuit courts, a practice that was ended in the late 19th century.) The heart of the allegations was that political bias had led Chase to treat defendants and their counsel in a blatantly unfair manner. Chase's defense lawyers called the prosecution a political effort by his Republican enemies. In answer to the articles of impeachment, Chase argued that all of his actions had been motivated by adherence to precedent, judicial duty to restrain advocates from improper statements of law, and considerations of judicial efficiency.

The Senate voted to acquit Chase of all charges on March 1, 1805. He is the only U.S. Supreme Court justice to have been impeached.

So the question is: Does bad behavior or blatant bias constitute grounds for impeachment? The most recent uproar with a Supreme Court justice involves Antonin Scalia's comments during a case regarding the Civil Rights Act:
Scalia said that each time the Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized in the past 50 years, more and more senators supported it, even though the problem of racial discrimination at the polls has decreased over that time. "Now, I don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this," he said. "I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes."

One could argue that since voting is a federally protected right, anyone trying to subvert that right is breaking federal law; therefore, Justice Scalia is subject to impeachment. That is a fairly tenuous argument. There's also the notion that since judges are instructed to use "good behavior", that bad behavior violates the Constitution. That was Jefferson's angle, and it failed. It would very likely fail in this case as well. Of course - that supposes that the Republican-led House would impeach Scalia, something that will never happen.

So for now, Scalia is free to make his outrageous remarks and allow his blatant personal bias to influence his decisions. Without a Democratic majority in the House willing to attract the bad publicity that articles of impeachment would create, there is no chance that he will be removed from the bench by anyone other than the Grim Reaper. Considering he's 77, that may not be too far off.
 

74 comments (Latest Comment: 03/08/2013 23:46:35 by livingonli)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 13:58:05
So, Trisec, how do I make UHC pay the full freight for my colonoscopy and the needed anesthesia? They are paying for the "procedure" in full. They want me to pick up part of the cost of the gas passing. You can't have the procedure without the anesthesia.

Comment by Will in Chicago on 03/08/2013 13:59:15
Good morning, bloggers!!

I hope that everyone is doing well today. I see that the Huffington Post reports the following: February Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Adds 236,000 Jobs; Unemployment Rate Down To 7.7.

I have to wonder where we would be, economically, if we had a larger stimulus. I worry how sequestration will impact the economy. In no other economic recovery, do I recall one party actively blocking efforts to reinvigorate the economy.

Comment by wickedpam on 03/08/2013 14:01:53
Morning

Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 14:21:48
Got the new glasses. This is the dialog going on in my body.

Eyes; Hey brain, what the hell? New glasses! With a different prescription! Thanks for telling us, asshole!
Brain: What the fuck did you think was going to happen when we got the eye exam last week? Deal with it bitches!

The distance, middle vision and reading sections of progressive lenses are different on the new lenses.



Comment by BobR on 03/08/2013 14:22:09
blog is posted


Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 14:42:53
"Impeach Earl Warren" was popular with the John Birch crowd in the late 50s and early 60s.

Scalia is too mean to die.

Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 15:09:18
Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 15:10:45
Good Morning!

Interesting blog indeed this morning. Right now I am very happy that we have Sotomayor and Kagan on the bench. I think they are fresh voices that are willing to pushback on Scalia -- I consider him a rather bullying element on the bench. Last week Dana Millbank wrote a great column about them and Scalia. I say read the whole thing -- but they aren't taking his BS.

Kagan wasn’t about to let him get away with that. In a breach of decorum, she interrupted his questioning of counsel to argue with him directly. “Well, that sounds like a good argument to me, Justice Scalia,” she said. “It was clear to 98 senators, including every senator from a covered state, who decided that there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation.”

Scalia replied to Kagan, “Or decided that perhaps they’d better not vote against it, that there’s nothing, that there’s no — none of their interests in voting against it.”


Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 15:16:23
Quote by Raine:
Good Morning!

Interesting blog indeed this morning. Right now I am very happy that we have Sotomayor and Kagan on the bench. I think they are fresh voices that are willing to pushback on Scalia -- I consider him a rather bullying element on the bench. Last week Dana Millbank wrote a great column about them and Scalia. I say read the whole thing -- but they aren't taking his BS.

Kagan wasn’t about to let him get away with that. In a breach of decorum, she interrupted his questioning of counsel to argue with him directly. “Well, that sounds like a good argument to me, Justice Scalia,” she said. “It was clear to 98 senators, including every senator from a covered state, who decided that there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation.”

Scalia replied to Kagan, “Or decided that perhaps they’d better not vote against it, that there’s nothing, that there’s no — none of their interests in voting against it.”


Scalia is a

Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 15:17:05
Was just reading about this and saw a comment:

It wasn't plagiarism, it was outsourcing.




Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 15:26:33
VAWA Now Touted By Republicans Who Voted Against Bill

They really are disingenuous bastahds, huh?

Comment by wickedpam on 03/08/2013 15:32:53
Raine - has Glee been kinda meh this season or is it just me?

Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 15:37:27
Quote by wickedpam:
Raine - has Glee been kinda meh this season or is it just me?
I didn't watch last nights episode yet, but for the most part, I agree.

I keep telling Bob they should make it 2 shows at this point. It's all over the place and doesn't seem to be able to find its footing. I hope they fix that problem soon.




Comment by wickedpam on 03/08/2013 15:40:01
Quote by Raine:
Quote by wickedpam:
Raine - has Glee been kinda meh this season or is it just me?
I didn't watch last nights episode yet, but for the most part, I agree.

I keep telling Bob they should make it 2 shows at this point. It's all over the place and doesn't seem to be able to find its footing. I hope they fix that problem soon.




2 shows would be a good idea, heck just a show for Santana would be better. The man show needs more Bieste.


Comment by TriSec on 03/08/2013 15:42:41
Quote by Mondobubba:
So, Trisec, how do I make UHC pay the full freight for my colonoscopy and the needed anesthesia? They are paying for the "procedure" in full. They want me to pick up part of the cost of the gas passing. You can't have the procedure without the anesthesia.



There's ways around everything. What is the justification for denying the anesthesia? Seems to me to be a medically-necessary procedure. But that also depends on how it's coded....there may be a global procedure that includes the anethesia. ("Up-coding"). Right now, it sounds like they've un-bundled the thing, which is actually fraudulent.



Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 15:50:56
Quote by wickedpam:
Quote by Raine:
Quote by wickedpam:
Raine - has Glee been kinda meh this season or is it just me?
I didn't watch last nights episode yet, but for the most part, I agree.

I keep telling Bob they should make it 2 shows at this point. It's all over the place and doesn't seem to be able to find its footing. I hope they fix that problem soon.




2 shows would be a good idea, heck just a show for Santana would be better. The man show needs more Bieste.
The Santana SHOW!

I think they would benefit to have a NYC based show. Shit, when I was in art school I could barely afford to take the train upstate -- yet these kids are flying back to ohio like they have a private jet.


Comment by wickedpam on 03/08/2013 15:54:05
Quote by Raine:
Quote by wickedpam:
Quote by Raine:
Quote by wickedpam:
Raine - has Glee been kinda meh this season or is it just me?
I didn't watch last nights episode yet, but for the most part, I agree.

I keep telling Bob they should make it 2 shows at this point. It's all over the place and doesn't seem to be able to find its footing. I hope they fix that problem soon.




2 shows would be a good idea, heck just a show for Santana would be better. The man show needs more Bieste.
The Santana SHOW!

I think they would benefit to have a NYC based show. Shit, when I was in art school I could barely afford to take the train upstate -- yet these kids are flying back to ohio like they have a private jet.



I don't even know where Bushwick or Bushwood or where ever it is, but that "apartment" seems a little big by NY standards even if they are splitting the rent.


Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 15:54:10
Mary was quite the peach this morning.

Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 16:00:16
Quote by wickedpam:

I don't even know where Bushwick or Bushwood or where ever it is, but that "apartment" seems a little big by NY standards even if they are splitting the rent.
Bushwick, Brooklyn -- and they are actually filming there. It's probably gentrifying -- but yeah, that is a damn sweet loft. Parts of Bushwick used to be represented by Chuck Shumer.




Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 16:01:43
Since I clearly going down a rabbit hole...

The last half of the 20th century transformed Bushwick into a home for low-income renters in a primarily Hispanic, immigrant community. Ethnic groups common in the neighborhood are Puerto Ricans, Hondurans, Dominicans, Mexicans, Ecuadorians, African Americans, Haitians, Jamaicans, and Afro-Caribbean. There are also smaller numbers of Chinese, Koreans, Indo-Caribbeans (Guyana and Trinidad), Filipinos, and Arabs in the area. Since 2000, the rise of real estate prices in nearby Manhattan has made the neighborhood more attractive to younger professionals. In the wake of reduced crime rates citywide and a shortage of cheap housing in nearby neighborhoods such as Park Slope and Williamsburg, an influx of young professionals and artists moved into converted warehouse lofts, brownstones, limestone-brick townhouses and other renovated buildings.


Comment by TriSec on 03/08/2013 16:03:13
Fallon decision makers....not so much.

Got a text early this morning - delayed two hours.

Got on the road, took over 90 minutes to drive the 40 miles. When I was within 10 miles of the office, got another text. Now it's noon.

And just now sitting at my desk, "We've decided to close for the day."

I have the furthest commute on my team; I'm the only one here. Another lady from Providence made it in. The folks within 10 miles are all sitting smugly at home because they didn't have to leave that early in the first place.

OTOH, I've got a pot of coffee to myself, and have hooked up my speakers and am currently blasting Sinatra across the empty cube farm.



Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 16:06:01
Quote by TriSec:
Quote by Mondobubba:
So, Trisec, how do I make UHC pay the full freight for my colonoscopy and the needed anesthesia? They are paying for the "procedure" in full. They want me to pick up part of the cost of the gas passing. You can't have the procedure without the anesthesia.



There's ways around everything. What is the justification for denying the anesthesia? Seems to me to be a medically-necessary procedure. But that also depends on how it's coded....there may be a global procedure that includes the anethesia. ("Up-coding"). Right now, it sounds like they've un-bundled the thing, which is actually fraudulent.




I have sneaking suspicion that UHC looking for loopholes in the ACA when it comes to providing complete coverage of health screening exams. I will be calling them and asking. If they give some sort of bullshit answer, the magical phrase, "physician to physician review" will be uttered my moi. This isn't the first time I've been to this dance.

Comment by TriSec on 03/08/2013 16:25:03
BTW, I saw an actual, honest-to-goodness spinout on the Mass Pike today. He was on the eastbound side, and it was of course a freakin' SUV.

SERVES YOU RIGHT, FUCKWIT!!!



Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 16:37:00
Quote by TriSec:
BTW, I saw an actual, honest-to-goodness spinout on the Mass Pike today. He was on the eastbound side, and it was of course a freakin' SUV.

SERVES YOU RIGHT, FUCKWIT!!!




Having a big-ass SUV doesn't exempt you from the laws of physics.

Comment by Scoopster on 03/08/2013 16:57:35
Mornin' all & Happy Snowbunny Fridee!! :

Comment by wickedpam on 03/08/2013 16:57:56
I hate it when these "small business owners" call the show - wish they would get more details on what the "small business" is

Comment by Will in Chicago on 03/08/2013 17:10:22
Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all & Happy Snowbunny Fridee!! :



My right arm is still a bit stiff from shoveling on Monday and Tuesday. So, I will be glad to bid winter farewell.

Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 17:15:24
Quote by wickedpam:
I hate it when these "small business owners" call the show - wish they would get more details on what the "small business" is
What so many of these people *willfully* don;t want to acknowledge tis that more money in people packets means more money to spend -- ultimately that helps small business!

and truthfully, if it hurts someone's business, maybe they weren't doing so well anyway -- free market and all...


Comment by wickedpam on 03/08/2013 17:28:59
I have to say I'm kinda with Ed a bit, all these Repubs going to the White House for lunch and dinner concerns me. Where are the Dems being invited up there to give their counsel?

Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 17:38:22
Quote by wickedpam:
I hate it when these "small business owners" call the show - wish they would get more details on what the "small business" is



They are the ones who are also "ex-Marines," i.e. lying sacks of crap.

Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 17:39:06
Quote by wickedpam:
I have to say I'm kinda with Ed a bit, all these Repubs going to the White House for lunch and dinner concerns me. Where are the Dems being invited up there to give their counsel?



There were Dems there. Tweety talked to one of them last night.

Comment by Scoopster on 03/08/2013 17:40:04
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all & Happy Snowbunny Fridee!!



My right arm is still a bit stiff from shoveling on Monday and Tuesday. So, I will be glad to bid winter farewell.

At my house we had about 6 inches when I left and the roads were well covered, however at the office there's maybe 2 inches on the ground and all the surfaces are clear. Very weird storm!

Comment by trojanrabbit on 03/08/2013 17:42:56
A group of us were gathered in the break room watching the Auto Thrill Show in the parking lot.

In one corner, we have the Acura driver who either has very bad tires or who doesn't know how to drive in the snow getting stuck multiple times. He had to get help to get pushed out and ended up parked at a 45 degree angle. Doubtful he's getting too far come quitting time.

In the other we have the BMW SUV who triple parked. Now, even though he's in the right spot, when there are already two nearly full rows there I'd think that's a sign you find another spot (it's not like the lot is full). Oh well.

Comment by trojanrabbit on 03/08/2013 17:44:18
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all & Happy Snowbunny Fridee!!



My right arm is still a bit stiff from shoveling on Monday and Tuesday. So, I will be glad to bid winter farewell.

At my house we had about 6 inches when I left and the roads were well covered, however at the office there's maybe 2 inches on the ground and all the surfaces are clear. Very weird storm!


Chez Rabbit supposedly got 12 inches. If that were the case, I'd be shoveling out. There was about 6 inches of very heavy wet nasty stuff (I pulled my side sweeping it) on the car but very little on the pavement.


Comment by wickedpam on 03/08/2013 17:48:51
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by wickedpam:
I have to say I'm kinda with Ed a bit, all these Repubs going to the White House for lunch and dinner concerns me. Where are the Dems being invited up there to give their counsel?



There were Dems there. Tweety talked to one of them last night.


not what I'm hearing when I listen to Bill Press in the morning


Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 17:51:33
Comment by trojanrabbit on 03/08/2013 17:52:04
Tee Hee ANARCHY IN THE PARKING LOT!!!!
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q225/trojanrabbit74/20130308_111858_zps3b94c51c.jpg


Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 17:52:41
Quote by wickedpam:
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by wickedpam:
I have to say I'm kinda with Ed a bit, all these Repubs going to the White House for lunch and dinner concerns me. Where are the Dems being invited up there to give their counsel?



There were Dems there. Tweety talked to one of them last night.


not what I'm hearing when I listen to Bill Press in the morning

Fair enough!

Comment by livingonli on 03/08/2013 17:54:20
I believe that both Scalia and Thomas could be nailed for violating standards of being impartial since they have attended sessions with many right-wing think tanks and especially stuff that has been backed by the Koch Brothers. The evidence is there that they are biased and not neutral and can't fairly rule as Supreme Court justices because of their biases (going back to Bush V. Gore).

Comment by wickedpam on 03/08/2013 18:15:27
OMG there's a story on WUSA9's FB that they are working on for tonight's news about who the WH spends money on actual calligraphers to hand write invitations to the WH and people are actually saying they should go to Staples to get invitations

Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 18:35:46
Quote by wickedpam:
OMG there's a story on WUSA9's FB that they are working on for tonight's news about who the WH spends money on actual calligraphers to hand write invitations to the WH and people are actually saying they should go to Staples to get invitations
More proof of why we can't have nice things.




Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 18:42:41
I know yesterday Mondo mentioned that quacker O'keefe was fined 100K -- but I cam across this incredible expose about him and the woman they used up and spit out.

I know it goes without saying that the POS should be in jail, but damn --

Comment by wickedpam on 03/08/2013 18:43:21
Quote by Raine:
Quote by wickedpam:
OMG there's a story on WUSA9's FB that they are working on for tonight's news about who the WH spends money on actual calligraphers to hand write invitations to the WH and people are actually saying they should go to Staples to get invitations
More proof of why we can't have nice things.




did you read some of the comments?


Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 18:43:26
O’Keefe had already been underwritten by Peter Thiel, an early Facebook investor and California hedge-fund manager who’d bankrolled O’Keefe to the tune of $30,000 earlier that year.


Comment by Raine on 03/08/2013 18:57:20
Quote by Raine:
I know yesterday Mondo mentioned that quacker O'keefe was fined 100K -- but I cam across this incredible expose about him and the woman they used up and spit out.

I know it goes without saying that the POS should be in jail, but damn --
Seriously, save this to read later -- It's really just stunning.


Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 18:57:33
Quote by trojanrabbit:
Tee Hee ANARCHY IN THE PARKING LOT!!!!
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q225/trojanrabbit74/20130308_111858_zps3b94c51c.jpg



DOGS AND CATS, LIVING TOGETHER!

Comment by Mondobubba on 03/08/2013 19:38:34
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Raine:
I know yesterday Mondo mentioned that quacker O'keefe was fined 100K -- but I cam across this incredible expose about him and the woman they used up and spit out.

I know it goes without saying that the POS should be in jail, but damn --
Seriously, save this to read later -- It's really just stunning.



It's been kinda quiet here today, so I am reading.

Comment by trojanrabbit on 03/08/2013 19:49:29
Looks like storm is done and major melting already underway even though it's still clouded over. Where the parking lot was plowed it's just wet and I can see snow sliding off the cars.

Comment by Scoopster on 03/08/2013 20:34:53
The falling heavy flurries has turned to a clumpy pillow of snow, and the snow on the ground is already melting faster than the pillows can replace it.

Comment by Scoopster on 03/08/2013 20:55:30
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/485963_10151310739729149_329202913_n.png