Just Remember, Gorsuch Can be Impeached in 2018

[ProudLib72]

I wish Schumer would tell the Senate as much.

[Initech]

1. Has a sitting SCOTUS justice ever been removed?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Impeached, yes (Samuel Chase); removed, no.

[elleng]

2. Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Impeached

by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.

Impeachments of Judges - History of the Federal Judiciary https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges_impeachments.html

[roamer65]

3. Schumer should also say if they kill the filibuster...

It isn't coming back under a Democratic majority...EVER.

Tit for tat.

[ProudLib72]

5. Yep!

Thought of that, too. We have some weapons in our arsenal. It's time to play hardball.

[still_one]

9. That is the valid response, not threatening to impeach Gorsuch in 2018 if we take back the House

[KPN]

51. I agree.

Threats to impeach will only stir up the opposition. IF we take back the Senate, we can possibly do that -- but impeaching Gorsuch is not going to be a persuasive argument in actually accomplishing that task.

[ProudLib72]

4. I know that Chase was aquitted

And he was the only supreme justice to have ever been impeached. However, I feel the "nuclear option" can and should be met with our own. No, I am not talking about taking revenge. I am talking about making the GOP think twice before they go down a path that will completely destroy the Senate.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. That's extremely unlikely. Galactically unlikely, in fact.

Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached - Samuel Chase in 1805, and he was acquitted. Opposing a justice's opinions - and Gorsuch's are likely to be much like those of Alito, Roberts, and the late, unlamented Scalia - is not grounds for impeachment, otherwise those guys would be gone, too. A justice would have to do something way outside the scope of his work, if not downright criminal, to get impeached, let alone convicted.

[still_one]

8. Isn't that presumptious? In fact, it wouldn't be a smart thing to do right now

The goal is to filibuster Gorsuch now. If he gets in because the republicans remove the filibuster, then we will deal with it then. In fact threatening to do it now could in fact jjeopardize 2018, and we cannot afford that

[ProudLib72]

10. I don't think it's presumptuous

when McConnell stated that, one way or another, Gorsuch would be confirmed.

[still_one]

16. While McConnell is probably correct in his assessment, it still will require a vote of the entire

Senate to remove the filibuster, and that hasn't happened yet, therefore it is presumptuous

Also, as I said threatening to impeach Gorsuch in 2018, presumes we win the House. That is also presumptuous

[ProudLib72]

17. Well we agree at least that McConnell is presumptuous

And I hope your right that he falls flat on his face after making such a pronouncement.

[still_one]

18. I am not saying McConnell won't have the votes to remove the filibuster, he probably will.

My point was that unless we win the House in 2018, making such a statement means nothing until that happens.

Adam Schiff has pretty much nailed it by saying that the republicans effectively have already done the nuclear option by not allowing Garland to have a hearing, so this would only formalize it.

What the Democrats could make clear, as someone pointed out in this thread, is that once the filibuster formally gets removed, when the Democrats eventually become the majority party, that no one should expect that the filibuster will be restored.

If that doesn't make them hesitate to not remove the filibuster, then nothing will

[moonscape]

41. I don't think the Repubs think Dems would restore filibuster once in the majority - that

would be odd thinking even for them.

I think they expect to get two more SC appointments in the next 4 years, and so are set for a generation or two.

[still_one]

45. I know. I hope they are in for a big surprise in 2018 which leaves them impotent

[grantcart]

11. If they are not going to impeach Thomas for financial irregularities (and they aren't) then

they aren't going to impeach Gorsuch for disagreeing with his legal philosophy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/us/politics/25thomas.html

Taking almost a million dollars from groups that are arguing cases before the court, and failing to report it would cause any lower federal judge to be removed.

Supreme Court Justices are virtually untouchable, and that may not be a bad idea.

Do you really want Republicans to have the power to take out judges they disagreed with?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. They tried, with Earl Warren. See below.

[grantcart]

23. The people who tried to impeach Earl Warren also accused Eisenhouer of being a Communist

They bought billboards and that was about all.

[Jim Beard]

58. Was that the John Birch Society?

[ProudLib72]

15. No, I don't want Republicans

to have that power. Part of my point is that the Senate is self-destructing because of partisan politics. I want the Democratic party to have parity with the Republicans. There is no reasoning with them now. They are mad with power. But if Gorsuch is confirmed, then they will have committed two outrageous acts in a row: denying Garland and forcing Gorsuch through.

Yes, I get that removing the filibuster was not the best idea in hindsight. Allowing the Republicans to change the rules to suit a single party is just as bad an idea.

[jmowreader]

12. ONLY if he does something wrong, and it would be 2019 not 2018

Just because he's a right-wing, labor-hating, birth-forcing, trucker-freezing no-dick asswipe is no grounds for impeachment. And the fact that the guy who nominated him is a commie stooge doesn't count; we DO have a prohibition against corruption of blood in America. He's got to fuck up on his own and it needs to be a severe disaster.

[ColemanMaskell]

26. Yeah, exactly. Maybe if he colluded in the Russia-Trump election conspiracy.

Seems like if he was sentenced to jail, then maybe he would be impeachable/removable. I wonder what would happen if a sitting judge were to be disbarred, whether that would have any effect. Or maybe Justices are not required to be lawyers. Dunno. Maybe Trump could nominate Jared or Ivanka.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. During the '60s there was a push by the John Birch Society

and other right-wing groups to impeach Earl Warren, who was appointed by Eisenhower and who turned out to be more liberal than many expected. The Warren Court issued some of the most important decisions protecting civil rights and civil liberties, e.g., Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, Mapp v. Ohio, Engel v. Vitale (outlawing mandatory school prayer) and Griswold v. Connecticut. Conservatives hated Warren and wanted him impeached because they disagreed with his interpretation of the law. Do we want to go there? I don't.

[still_one]

19. This is all a theoretical discussion because Schumer isn't going to use impeachment as

a threat in 2018, because it presumes we take back the House, and it presumes that Gorsuch does an impeachable offense

[OnDoutside]

20. Could the Reps reinstate the filibuster AFTER​ confirming

Gorsuch ?

[ColemanMaskell]

28. If so, Dems could eliminate it again once Dems control the Senate again.

[HoneyBadger]

31. So if Reps nuke the filibuster and restore the filibuster in 2018, we restore the nuke in 2019

When will the Reps undo the Reid nuke?

[PdxSean]

21. Newt Gingrich would go you one better.

Right nut Newt Gingrich once said that, as president, he would abolish whole courts to be rid of judges whose decisions he feels are out of step with the country and suggested the president could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest judges who make controversial rulings in order to compel them to justify their decisions before congressional hearings.

www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/newt-gingrichs-assault-on-activist-judges-draws-criticism-even-from-right/2011/12/17/gIQAoYa80O_story.html

[jmg257]

22. For what crime(s)?

[0rganism]

25. maybe Dems can follow the GOP model and make something up?

did you know Neil Gorsuch is a predatory pedophile? and he ran a child sex slavery operation from the basement of a Colorado pizza parlor? what, you didn't know about that? you're probably not alone. spread the word! the American people need to know about this...

and that's how it's done.

[ColemanMaskell]

29. Not funny.

[0rganism]

33. Yep, not funny at all

it wasn't ever funny
but it worked

[ColemanMaskell]

48. If we become as immoral as they are, how are we different from them?

Some things are just wrong. Manufacturing evidence is one of them.

The Republicans do enough evil. It's just laziness if we don't use real evidence. We need research, not fabrication.

[WillowTree]

24. On what grounds?

[R0ckyRac00n]

27. Tell them-

We will increase the size of the court when we are back in power. (Like FDR)

[ColemanMaskell]

30. That's a practical suggestion. Not telling them, just doing it. Good? Dunno. Feasible though.

[ProudLib72]

32. Hadn't thought of that

That's a good suggestion. Add two more justices.

[onenote]

37. That worked so well for FDR. Not.

And if we suggest that, what's to stop the Republicans from doing it first. What are we going to do, end up with a SCOTUS with dozens of justices?

[Foamfollower]

34. What would be the charges?

No SCOTUS Justice has ever been impeached. The closest was Abe Fortas who was investigated for impeachment and was convinced by CJ Earl Warren to resign.

[ProudLib72]

38. Yes there was

but acquitted.

[Foamfollower]

40. Nope, no impeachment of a SCOTUS justice was ever succesful

Not one SCOTUS justice was ever tried in the Senate.

[WillowTree]

43. Yes, there was.

In 1805, Samuel Chase was impeached by the House and subsequently tried and acquitted by the Senate. Look it up.

[Foamfollower]

44. I stand corrected.

Thank you.

[ColemanMaskell]

49. Hey, thanks for that glimmer of hope.

[Hekate]

35. It doesn't work like that

[onenote]

36. It's pure fantasy to think there would be 67 votes to convict

And its pure fantasy to think that the House, even if it managed to end up with Democratic majority after 2018, would impeach Gorsuch.

[brooklynite]

39. No - he can't

There's no scenario where the Democrats will pickup 20 seats to provide the 2/3 margin to remove a sitting US Justice.

[SaschaHM]

42. Even putting this out there is idiotic.

Do you know how much the GOP would love to get rid of the liberal wing of the court? We could impeach Gosuch in 2018, they can impeach Ginsburg et. al now. Neither party is going to have the votes in the Senate to remove someone either.

[onenote]

56. +1

[Impedimentus]

46. This post should be submitted to the Onion

Surely you jest.

[ProudLib72]

47. After today, still think we should play by the rules?

Set a good example and let the rethugs trounce us.

[ecstatic]

50. It is imperative that we win big in 2018/2020, or it's over for us

And when we do, we need to make sure we use their nuclear option against them. And yes, impeach and replace Gorsuch.

[Golden Raisin]

52. Assuming there are elections in 2018.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. For what? Writing opinions we don't agree with?

That can cut both ways, you know; and that's why impeachment of judges and other federal officials requires proof of high crimes and misdemeanors. Some comments on DU show poor understanding about the basics of our system of government. When did they stop teaching civics in high school?

[ProudLib72]

54. Some things (most things) the rethugs do

show blatant disregard for the basics of our system of government. Do you think that, when tRump is impeached, his appointments should stand? Do you think that the GOP should be allowed to obstruct on Garland for a year and then rush their own person through by dropping the filibuster?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. I don't like it, but there is no constitutional or statutory way to deal with it.

If a president is impeached and removed from office, whatever he did that caused his removal wouldn't invalidate his previous appointments because they were valid when made; the invalidity or illegitimacy of the president himself would not take legal effect until he is found guilty following a trial in the Senate. Even if a law were passed that provided for invalidating that president's appointments, it would probably be considered to be, either by definition or by operation, an ex post facto law, which Article I, sec. 9 of the Constitution expressly prohibits. The Founding Fathers were men of the Enlightenment who assumed those who were selected to manage the government would act honorably and for the benefit of the people. Maybe they didn't expect their system to become so debased (although Franklin had his doubts). Nevertheless, dealing with a blatant disregard for the law by also blatantly disregarding the law doesn't improve things.

The Senate GOP is, unfortunately, "allowed" to do what they did regarding the filibuster because they acted within the rules of the Senate, which seem pretty arcane and stupid. But someday that might come back to bite them in the ass.

[ProudLib72]

57. My OP was hyperbole

to stress the fact that the rules are not clear anymore. Let me put it this way, I truly believe there ought to be some way to remove Gorsuch when tRump is impeached. I truly believe he should never have been placed. Do I think that impeachment is possible for Gorsuch? No, I don't. What gets under my skin more than anything else, though, is that the right trample the rules and get away with it. Personally, I think all rethugs should be held accountable for not even considering Garland. And if it turns out the McTurtle did that on purpose because he knew all about Russian interference and figured they could get a conservative on the bench (and this is a highly likely scenario), then there need to be dire consequences for him and his followers.

Gorsuch's appointment is tainted, and he will have to live with that. However, you're right that he, personally, has not done anything to be impeached.

[Goodheart]

59. I have a complementary idea

Inasmuch as the Constitution doesn't specify how many justices should be sitting on the Supreme Court, when we get a Democratic President in 2020 he should immediately nominate THREE justices, and the Democratic Senate should confirm all three simultaneously.

[fleabiscuit]

60. Double that. nt