2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumImpeach Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Time-for-Congress-to-Impea-by-Thom-Hartmann-120628-417.htmlOn Tuesday, in his dissenting opinion to the Arizona immigration case, Justice Scalia lashed out at President Obama for not doing enough to enforce immigration laws. With his blatant partiality and total disregard for the institution of the Supreme Court, isn't it time Justice Scalia was impeached?
Way back in 1803 Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase really stepped in it. Thomas Jefferson was the President of the United States at the time, and his supporters in Congress called themselves Democratic Republicans. Jefferson's chief political rival was John Adams, whom he defeated in the election of 1800, and Adams led the Federalists against the Democratic Republicans. The Federalists fought hard to protect the wealthy elite, succeeding in eliminating the direct election of U.S. Senators by the people. While you can't compare them apples to apples, the Federalists are basically today's Republican Party, at least in their belief that society is best organized when there's a wealthy ruling elite at the top. Samuel Chase, who was appointed to the High Court in 1796, proudly called himself a Federalist. So Thomas Jefferson was already a little uneasy with Samuel Chase as a Supreme Court justice. And after Chase joined other Federalists on the Supreme Court to create judicial review in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison case that gave the court the power to strike down laws passed by both Congress and the president, making it the most powerful, and unaccountable, of the three branches of government, Jefferson's anger with the court -- and Samuel Chase -- only intensified.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)gregoire
(192 posts)will take any real action? All they do is pander to the CONservatives.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 4, 2012, 07:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Keep your powder dry.. Three D chess,, on and on. Don't enforce the law, that would be divisive
Raster
(20,998 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)He's blatantly a political activist.
Cosmocat
(14,579 posts)if not actually impeached, there WOULD HAVE, no ifs, ands or buts, been a GREAT hue and cry from the Rs and the "liberal media" for it to happen.
They literally can do whatever they want, and not suffer consequences, a D does not even have to do anything wrong and can be taken down.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)Impeach Justice Antonin Scalia, although he certainly deserves to be.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=104
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)what else do you need? Slappy's record is even worse.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)Chase was a once in a country's lifetime event. He wasn't even removed. Then again, neither was Clinton.
VPStoltz
(1,295 posts)And John Marshall, Chief Justice and another Federalist, acquitted him of all charges which sent Jefferson through the roof.
onenote
(42,799 posts)cstanleytech
(26,342 posts)Mind you I am not a fan of Scalia at all but really if you want to impeach him you are going to need something really solid to nail him on like say if he accepted a bribe for a ruling or something thats actually criminal and criticizing a president isnt because if it was most of us including myself would have been in jail long ago.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)inadvertely overlooked reporting his wife's income for the influence-peddling work that she did.
cstanleytech
(26,342 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)A viable movement to impeach Scalia would be a powerful political statement regardless of any success.
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)The reason is that you need a 2/3rds-majority (67) of senators to remove a justice, and that's not going to happen.
What CAN happen is that the Justice Department can investigate and indict the republican Party because of its murderous and traitorist tenets using existing RICO statutes. We don't need ANY republican scumbag in any part of the sequence to invalidate its existence. No need worry of Congress nor even president. As long as we can associate republican party policies with the destructive economic, social, and environmental damage that has been inflicted on this country, and indeed the planet, we can render a society in which the Democratic Party does not have to be the only stalwart preventing this harbinger of doom.
Cary
(11,746 posts)your impeachment?
And what kind of example would that set for the next Scalia?
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)Did you not read what I wrote?? Scalia probably doesn't give a pissant about what the public thinks, vibrating or not. Again, the only way a justice can be removed is by 2/3 vote in the senate. UNLESS we ban the GOP, that ain't gonna happen soon.
And looking at it from the scumbag rethugs point of view: What happens when they try to take out our Sotomayor or Kagen by impeachment? They'd say the same thing as Scalia would.
Cary
(11,746 posts)And I have been a practicing attorney for 28 years now.
Look up the word vibrant.
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)There is FAR more disdain on the insane, radical republicanist right about impeaching our guys and gals on the court than we can about them. So if they don't give a damn about the criticism (and they shouldn't), why shouldn't the scumbag justices on the dark side be concerned?
And frankly, I don't give a damn how long you've been practicing or your obscure words. I only care about what's right and what's solid, and what's actually obtainable. And the bottom line is this: First we must get 67 senators in the chamber on our side before we can kick the rethugs off the court. And the ONLY way we are going to do that is to ban the GOP to allow us to get to 67 with Democrats and other socialist parties with senators in place.
Cary
(11,746 posts)By contrast, nothing said on any internet board including what you do or don't give a damn about (frankly or otherwise) is either solid or obtainable.
"Vibrant" is hardly an obscure word. Your abilities to comprehend words and concepts are equally unimpressive.
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)Ok. I'm done here. You have impressed me with credentials, so I will bow to your magnificent presence.
My original statement regarding banning the GOP using RICO statutes being more likely than impeaching a justice still stands.
Cary
(11,746 posts)BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)I'm curious, why are you so touchy-feely about things? A 28-year practitioner of the law usually doesn't let this subject matter get under his skin as much as it does you.
Cary
(11,746 posts)You're doing something here that's commonly referred to as projection. I assure you that I suffer from no such "touchy-feely" thing, whatever that is supposed to be. I merely cited your errors because I favor the truth.
Clearly you cannot own up to your own deficiencies so you are employing this psychological defense mechanism, subconsciously denying your own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, and ascribing them instead to me.
I again implore you to take advantage of your curiosity and to use it as incentive to explore these deficiencies of yours. It will make you a better person.
onenote
(42,799 posts)I would invite both of you to stop by the real world next time you are passing through.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Getting a vibrant movement to impeach Scalia may very well be unlikely but it is more in the realm of possibilities than banning the GOP. It seems you not only posted a non-sequitur but you also fell into a false equivalence.
A vibrant movement to impeach Scalia may very well be unlikely, but that fact (if it is a fact) has absolutely nothing to do with why I would or would not post the idea here. And too any such probabilities bear no relationship on whether or not it's worth trying.
I used to represent people before the IRS and I would frequently file a Form 911. Out of the hundreds that I filed I never had a single one granted but more often than not I was able to affect something positive. And generally fighting with the IRS on behalf of people who really do owe the money was a losing battle, but I was still able to add value. Sometimes I even added considerable value.
"Onenote" eh? I would invite you to expand your monotonous repertoire. You might be surprised what can happen by simply adding a few other notes.
dpibel
(2,882 posts)You actually said that.
You should think about installing a brain-checker on your computer.
Please tell me you're getting paid by the post. It would brighten my day.
But, hey! Your username is rilly, like, ummm, convincing.
I wish I had caught that.
onenote
(42,799 posts)I'm not sure what you consider a "vibrant" movement to impeach Scalia, but what I consider a "vibrant" movement is one that picked up significant support among independent voters and the mainstream media. And I think the odds of that happening are at or near zero.
Cary
(11,746 posts)You missed it when you became hung up on what you're so loosely referring to as "the odds" and I would bet you dollars to donuts that you were distracted by BANTHEGOP's nonsense.
If I were inclined to put you back on the right track I would point you to post #1. JDPriestly got it right off the bat. I think the real question you ought to be asking yourself is exactly did you and BANTHEGOP run off the rails?
I would ask the question myself but I have no pony in that race. Your ego is your business, not mine.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Scalia would have to be caught in bed with an underage Al Qaeda terrorist and even then, I dont think the chances are much over 50%.