Would one of you more intelligent than I am...

[Enter stage left]

please explain to me why a:

1. Supreme Court Justice that can affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people (R v W) be confirmed by a simple majority of 100 people and will serve for the rest of their lives, with no consequences for violating the ethics that could put most people in jeopardy of losing their jobs, or freedom.

2. But to convict a incompetent president who killed about 300,000 people by lying about the effects of a deadly virus, tried to destroy our democracy which has stood for over 200 years, and tried to place "his royal assholeness" as the supreme ruler of this country, has to be convicted by ALL (not 50%) of the jurors that are chosen to convict said "asshole?"


WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

And what do we do about it????????

[Phoenix61]

1. He has to be convicted by 2/3's of the Senate. nt

[Enter stage left]

4. I appreciate your response, but the question is about justice...

not impeachment.

[Ocelot II]

2. The Constitution and the rules of the Senate.

1. Confirmation of Supreme Court justices is by "the advice and consent" of the Senate, per Article II, sec. 2. The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (filibustering), and to end the debate, it required the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (the cloture vote). In April 2017, however, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required votes to 51 to end debate on Supreme Court nominations.

2. Conviction in any criminal case in either a federal or a state court must be by a jury's unanimous verdict per the Sixth Amendment and Ramos v. Louisiana. If you're referring to conviction following impeachment rather than a criminal conviction, 2/3 of the Senate is also in the Constitution.

[speak easy]

3. A: The Separation of Powers

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separation_of_powers

[iemanja]

5. I wouldn't worry about a jury at this point.

There needs to be an indictment first.

[Enter stage left]

6. Thanks, but the initial question still stands, why not 50% instead of 100%?

[Ocelot II]

7. See #2.

[iemanja]

8. That's the rule for all federal criminal cases

regardless of the crime. https://www.velaw.com/insights/scotus-rules-that-sixth-amendment-requires-unanimous-jury-verdicts-for-criminal-convictions-in-federal-and-state-courts/

[Enter stage left]

11. Good point, but we know that unanimous convictions get over-turned on appeal...

many times, because of procedural misconduct or many other reasons.

Why can't we appeal supreme court justices for the same reason. (cough, cough...beer-bong guy for LYING to congress)?

[iemanja]

12. Because there is no authority higher than SCOTUS

and voters choose SCOTUS members through presidential elections. That's why anyone who didn't vote for Hillary in 2016 deserves a cold place in hell.

[Enter stage left]

14. I spent many sleepless nights after that fucked up election for that very reason!

[brooklynite]

13. Perhaps take that up with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer?

Democrats will not be Impeaching Supreme Court members.

[Ocelot II]

15. Actually, jury verdicts are rarely overturned on appeal.

Appellate courts give juries a great deal of deference, and they almost never overturn a jury's findings of fact. A successful appeal almost always results in a return to the trial court for retrial on some issue because of an error on the part of the trial judge - for example, incorrect jury instructions - because the appellate court's job is to review issues of law, decided by the trial judge, and not a jury's findings of fact. It is very unusual for an appellate court to decide the jury was wrong.

The only way to get rid of a Supreme Court justice is by impeachment, using the same process as for a president. Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached by the House - that was Samuel Chase in 1805, and he was acquitted by the Senate.

[Effete Snob]

16. The Seventh Amendment

“no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

This aspect of US law is a point of curiosity by English lawyers who are astonished to learn that expertise in English common law circa 1789 is a “thing” in US appellate law.

[Effete Snob]

9. The standard for criminal convictions..

…is that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. To measure the existence of “reasonable doubt” we choose random people to hear the evidence and decide. The idea is that if they cannot be unanimously convinced, then there is likely a reasonable doubt.

There is no threshold of “qualification” to be a Supreme Court justice beyond a very vague provision that it be done with the consent of the Senate.

These two things have nothing to do with each other. They are not in any way analogous to each other.

[Sympthsical]

10. Because one is a criminal process and one is a political process

Just how these things work out.

[NCLefty]

17. Because our founders weren't psychic. That's the same reason for the mass-shooting crisis.

[TigressDem]

18. Got some tar and feathers?

Campaign finance reform.

Cut off the Oligarchs power to put idiots in the White House who will do their bidding.


You want the job, earn it, don't buy it.