How might President Warren deal with the miscreant Supreme Court?

[MannyGoldstein]

Of course she'll appoint smart people who respect the rule of law when vacancies arise. But until there's a vacancy, what might she do to deal with the five charlatans currently finger painting with poo on the Constitution?

My guess is that she'd start an investigation into conflicts of interest to throw a scare into them.

Your thoughts?

[hrmjustin]

1. She can't do anything.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. You might be confusing her with someone else? nt

[hrmjustin]

4. No Manny. The president can't do anything to the justices. Seperstion of powers.

[WillyT]

12. Well... She Could Try... If She Were So Inclined... Happened To Samuel Chase...

Samuel Chase



Impeachment

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 His allies in Congress had, shortly after his inauguration, repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, abolishing the lower courts created by the legislation and terminating their Federalist judges despite lifetime appointments; Chase,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[.]"[8] 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?"[9]

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.[4]

The impeachment raised constitutional questions over the nature of the judiciary and was the end of a series of efforts to define the appropriate extent of judicial independence under the Constitution. It set the limits of the impeachment power, fixed the concept that the judiciary was prohibited from engaging in partisan politics, defined the role of the judge in a criminal jury trial, and clarified judicial independence. The construction was largely attitudinal as it modified political norms without codifying new legal doctrines.[10]

The acquittal of Chase — by lopsided margins on several counts — set an unofficial precedent that many historians say helped ensure the independence of the judiciary. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book Grand Inquests, some senators declined to convict Chase despite their partisan hostility to him, apparently because they doubted that the mere quality of his judging was grounds for removal. Furthermore, federal judges became much more cautious by avoiding the appearance of political partisanship.[11] All impeachments of federal judges since Chase have been based on allegations of legal or ethical misconduct, not on judicial performance.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

[brooklynite]

14. Impeachment authority rests with the (Republican) House of Representatives

Try again...

[WillyT]

25. God... You Guys Are So Narrow And Literal... She Isn't Even President Yet...

Of course it is initiated in the House, and Judged/Juried by the Senate.

Just like a President.

So ain't nothin gonna happen anytime soon.

But elect her,and give her a Dem House and Senate, and who knows?

Scalia's getting senile... Thomas was unqualified from day one... Roberts seems bought...

And between now and then there will be plenty of time for the SCOTUS to implode.

[treestar]

88. So why not give Obama a Dem house and Senate

That can be done even sooner.

[WillyT]

89. Workin On It...

[Bobbie Jo]

28. Reality just sucks the fun out of everything.

Can't you just play along?

[Number23]

59. I'm sorry. This is the General Discussion OP of the Week as far as I'm concerned

Nothing could sum up the spiral around here better.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. +1 ...

It's great to say what should be done, when typing on the internet ... none of those bothersome constitutional and political reality issues to concern one's self with.

[hrmjustin]

17. You will never get enough votes to impeach on justice on the SC.

[winter is coming]

20. I wouldn't say "never", but it's a pretty steep hill. n/t

[hrmjustin]

21. I see your point. if they did have the votes you would assume the justice would step down.

[winter is coming]

27. Perhaps. I'm not thinking specifically about any justices we have now, but merely about

the possibility that we could have a justice so corrupt that the House would vote to impeach.

[Jim Lane]

74. If a Justice were arrested for soliciting gay sex in an airport men's room... you still wouldn't.

The Republicans would face a tough choice between, on the one hand, their homophobia (and attendant need to kowtow to the religious extremists who are an important part of their base), and, on the other hand, their hatred of Obama (and attendant horror at the idea of creating a Supreme Court vacancy that he could fill).

My guess is that hatred of Obama would win out and they would not impeach the "Larry Craig" Justice. Impeachment would fail in the House by one vote. That's because Republicans would be clamoring to go on record as standing up against Teh Gay; Boehner would figure out how many votes he could spare and grant that number of permissions to vote Aye.

[yeoman6987]

55. I agree

She is not a dictator. And voting the way we don't like is not cause for investigation.

[Scuba]

63. She could bring them before that other court ...

... the court of public opinion.

Obama's "incredible shrinking presidency" is entirely due to his own failure to use the bully pulpit.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. People sure seem to think the "Bully Pulpit" is magical!

A little history is in order...as I don't think that word (bully) means what you think it means...

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

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. LOL ...

People sure seem to think the "Bully Pulpit" is magical!

Yep ... Right before they say ... "Pretty speech!"

[arely staircase]

95. no kidding nt

[Scuba]

90. "People sure seem to think the "Bully Pulpit" is magical!" No, just neglected.

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. so what does it mean and what does it do?

The Bully Pulpit
According to the "Oxford English Dictionary," bully pulpit means "a public office or position of authority that provides its occupant with an outstanding opportunity to speak out on any issue." It was first used by TR, explaining his view of the presidency, in this quotation -- "I suppose my critics will call that preaching, but I have got such a bully pulpit!" The word bully itself was an adjective in the vernacular of the time meaning "first- rate," somewhat equivalent to the recent use of the word "awesome." The term "bully pulpit" is still used today to describe the president's power to influence the public.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/tr-know/

Like we just lack motivation? To do what? Vote???

See therein lies the rub....some people think this governing thing is EASY.....you just have to talk about it and all opposition will just magically fall away...when the opposition doesn't give a ratass what polling says!

[Scuba]

92. In the context I used it means reach out to the masses and inspire them to action.

[VanillaRhapsody]

93. You don't get to make up your own definition of it....

We ARE inspired to action....our actions have been stifled by Republicans....

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. See? You just don't understand ...

If PBO would just fire the people up so that 80% of the people were for something, the gop would just fold ... just like in gun control. Oh, wait ...

Can I just skip to the pretty speech part?

[UTUSN]

2. I saw her with COLBERT tonight and I'm a True Believer. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. You were a "False Believer" before?

[PoliticAverse]

5. She could appoint an Attorney General that would enforce the law. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. What "law" gives the POTUS the power to ...

have his AG initiate an investigation into a sitting Justice of the SCOTUS?

[greytdemocrat]

6. Making threats like that...

would not be very bright.

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. How would President Manny "deal" with them?

[MannyGoldstein]

11. I'd ask VanillaRhapsody, of course! nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

19. I am not the one that thinks a President "deals" with the Supreme Court...

uh that would be you....

[winter is coming]

8. I don't see her starting an investigation for shits and giggles or to throw a scare into someone.

If there was a legitimate (i.e., non-political) reason for an investigation, she wouldn't shy away from one. In other words, I'd expect that she is willing to use power, but not abuse it.

[JoePhilly]

9. I get a kick out of fan fiction.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. A President can't do anything to control the Supreme Court.

It's that old Constitutional separation of powers thing. Remember the "court-packing" controversy? FDR tried to counteract some previous court decisions against the New Deal by trying to introduce legislation to allow for the appointment of more justices. Specifically, the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court older than 70-1/2. The Constitution doesn't define the size of the Supreme Court, so FDR claimed Congress could change the number, but the bill failed.

The point is, that FDR knew there was nothing he could do as president to change the direction of the court, and that the only possible angle was to increase the size, which - at least theoretically - Congress could do because the Constitution wouldn't prohibit that. As FDR discovered, however, the Congress wouldn't go there. And I very much doubt any modern Congress would, either.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. I believe that Congress has the right to act when judges won't recuse themselves

Last edited Wed May 21, 2014, 07:29 PM - Edit history (1)

In cases where they should. And Presidents have been known to work with Congress.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. They may have the right (that is, the Constitutional power) to act

in certain very narrow cases, but that doesn't mean they will do it. I can guarantee that they will neither pass a statute permitting court-packing, nor vote to impeach any current Justice.

[hrmjustin]

18. The gop controls congress.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. LOL ...

And this House of Congress is/will be much more accommodating on the impeachment of a Justice than they were on ... well ... anything. Right?

[brooklynite]

16. She won't do anything at all.....

.....because she won't be President.....because she doesn't WANT to be President.

I understand she some thoughts on who should be however...

[longship]

22. First, she has to be willing to run for the office.

Which she has repeatedly said that she is not interested.

I love Elizabeth in the US Senate. We all need her there. She is brilliant and will be a great one.

How many times does she have to say no before people realize that she is nyet interested in national office?

Meanwhile... Delusions abide.

But... but... but...

No buts about it. She has made her position clear.

But... but... but...

We very much need US Senators like Elizabeth Warren. (Which is a concept that some people need to get into their souls.)

But... but... but...


I want Senator Warren to remain in the US Senate. Apparently she agrees. We all need her there.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Hillary's said repeatedly that she won't run in 2016

Funny how nobody believes *her*.

Maybe not so funny, actually.

[brooklynite]

29. Of course, Hillary hasn't suggested that someone else run

Whereas Warren.....

[MannyGoldstein]

31. The *secret* letter again?

So Warren should have been the only Democratic woman in Congress to not sign the *secret* letter "encouraging" Hillary to run?

And why do you think the contents of that letter are *secret*?

[brooklynite]

40. Not so secret...

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she hopes Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for president in 2016 — the latest in a series of declarations of support by the Massachusetts Democrat, who some have speculated could seek the Oval Office herself.

"All all of the women — Democratic women I should say — of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific," Warren said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," noting that she was one of several senators to sign a letter urging Clinton to run in 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

I take it you think Warren is a political wimp who's too scared to buck the political establishment by refusing to sign? Personally, I give her more credit then that.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Can you provide a link to the letter?

Thanks in advance.

[brooklynite]

44. Ah! So you think the Washington Post made up a direct quote from Elizabeth Warren...

...and apparently Warren was too lazy or scared to deny it?

Definitely Presidential material...

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Did you misplace your reading glasses?

I specifically said the contents are secret.

[yeoman6987]

56. The letter was sent to Hillary

Why would the newspapers have the "secret" information in it? I believe Elizabeth when she said one was sent. I don't believe that it is the papers or anyone else's business what is in it except for what Elizabeth has told us. I have not known Elizabeth to lie.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. And BTW, which is more presidential...

Last edited Wed May 21, 2014, 12:43 AM - Edit history (1)

signing that letter or voting for war with Iraq?

[Cali_Democrat]

62. You're wasting your time

Warren admits to signing the letter urging Hillary to run. It was a direct quote and you linked it.

But apparently that's not good enough. Manny wants a link to the letter!!!!

gawd what a joke.

[JI7]

68. because none of this is actually about supporting Warren for President

[zappaman]

76. Bingo! n/t

[msanthrope]

96. You want a letter, Manny????? I'm still waiting for you to provide a letter from your friend......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024479945

[longship]

35. Meh!

Hillary has explicitly said she is considering it. She has also set up political structures that would lead one to believe that she may run in 2016.

Warren has done none of that and has repeatedly stated that she is not interested. Anything to the contrary are shear delusions.

Regardless, nobody is going to run for 2016 for a good year. I would put my bottom dollar that Elizabeth Warren will not be amongst the candidates.

Apparently many here think that she is equivocating and are comfortable with a candidate who would knowingly deceive. Is that really the type of person you want to be running for US President? I don't. Haven't we already had too many of those? I prefer to take her at her word.

All I hear from the Warren crowd is... but... but... but...

Meanwhile, she has repeatedly said, "NO!"

but... but... but...

Apparently she is deliberately lying.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Did Hillary deliberately lie the many times she ruled out running

in 2016? Was it a Bosnian Sniper kinda situation?

[longship]

53. I thought the issue was Warren, not Hillary.

You keep bringing it back to Hillary. Why?

The issue is that Elizabeth Warren has repeatedly said that she is not interested in running for US President and many here insist that she is apparently being deceptive. That's the issue.

Now we read But.. but... but... HILLARY!

It's always some but... but... but...

Anything except that Elizabeth Warren apparently wants to and intends to stay in the US Senate.

I don't know what's worse. That she's lying, or that she's so confused that she cannot make up her mind. I prefer to think that she's an honest broker and intends to stay in the Senate.

I know. But... but... but...

[MannyGoldstein]

65. Because the double standard is... interesting

And informative?

There's a small group of very vocal DU posters who keep posting about how Warren's not running, she said she's not running, she wouldn't lie, etc.

But nobody's doing that with Hillary.

Interesting.

[longship]

66. Well Hillary has explicitly said she is thinking of running, and Warren has said the opposite.

And I am not a particularly strong fan of HRC, in fact, not a fan at all.

I do really like Elizabeth Warren, but I take her at her word when she has repeatedly said that she is not interested in running for president.

[Cali_Democrat]

64. Why do you always bring up Hillary? nt

[Nye Bevan]

23. FDR had some ideas on this issue.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

[brooklynite]

30. Remind me how that worked out...

[MannyGoldstein]

34. If FDR had just had more self control,

he could have been another Obama.

Imagine! Fighting like a son-of-a-word-I-can-no-longer-say-on-DU and losing big on occasion! No wonder FDR was 12 years of Fail!

[Throd]

24. Assuming you can, would you really want to open that door?

There will be another Republican president at some time.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Democratic SCOTUS justices haven't had blatant flaming conflict of interest issues

And shouldn't in the future, either.

[Throd]

38. But that wouldn't keep a Republican president from messing with them for political gain.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. If Republicans could have, they would have

These guys don't show restraint.

[Agony]

32. I am guessing that SHE knows how to use a bully pulpit.

AKA leadership.

[frazzled]

36. So you're looking for a czarina

not a president?

C'mon, you learned about the separation of powers in high school, I'm sure. So unless you've forgotten or gone senile, a president can't "investigate" the Supreme Court. The president can't even order the attorney general to do so.

In the end, presidents have waaaay less power than you think. And that's why you're always disappointed in them. You're looking for despots or kings (or queens), not a president.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. I'm looking for a president who fights like hell for the 99%

Not a self-proclaimed 1980's Republican who golfs with a Bain lobbyest and sups regularly with pals Jamie and Lloyd, in his White House stuffed to the rafter with bankers.

Sorry that you see that as looking for a czarina.

[Throd]

43. So separation of powers is conditional for you depending on who sits in the oval office?

[MannyGoldstein]

47. No. The law says that Congress can act,

And the President, as the leader of the Democratic Party, often works in concert with Congress.

[Throd]

50. And you'll be fine with this if there is a Republican president and Republican majority in Congress?

Me too.

[frazzled]

46. Sorry: you said she would start an investigation of SCOTUS

Now you've changed it to the 99% thingy and golfing issues. Awkward attempt to wriggle out of your OP and its wrongheaded views about the legal purview of a president.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. I'm suggesting nothing that's not codified in law

It just needs to be exercised.

It's hard to remember, I know, but the law used to apply to all Americans.

[frazzled]

54. The president does not rule Congress, either

Only the House can pass articles of impeachment, and the Senate tries. This has happened with respect to the Supreme Court exactly once in US history, 109 years ago, and the justice 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

So no, the president can not start an investigation or impeachment proceeding. Only the House can.

[MannyGoldstein]

57. Remember when President Obama grabbed the "fiscal cliff" talks

from Harry Reid because Reid wouldn't negotiate Social Security cuts?

As a functional matter, the President often leads his party's congressional delegations.

[yourout]

49. Add more seats to it.

Which would be fine by me.
Dilute the power.

[IronGate]

52. Won't happen.

FDR tried that and was shot down by a Democrat held congress, would never make it through today's congress.

[bobduca]

71. "In 1869, Congress set the Court's size to nine members, where it has remained since."

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#cite_note-7

So it would seem to require another act of Congress to change the Supreme Court's size.

[mwrguy]

58. She can add justices

Go from 9 to 11.

[onenote]

69. No. She. Can't.

Congress would have to pass legislation to add Justices. And that isn't going to happen.

[Rincewind]

60. She will do nothing,

because she will never be President. She has said repeatedly that she isn't going to run for President, and nationally, she doesn't have enough support to win the nomination.

[JDPriestly]

61. Actually, the House is supposed to start the impeachment process.

Supreme Court justices have to be impeached in the House and tried in the Senate.

On the other hand, as president, she would have the ability to point to conflicts of interest and embarrass members of the House if they refused to investigate obvious violations of ethical standards.

[onenote]

67. Your guess is wronger than wrong.

There is no way President Warren or President Clinton or President anyone else is gong to "start an investigation" of a member of the Supreme Court. Period.

[book_worm]

70. Probably not much since she will end up supporting Hillary in 2016

just like most of the rest of the NY delegation.

[11 Bravo]

72. My thoughts? I find most of your posts to be amusing. I also find some of them lacking ...

in even a rudimentary understanding of how the government of the United States of America actually works.

[arely staircase]

73. she would blast them with her anti-Oligarchy ray!

seriously? She is great and I hope she runs one day. I would support her if she ran and won the nomination in the next election (2.5 years from now.) But she is not running. And you have now created a fantasy Warren? Who is already somehow taking on the SCOTUS. Hell just have imaginary Warren end climate change (by reversing the Earth's rotation to go back in time, like Superman.)

[Cali_Democrat]

75. hahaha. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. She woud, probably, ...

deal with it the same way President Obama has.

I REALLY doubt that she would start an investigation, though ... something about the piece of paper called the US Constitution.

[MannyGoldstein]

82. Congress can investigate SCOTUS, specifically in the current circumstance

of non-recusal in a case that presents a conflict of interest.

[1StrongBlackMan]

86. Yeah ...

because the House will be so much more accommodating for impeaching a sitting Justice than they have been on everything else ... Right?

[ProSense]

84. Why wait to do something?

I'd like to see Senator Warren bring down a bank (think BCCI). Start with Bank of America.

[treestar]

87. What has she ever done to make you think she'd abuse her powers

like that?

[SoCalDem]

94. Right wing senators would block anyone who was not "acceptable to them"

like they have done since Clinton..

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. She's slip on her ...

"Manny thinks I'm Great" Cape, with her "Do What I Say" lasso and the miscreant SC will fall into line!