Democrats Introduce Bill that Could Lead to Impeachment for Justices Thomas and Scalia

[eridani]

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/03/democrats-introduce-bill-impeach-scotus-justices-thomas-scalia.html

On Thursday, a group of Democratic lawmakers proposed a law to establish a Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court. It’s sure to have Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Scalia quaking in their Tea Party boots because it would mean they would actually have to be independent of political and other influences. They would also have to have the appearance of independence. They would have to stay away from political activity. That part would be really hard.

As it stands, this law would help guarantee that Supreme Court Justices are held to the same ethical standards we expect of other judges. The proposed law holds the Supreme Court to the same standards required of judges in the federal court system. Currently, Justices on the Supreme Court decide for themselves if they should recuse themselves from cases in which they may have a personal stake or in Thomas’ case, his wife has a political or financial stake as a holy roller in the Tea Party.

Justices Thomas and Scalia who attended a few partisan fundraisers also ruled in favor of the conservatives raising questions about their independence. This was especially true in Citizens United because that ruling undid decades of established law.

Both of these actions violate the code of conduct already in place for Federal court judges.

[shenmue]

1. Cake at my house if we win!

Washington will smell a lot less when those two are gone.

[Brigid]

6. Chocolate cake?

Or maybe red velvet cake?

[shenmue]

12. I'll get one of each

Plus ice cream cake!

Nom nom nom!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. Nobody thinks outside the grocery store sheet cake anymore....

Those are made in China and frozen.

Think "piña colada". A pineapple cake with coconut frosting (or the other way around).

[djean111]

29. Oh, excellent!!!!!!! Recipe?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

37. Check the Baking Needs aisle. They have Betty Crocker and Duncan Heinz mixes there....

I just did a vanilla on vanilla and the house smelled incredible. (There was pudding in the middle.)

[Systematic Chaos]

142. You do, of course, realize that a boxed cake mix...

...isn't even a full step up from whatever shit China would send us, right?

If it's that good a cake, then it's good enough to make from scratch with love.

[pocoloco]

143. Must not have read the list of ingredients.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

149. Even "scratch" isn't these days.

[Bibliovore]

123. Pina colada cake recipe from Smitten Kitchen

http://smittenkitchen.com/blog/2011/02/pina-colada-cake/

[noel711]

63. please post recipe..

The Pina colada sounds awesome and I want to go bake now..
maybe a shot of rum in the batter too??

[Spitfire of ATJ]

68. You can always mix coconut extract and shredded coconut with white or creamcheese frosting....

If you go pineapple on the frosting you could add sliced pineapple between the layers. You can blend diced pineapple in the mix on a pineapple cake. There's lots of possibilities and variations. I once did a chocolate covered cherry cake.

As I said, people need to quit thinking those damn flavorless sheet cakes from the deli are all there is.

It's like, "What color do you want? Red white or brown?"

[IrishAyes]

89. No matter which color you pick, it will taste like cardboard.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

91. Yup,...and the new generation will think that's how it's supposed to taste....

....which enables the corporations to continue to make the quality less and less for greater and greater profits from the masses.

Meanwhile, you just KNOW in their mansions that they are enjoying the good stuff and thinking of those masses with contempt for not knowing the difference.

[cui bono]

111. Yes, but the generation before boxed cake mixes thought the exact same thing.

Not trying to be mean or start anything with you but I find it funny that you say that about the "deli cakes" and comment about corporations making more money from them due to worsening quality and then point people to the big corporate brand packaged cake mixes.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

147. Good point. Still, at least you get to lick the bowl.

[cui bono]

152. And that's the important part!

[IrishAyes]

90. I can't think of a single thing that rum won't improve.

And if you're ever out of rum, try doubling the (real) vanilla. Same taste.

A lady once got very angry because I wouldn't tell her the secret ingredient in what she swore were the best scrambled eggs she ever tasted. (She was a teetotaler and had said exactly the wrong thing to me about the Irish, so this was payback.) I slipped in a shot of rum when she wasn't looking. Most of the alcohol cooks out, but the taste remains.

If you're frying something, beer batter will make it crispier. Beer's great in anything resembling baked goods. But rum, now... rum goes with everything.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

99. Beer is good for washing your hair too....

Okay,....maybe the wife won't buy that one...

[IrishAyes]

102. That's true, though.

As a teenager I was visiting an aunt when on a Sunday afternoon while everyone else was gone, the preacher at their church stopped by to visit. I had just doused my hair with beer and answered the door smelling like a brewery. We exchanged words. I left soon after.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

148. Next time try to smell of brimstone....

For the reaction.

[IrishAyes]

156. I've looked in all the catalogs w/o success.

Do you think rubbing a little sulphur behind my ears would help? I think rotten eggs produce sulphur, don't they? At least eggs are readily available.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

158. It's easy. Fire up a whole box of wooden matches and walk through the cloud.

[IrishAyes]

159. That's the better plan, alrighty.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

165. Beats calling up actual demons....

They're a lot messier.

[IrishAyes]

167. Forgive me for this serious breach in straying so far off topic,

But when someone mentions demons, I recall a woman who had a place at an LA condo complex where I lived while searching for a house. She was a hardcore fundie to start with, but she decided to stand in the center court and start preaching loudly to people. Nobody wanted to make a disturbing the peace call because she was also the type who'd slit your tires. Several people begged her to tone it down, but that only made her louder.

Finally I told everybody to relax, I knew how to stop her. They didn't believe me until I disappeared into my own condo and came out a few minutes later dressed in the most outlandish costume imaginable. Among other accessories I wore a vaguely Irish ancient-type costume with all sorts of silly noisemakers attached, like a set of metal measuring spoons. I ordered her to be silent in the name of the high priestess SomebodyOrOther, and when she caught her breath enough to resume preaching, I started to dance around her chanting nonsense incantations. I even took a bowl of water and flicked drops in her direction.

Now she had a screechy voice but it was no match for a determined trained contralto. When she raised the volume, I just shouted over her until she gave up and went indoors. Best fun I ever had. She was really convinced I'm a witch. Maybe sometimes I am, but not that kind.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

169. That's not so far off topic....

Just dance around Scalia.

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. Rum? ...

TEQUILA!

[genwah]

79. I beg your pardon?!!? I don't know about grocery stores, but I made each event cake myself, and

had a pro come in to do the decorations.

I know what you mean about those frozen travesties that many restaurants keep frozen for the unexpected birthday celebrants, they never crossed my door. We didn't even bother with cakes, if your party didn't bring a cake, we'd serve complimentary fried bananas, two 1 inch portions per person, and I kept candles.

Now, grocery store cakes; there is no reason why any grocery store with a bakeoff oven and proofing racks would ever need to buy a frozen cake. Anyplace that has "fresh baked" bread can defrost a cake in a prebake pan and bake it. Decorating is another matter, I refer you to http://www.cakewrecks.com/ for what can go wrong. But frozen sheetcakes from China?

Maybe, but it's really not cost effective. If I was in a small town, I'd find a friendly baker and swap leads rather than try to make my store do something it couldn't.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

86. We now see an entire generation that has never experienced stuff we take for granted....

Then there's the times when you have someone who has ice cream and soda in the fridge and you mention a float and they say, "I haven't had one of those since I was a kid."

There's always ONE that says, "Can't make floats. There's no root beer." (As if that's the ONLY thing that works)

Again, try vanilla and cream soda. Or (gasp) orange soda.

We Libs like to experiment.

Granted, some of this stuff goes best with weed.

......or a treadmill.

[madokie]

131. I'll cook the chocolate one on my Big Green Egg

If you haven't eaten a chocolate cake baked on the Egg you haven't had chocolate cake yet

[notadmblnd]

140. isn't a red velvet cake just a chocolate cake with red food coloring?

The few times I've been served it, I've haven't noticed it being all that great.

[yeoman6987]

11. Benghanzi has a better chance of passing than this

Well ok neither do. This is just performance drama. 2014 should be our priority! I wish we would stop taking our eyes off the prize.

[arcane1]

20. I don't know, this says to me "look what we could do if we won more seats in 2014"

[IrishAyes]

24. Me too.

Besides, we know how nutritious red meat can be. Revives pep!

[JustAnotherGen]

126. I 100% Agree

The Republicans have been doing a Dodge, Deflect, Defer regarding Actvist Judges for years now.

Funny who the activist judges turned out to be - eh?

[Beartracks]

146. Of course. It's a sure bet that if Republicans accuse you of something...

... it's because it is something they are actually doing.

=======================

[mimi85]

27. +1000%

Dream on! yeoman6987 is exactly right, we need to focus on the mid-terms this fall. This is just Don Quixote stuff.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

150. "focus"???

This thread went into cake recipes.

[1monster]

60. I'm inclined to think that even if it did pass and get signed into law, Fat Tony and his

four cohorts on the Supreme Court would simply rule againsts its implementation on the grounds of separation of powers... legally or not.

[fasttense]

121. But this law is not necessary

Congress already has the authority and power to control the Supreme Court. Its in the Constitution. But I suppose a law would more clearly define what behavior is expected of the justices. Congress could add a little line stating that the law could not be reviewed by the court. Its well defined in the Constitution. Congress controls the Court.

[Puzzledtraveller]

62. If we got that excited about attainable goals as we do pipe dreams like this

like just getting out the vote! But hey, DU is activism.

[Blanks]

74. It kind of reminds me of FDRs...

"Hardening of the judicial arteries" plan to fill the Supreme Court with younger justices.

We mustn't over react to a few bad years of Supreme Court rulings by reacting emotionally.

[genwah]

80. Hear, hear! GOTV in November is what counts now. Any of us who can file suit, or whatever

is already doing so, and will ask for help if needed.

The Catholic 5 gave us a great organizing tool, let's not waste it. I don't give a damn about Nader of Clinton or George Clinton, I want Alison Grimes backing up Elizabeth Warren. I want a net loss of House seats for the greater of almost any evil party.

ACT UP! FIGHT BACK! (WTF, it worked last time...)

[Cosmocat]

116. Yeah - agree and disagree

if it were the reality based justices acting like this conservative buffoons, there would have LONG ago been a big national discussion about this, and this kind of law would have been passed and there would have been SERIOUS discussion about impeaching them if not a real attempt to do so.

But, alas, it is the great patriots doing it, so yeah, 1 in 1,000,000 chance it happens.

Still, however it needs to be brought to light. Republicans screamed about JUDICIAL ACTIVISM in the 90s and made hay with it, that kind of ""performance drama" is part of drumming up the troops for the election.

[kairos12]

31. Absolutely no Tea though.

[calimary]

48. And I'll bring my cookies! Your cake's gonna get gobbled up straight away, and there'll need to be

something for the late-comers!

[shenmue]

52. High five!

Awesome!

[IrishAyes]

93. My mom never had to call any of us twice for dinner.

We learned the first come, first served principle early on. As a result I can reach the table with my knife and fork before most people can blink.

[kentauros]

78. I'll bring my carrot cake.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/115743290

Although I might have to bring two!

[IrishAyes]

94. At least.

Make you a deal: be sure I get a big slice of your carrot cake and a few of Calimary's cookies, and I might, umm... find extra, uh... Berkeley Brownies to pass around.

[daleanime]

113. Folks, please stop.....

some of us are on diets......

[IrishAyes]

155. So am I! Why else do you think I revel in food fantasies so much?

Talk about going to sleep with dreams of sugarplums dancing in my head...

[daleanime]

170. Then it worked....

in my dreams last nite, I had homemade ice cream and choc-cherry cake with melted chocolate topping. You'll have ask my dream self how I pulled off the topping, I have no idea.

Dreams can be like that.

[Louisiana1976]

2. Good idea. Impeach those fascists.

[rock]

3. That could almost be a tilting point

as in when a ship capsizes.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. The law would be a great idea, but don't get too excited--

it certainly won't be retroactive.

[Fuddnik]

7. I'm sure it will breeze right through the House. And the Senate won't filibuster it.

It has less of a chance getting passed than repealing Obamacare.

[Brigid]

8. This is true.

But it would at least put the brakes on this highly politicized Supreme Court if it passed.

[IrishAyes]

26. Whether it passes or not, we need to run that up the flagpole to mark parameters.

And then push with all our might, not letting up for one second no matter how long it takes!

[calimary]

49. Absolutely! Let it start rippling through the national discourse. Let it sink in - that this kind of

thinking and drumbeating is indeed out there. Besides, it'll give people who didn't dare think such things the gumption to add in. Sometimes all that's needed is the right push in the right tender spot.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

69. It is necessary to do this now! The majority of people have no clue what goes on

Supreme Court Justices attending fundraisers without any challenge? What a country!

[IrishAyes]

88. And the spark that ignites the masses can never be predicted with certainty -

only that it will happen sooner or later w/o fail. That's one reason I keep signing petitions until my poor little fingers almost fall off - to publicize these things. When I die, I want the teabaggers in this town to hold an exorcism or something because I was such a thorn in their hides. It's all the legacy I could want.

You can tell I'm fresh out of the milk of human kindness at the moment. I keep remembering what Malcolm X said about how it's futile to pursue brotherhood with people who don't want to be your brothers. Right now I'm in a fine fit because one of my few friends around here, a 78-year-old lady, lost her Medicare supplement policy when the company folded. Now she's been convinced that if she buys another policy, she'll be in league with satan because of the ACA. I tried to talk to her but she started to shake even worse and began moaning. Absolute blind terror. So I just shut up and gave her a hug. At a time when her health's failing fast, she's running up a huge tab at the hospital and knows she might not have a house to leave for her daughter.

And she's far from the only person in that condition. THIS IS WHAT THE GODFORSAKEN GOP HAS WROUGHT! I hope they rot in hell if there is one, even if I have to join them there for wishing it. They're MURDERERS.

[King_Klonopin]

115. A "shot across the bow" is a good start and well deserved;

And a shot in the face would be even better.... (paging, Dick Cheney!)

This process should have started about 5 years ago. Scalia is so corrupt
and so creepy that he makes my flesh crawl. I can't think of a less
qualified person presiding as a Supreme Court Justice. Its hard to un-do
the damage caused by precedents of SCOTUS rulings. Laws can be
changed much easier.

Scalia is a conservative shill, a malignancy to our democracy, and an asshole.
What enrages me most is : he knows he is all of the above AND that his
buddies will shield him from reproach and impeachment.

Paul Wellstone is dead, yet this guy (and Cheney) still walks the earth -- go figure.

[Cosmocat]

117. CORRECT!

make no mistake, if it were the reality based justices acting like the asshat conservatives this WOULD be a VERY active national discussion, like "judicial activism" was in the 90s, and the republican's made a LOT of hay with that.

[Jackpine Radical]

61. Until they declare it unConstitutional, of course.

[PoliticAverse]

34. I seem to recall something about ex post facto laws in the Constitution. n/t

[mopinko]

133. even so. it is based on the requirements of other federal judges.

that thomas and scalia have SSSSOOOO egregiously violated what other judges must live by will look real bad for them if they get impeached.
we dont need the law to impeach. both are plenty flat out corrupt enough.
and this ruling is just corrupt. corrupt. corrupt. corrupt.

get out there and take it back in november, peeps

[sheshe2]

5. Thank you eridani!!!!!!!!!!!!

As noted by Media Matters,

The recent Groundswell memoranda obtained by David Corn of Mother Jones reveal that these conflicts are getting worse.
Ginni Thomas was the founder and leader of Liberty Central, a political nonprofit “dedicated to opposing what she characterizes as the leftist ‘tyranny’ of President Obama and Democrats in Congress.” The group was funded by Harlan Crow, frequent patron of the Thomas’ projects and causes and a financial supporter of right-wing campaigns such as the “swift boat” attacks on then-presidential candidate John Kerry and the advertising push to confirm President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominees. Crow also serves on the board of the American Enterprise Institute, whose Edward Blum brought the two most recent attacks on the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action before the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas favored Blum’s positions against progressive precedent on both civil rights issues.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/03/democrats-introduce-bill-impeach-scotus-justices-thomas-scalia.html

DO IT!

[calimary]

45. Uh-HUH!!!

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. and Mrs. Conflict O'Interest!

[sheshe2]

55. Yes they are and they need their collective asses out of there.

They are disgusting excuses for human beings.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

67. Whatta pair

Maybe "unholy alliance" is more like it. But OK, hat trick to Ginny.

[Scuba]

9. What? Is being on the Koch's payroll a conflict of interest? How cynical.

[Rex]

10. 14 years later, but great! Great to see them finally trying to check the court system.

It has been beyond deplorable to all that actually pay attention. Time to dial back on the bears.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

13. Thank you. This would have been great in 2007 or 2009. But very

necessary.

[Rex]

15. I'll take it now, had to start somewhere ya back then better

but at least some sanity still remains in Congress...like you I was starting to wonder if Green Eggs & Ham did them in.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

17. Yeah back in 07 when Congress was flipped I wondered if they would try to

rein in these out of control corrupt douche nozzles. Given the majorities held at the time. Now I'm not sure it'll go anywhere.

[Rex]

19. It might not.

They sure didn't do much about the CIA spying or Clapper lying to them...I hope as a body of representatives, they've decided enough is enough with the SCOTUS and their lackadaisical friends across the isle.

I would LOVE to see the DEMS go on the offensive! If this powder gets any drier, it will just up and vanish.

[calimary]

46. I hope people VOTE.

Do not fail. And do not allow everybody you know to fail, either.

[Gloria in NM]

14. This is the kind of stuff I want to see more of!

It's time to get in their faces...forget this "my colleagues...blah blah blah" as they are screwing you repeatedly.
Bottom line for me is this (and this goes for the women's groups as well): start getting as nasty as they are. You have to fight
fire with fire. There is no more congenial way to discuss anything...this is an issue of survival now...

[IrishAyes]

28. Malcolm X spoke to the futility of seeking brotherhood with those who

don't want you as a brother under any circumstances.

[calimary]

39. Absolutely!

How MANY cases have we seen coming before the high court from which at least clarence thomas should have recused himself, for conflict of interest purposes? Especially since he's married to an activist wife who seeks to influence everything she touches, and I strongly suspect him included. She's as big an opportunist as I think I can be sometimes.

[Cosmocat]

118. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

I am amazed at how people forget the past so easily.

In the 80/90s, the republicans came up with the JUDICIAL ACTIVISM talking point as they were setting a course to control the court systems, a negative frame of liberal justices to gin up their troops to get help them stack the court with the kind of people they could trust to engage in actual judicial activism (as they usually do, projecting).

Once they had crossed a threashold to really have a lot more of their folks in there and started to really be able to game the system through the courts, all that talk went away.

But, if it were the reality based justices acting the way the buffoon conservatives are in the SC, make no mistake, the republicans would be screaming bloody murder, and there WOULD be a very active national discussion with the media breathlessly cheering it on, about impeaching them.

Your point stands. We tend to focus on how ridiculous the Rs are, because they are truly beyond ridiculous.

But, the other half of the equation is democrats putting up no fight at all.

People like to say it is Kabuki Theatre.

I think the most accurate description is a Harlem Globetrotters comparison.

The Rs are the show, the ones dribbling the ball between their legs, doing all the tricks while the Ds are the Washington Generals, standing there, waving their arms, but never moving their feet or really trying to do anything.

[littlemissmartypants]

16. Kicking. Thank you. nt

[Overseas]

18. K&R. Yes please!

[RKP5637]

21. K&R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[pnwmom]

22. K& R.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. All this does is put Republicans on the record for voting against it.

[merrily]

30. On record as voting to keep in place the guys who said employers

don't have to cover birth control?

Not such a bad thing for the left.

[the_sly_pig]

32. How about expanding the law to include congress?

No? Too much? Laughable how they point fingers at others corruption.

[BillZBubb]

57. So you don't want the Democrats to introduce this bill?

But instead want to discuss congress?

[the_sly_pig]

70. Of course I want the bill introduced, to think otherwise is craaaaazy.

But I also think putting the band-aid on the compound fracture is a good place to start. In regards to political corruption pot, can I introduce you to black kettle?

[tinrobot]

33. ...and the Supreme Court declares the law unconstitutional

In a 5-4 vote, of course.

[PeoViejo]

41. They will claim that the Law is a Bill of Attainder

and thus Unconstitutional.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

71. All federal justices would have to be treated the same so

what would be unconstitutional I wonder?

[JoeyT]

35. It doesn't have to pass to be useful.

So who wants to be on record openly opposing anti-corruption laws? By all means, proceed.

[GarColga]

36. Am I the only one to notice

that this story is almost a year old? What happened to the bill?

[calimary]

42. Welcome to DU, GarColga!

Glad you're here! We need sharp eyes and observers. Heck, if we didn't have James Carter in the opposition research department looking for usable romney material, we might have a President romney - heaven forbid! But he noticed this little message from somebody who had recorded romney's "47%" discussion and pursued it.

Meanwhile, as to this story, old or brand new, it's A) worth talking about in any case, B) worth pursuing, and C) worth reasserting if it's fallen into the Congressional dustbin somewhere.

[IrishAyes]

168. Forgive my rudeness.

A tardy but sincere welcome to DU.

[Iliyah]

38. K & R

Get the House in order and keep the Senate and for gawd's sake get rid of the filibuster.

[Orsino]

40. They got Capone for tax evasion.

If Congress could somehow find the guts to take down a Justice or two for mere partisan fundraising, I guess we win?

[rhett o rick]

51. Ahh yes, if only Congress was on our side. nm

[Orsino]

54. Good point. It's not a matter of guts. n/t

[47of74]

43. And make what they're doing...

...punishable by life imprisonment.

[babylonsister]

44. Dated August 2013. nt

[eridani]

47. It came in my Twitter feed today

Still useful to show what Repubs are all about.

[babylonsister]

50. I saw it on FB yesterday, but

wondered since I hadn't heard anything about this elsewhere recently.

[rhett o rick]

53. I can't get excited in the "introduction" of a bill. Get back to me when it actually

passes.

[enough]

56. Public support and activism in support of the bill would certainly help.

So we should get back to you after we've done that, or do you want to participate?

[IrishAyes]

100. That's what I was gonna say! How dare you beat me to it!

[rhett o rick]

106. So where is the bill right now and what's the plan to support it? nm

[IrishAyes]

154. Far as I know,

It hasn't yet been called up, due to Repuke obstructionism of course. But is that any reason for us to sit on our hands and let it die entirely because we didn't beat the drums for it? That would be shooting ourselves in the foot with a gun loaded and handed to us by the opposition. Personally I'm not that self destructive.

And btw, even if it's dead as a door nail at the moment, that needn't stop us from kicking it back to life. No excuse for doom and gloom naysaying - none at all.

[rhett o rick]

105. I will be glad to participate. Where is the bill right now? I dont think that has been mentioned.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

73. The fact that it has been proposed is a start

We need more Democrats with spines and some Republicans (and Democrats) who will serve ordinary people's interests instead of big corps.

[JDPriestly]

58. Judges should be as neutral as possible.

They should isolate themselves from political pressure while serving on the bench.

That is difficult of course because judges are often appointed at least initially by the president or the government, and at that point their political and perhaps religious affiliations may be considered by the person or commission appointing them. The consideration of political and religious factors at that point may be taken for granted, never admitted or even subconscious, but they play a role in some or many cases.

It is also difficult at the state level because at least in California judges run for office. They don't run on a party ticket or declare their party necessarily, but they have to raise money and may seek political endorsements and campaign assistance from political organizations or organizers.

Members of the Supreme Court do not have these excuses for their sometimes blatant partisan activities.

The law and politics are closely intertwined. It might be difficult to determine whether a Justice is speaking to a social or political issue or perhaps speaking in support of a political party. It can be hard to decide sometimes.

That's one of the reasons we have the First Amendment. What is and is not political, what is and is not protected speech can be a matter of the views of the listeners.

But Supreme Court justices should not be involved in partisan politics because it destroys the appearance of neutrality.

[Stainless]

59. It's about time!

What took so God Damn long?

[Jenoch]

64. Deja Vu

From more than 11 months ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251318381

[Phlem]

65. Please, please, please, please, please,

let this happen. That's all I want for Christmas.

[Cooperstown]

66. Be still my heart, I would LOVE to see one of these impeached

Just wonderful to have Obama get another nominee confirmed sooner rather than later.

After the Hobby Lobby decision, we need to get this done NOW!

[DeSwiss]

72. Right....

[Mayberrystars]

75. Supreme Court Justices

It would be great and even fantastic that we the people could demand an impeachment. but it does not work that way. not even the congress or the Senators can push forward on this. Supreme court justices are placed for life. you can't vote them out, and you can't impeach them either. my feeling is what you're hearing are rumors and I don't think anything will come of it.

[William769]

76. Welcome to DU.

I hate to disappoint you but yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached.

[octoberlib]

77. Samuel Chase was impeached in 1805. Later 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

[Rex]

92. Actually they have 'indefinite tenure', but can be impeached by Congress

who has the final authority to add and remove judges from the bench.

[PoliticAverse]

81. The bill went to committee on 09/13/2013 where it seems to have died...

H.R.2902 - Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2013
https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2902

http://politicalmoll.com/supreme-court-ethics-act-2013-happened-h-r-2902-video/

[Hekate]

83. The link is from Augus 2013 -- kind of odd to post a teaser like that

[Uncle Joe]

82. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, eridani.

[tritsofme]

84. The article is a year old, and the bill likely unconstitutional.

Aside from being politically unlikely to pass.

Being the "supreme" court, any other body empowered to sit in judgement of the Supreme Court is likely to be unconstitutional.

[Duppers]

127. I noticed the date too. But as to it being unconstitutional?

It's certainly a constitutional conundrum but, I would think, it does not necessarily violate the constitution.



However, I'm not an attorney or expert by far.

[tritsofme]

139. I think it pretty clearly violates the Constitution.

According to the Constitution, no body can be supreme to the Supreme Court. This is the sort of thing that would require an amendment.

[Enthusiast]

85. Hundreds of recommendations! Come on!

Thomas and Scalia are unworthy of their exalted position. Really.

[leftyohiolib]

87. how bout just putting all else aside and focus on keeping potus dem so we can xhange the scotus when

the old ones go?

[liberalmuse]

95. Please.

I don't know if American will survive these f*ckers if we have to wait until they both croak.

[padruig]

96. Code of Conduct !

Outstanding !

[Maedhros]

97. I've been waiting my whole life for Democrats, when observing Republicans

tripping over their own bigotry and malice, to step metaphorically on their hateful little necks and choke the life out of them.

Instead they scramble to help rehabilitate them. I don't expect this latest gesture to amount to anything. The Democrats and Republicans are co-dependent.

[h2ebits]

98. Article is dated August of 2013. Has this bill died somewhere or been re-introduced.

Thanks

[PoliticAverse]

101. Bill seems to have died in committee, see...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5201009

[samsingh]

103. this is a very good idea

[valerief]

104. I have a better chance of winning the lottery than of Boehner bringing this up for a vote.

[C Moon]

107. Finally, calling out these a holes.

I'm pretty sure nothing will happen, but it's worth it to put a little fear in their brains.

[emsimon33]

108. K&R

[cstanleytech]

109. Assuming this is even passed it probably wont lead to their impeachment

as long they amend their conduct and obey the rules since they cannot be impeached for what at the time was legal.

[thesquanderer]

112. Right. Bad headline.

I think that's a common problem for that site. I know they want people to click, but I think it just lessens their long term credibility.

[supercats]

110. This Would Be Great....

Just to see that big fat racist blowhard Scalia, angry and exasperated being interviewed. Also to finally hear the other one, you know, the deaf mute, speak incoherently.

[blkmusclmachine]

114. Sorry, I don't see this crop of Democrats impeaching anybody--that would upset the

bi-partisan apple cart, and then the DEMS would have some real fancy explaining to do to cover their asses as they continue to march to the Right, anyway. "Bi-partisanship" is the cover. And they're not blowing their cover. Ever.

[Katashi_itto]

120. Agree and nothing at all will happen under Hillary

[brooklynite]

125. Bearing in mind that the power of impeachment still rests with the Republican House.

[Katashi_itto]

119. Summary life sentence would be better.

[myrna minx]

122. K&r

[theHandpuppet]

124. DO IT!!!!

[CanonRay]

128. This is long overdue IMHO

[sulphurdunn]

129. If we amend the Constitution

to overturn corporate personhood and remove private money from public affairs, maybe we should consider limiting Supreme Court Justices to a single 8 year term or require they be reconfirmed every 8 years.

[Brigid]

144. Now this idea I like very much.

This, I think, is doable.

[Calista241]

161. Then you would just have under cover, but still highly politicized justices.

When a justice is beholden to others for his continued employment, how can you expect them to be non-partisan and completely fair?

[sulphurdunn]

166. We have non-partisan justices now?

I do not believe that making some of them unaccountable makes them more likely to be fair.

[hue]

130. This happened almost 1 year ago to no avail.

[TBF]

132. K&R nt

[whathehell]

134. Please, pretty please?!!

This would be a dream come true...The president could then elect two SANE justices!

[kokobell616]

135. Code of conduct

[The Blue Flower]

137. The article is from August 2013

What has happened since then? Time for some pressure to move it forward. The law itself is being destroyed by these incompetent partisans.

[Doctor_J]

138. Remember how the Dems were going to pass the ginormous $10.10 minimum wage?

I am pretty sure they waited on this until there was no change of it getting anywhere. They could have done some major housecleaning in 2009-2010 if they'd wanted to. They're either really, really weak, or in on the charade.

[Duval]

141. K&R n/t

[certainot]

145. retroactive would be even better

[progressoid]

151. "quaking in their Tea Party boots"

I doubt it. They think they are invincible.

[NealK]

163. I'm afraid that you're right.

[santamargarita]

153. I can only dream of such a victory for the people.

[pfitz59]

157. They should have been impeached for Bush v. Gore

Lying sacks of crap that they are...

[SpankMe]

160. Useless to even debate this.

It would never get past the Republican fuckstains in the House.

[McCamy Taylor]

162. K&R

[NealK]

164. I hope that it will pass but

I won't hold my breath.