It's time to think about impeaching Roberts and Alito, and it can be done. (dial-up warning)

[Totally Committed]

Gerald Ford's Remarks on the Impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, April 15, 1970

In this speech, then House Minority Leader Gerald Ford reviewed the Constitutional background on impeachment, the distinction between impeachment and criminal prosecution, and impeachment standards as they might apply differently to appointed judges and elected officials. See especially page 6 for the full context of his oft-quoted answer to the question "What, then, is an impeachable offense?" Gerald Ford's answer: "The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representitives considers to be at a given moment in history."














Pages 1-6, as well as pages 7-21 of this document can be found at:

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/700415a.htm
(Click on "Next Page" at the bottom of the image)


TC

[Virginia Dare]

1. Scalia first, I think there's already enough on him to make it stick..n/t

[MADem]

2. The Supremes have become a total joke, thanks to those assclowns

Hell, Harriet Miers might have been an improvement, after all...!!!!

[n2doc]

3. Hell we can't even impeach gonzo, what makes you think Congress would do this?

No chance at all of this happening.

[Totally Committed]

5. They may not go after a sitting POTUS or VPTOUS, and yeah,

they sure as hell aren't going after Gonzo... I agree. But, if we could get them to impeach these two justices (Scalia would be harder as he's been on the bench longer, imo), we could not only undo the Constitutional harm of their appointments, but also derail and voting malfeasance they are paving the way for in 2008.

TC

[Totally Committed]

4. The Republicans (Gerald Ford was the Republican Minority Leader at the time) are on record

in this document as saying THIS is the criteria for Impeachment of a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court:

"The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representitives considers to be at a given moment in history." -- Gerald Ford, page 6 of the above document

All the Congress has to do is find a majority willing to go forward on this basis alone, and it could be done.

Just saying.

TC

[riqster]

6. Simple Majority, or do they need 60?

[Totally Committed]

7. Ford just says "a majority".. makes me think it's a simple majority.

I am still trying to get through all 21 pages of this document.

TC

[Solo_in_MD]

11. majority in the House, 2/3 of the Senate

And its never going to happen...

[ellenfl]

15. it could happen after the 2008 elections. eom

[Solo_in_MD]

16. 2/3 in the Senate? Never...

Its not that I agree or support those being discussed for impeachment, but the reality is that it will never happen.

[Solo_in_MD]

8. Short documented criminal behavior, they are not going to impeach any Federal sitting judge

at any level. To do so because we disagree with their decisions is a long jump down the road to being a banana republic.

[Totally Committed]

9. Well, it's either impeaching them, or allowing their decisions to turn us into

a bonafide "Banana Republic". Talk to me after the Supreme Court helps the Republicans steal the '08 elections. I believe that's where we are headed even as I write this.

TC

[Solo_in_MD]

10. You are IMO excessively binary on this

Todays decision neither overturned Brown or repealed anti trust price fixing. If you have not read them, do so before you reply. Sound bites from failed presidential candidates don't count as reading.

[elocs]

12. Hey, we're Democrats! We don't have to read something to know we are against it.

On top of that we want to impeach everybody, everybody. Well, maybe not the Democrats, but then again, maybe some of them too for being spineless.

[Solo_in_MD]

18. Gee, here I was thinking that the Democratic Party was that of sweet reason and calm discourse

[elocs]

20. As Will Rogers said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party.

I'm a Democrat."

[onenote]

13. Yeah, let's follow the Ford precedent. That's the ticket. NOT.

Yes, Jerry Ford spoke (and spoke and spoke) about impeaching William O Douglas and yes he uttered the immortal words: "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment of history."

So what. DOes it mean that technically the House could impeach someone for wearing brown shoes and black socks? Sure. But does it mean that if the House tried to impeach someone for wearing brown shoes and black socks it would have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding? Of course not.

Ford tried to gin up a basis for his impeachment effort against Douglas that went beyond mere disagreement with his decisions, including trumped up charges of financial impropriety and conflict of interest. How successful was Ford? Well, he gained so little traction that there never was a vote, at either the Committee or full House, on his silly impeachment resolution. It was (and continues to be) regarded as simply a moment of low comedy.

So, by all means, let's jump up and down and point to Jerry Ford and demand that our representatives impeach Roberts and Alito. One question. While no reason needs to be given, its likely that members will feel a need to come up with something. You have something to suggest? Please share so it can be evaluated and measured against the practical standard rather than the brown shoes/black socks standard.

And while you are at it, explain why Roberts and Alito and not Scalia or Thomas.

[Totally Committed]

19. Why are you being so nasty about this? Why does my OP upset you so?

I already explained briefly why Alito and Roberts and not Scalia or Thomas, but I'll do it at more length again. I believe that Alito and Roberts basically lied to Congress in their carefully worded answers during their confirmation hearings. Their confirmations were as much the result of a good PR machine, as anything. That's what I see as the impeachable offense.

Upthread, I was accused of aiding and abetting a "banana republic" by impeaching a Justice because I didn't like his or her rulings. That was not the case then, and neither is it the case now. It would be if I wanted to go after Scalia or Thomas. Both men are disgusting RW ideologues, but they both got through to confirmation in very difficult confirmation hearings. Alito and Roberts sailed through unscathed, because I believe, they lied or carefully worded their responses to be non-responses to the questions asked.

I won't even go into what I think about our Congressional Democrats for allowing their confirmation without even a teensy challenge. But, I digress.

TC

[onenote]

22. If you've given specific examples of these impeachable "lies" I missed it

And sorry if you felt my post was nasty. But your idea is silly. Suggesting that we rely on a precedent that is generally regarded as a farce as a basis for going after Alito and Roberts doesn't strike me as being the best strategy and if you are going to toss out Jerry Ford's words, you might have put them in some historical context -- ie, he got nowhere with his approach.

And with no intention of being nasty, please recognize that you are simply wrong when you say Scalia made it through to the Supreme Court after a very difficult confirmation hearing. Scalia was confirmed 98-0.

[AndreaCG]

14. Avoidance of impropriety gets both Scalia and Thomas

Both had close relatives (a son and a spouse respectively) actively working on the Bush/Cheney election campaign in high positions.

[Solo_in_MD]

17. Not near enough...

[Bitwit1234]

21. Any member of the house can ask for an impeachment

They must fill out the forms present it to the committee by placing it in the hopper. Then the judicial committee votes on it and presents it to the house for vote to b e debated.

Why in the hell doesn't one of the congress people have the guts to introduce it. Nancy Pelosi is not in the judical committee and if it is voted on in the committee and approved how could she turn it down...I don't understand that.

[Solo_in_MD]

25. Read the constitutional language, its clear why that is there

[MonkeyFunk]

23. Impeaching justices because you disagree with them

is ridiculous. And it's not like Roberts and Alito are voting together against all 7 other justices consistently. They're in the majority on tight votes - that doesn't put them outside the judicial mainstream.

They're conservatives. Nobody is surprised, and this would open a pandora's box.

[cascadiance]

24. If they can be shown to be facilitating a coverup of criminal acts by our leadership...

aka the Sibel Edmonds case, which they refused to hear, but had the time around that time to hear Anna Nicole Smith's case instead, could in my book be grounds for some impeachments.

If we can get Congressman Waxman to have the Government Oversight committee to talk to Sibel Edmonds and get her to open up and testify as to what she knows, and what the courts knew during her appeals, we could be doing a number of judicial impeachments for facilitating the coverups. Perhaps some SCOTUS judges for "knowingly" refusing to hear her case to avoid the criminal acts she knew about from being exposed, and other judges like Reggie Walton (who just now also got appointed to the FISA Court) for using the "State Secrets" privilege to also facilitate the coverup.

[tammywammy]

26. Because you don't like their decisions

Isn't a reason to impeach the justices.

[Totally Committed]

27. If you read my responses in the thread you'll see that is not why I think they should be impeached.

I feel they used PR and carefully worded statements to mislead Congress during their confirmation hearings. Hell, Mrs. Alito even cried on cue. It was all "for show". I feel they are in office under false pretenses.

TC

[tammywammy]

28. So, because you didn't like their answers during confirmation?

"Alito and Roberts sailed through unscathed, because I believe, they lied or carefully worded their responses to be non-responses to the questions asked."

Sorry, Congress had the chance to block their appointments. All Supreme Court nominees have to carefully word their answers.

Is there a specific question/answer that you can point me to?