Democrats Introduce Bill, Impeachment for Justices Thomas and Scalia

[dutch508]

eridani (41,540 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025200010

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

Once the Dems control the SCOTUS there will be no bar to their power.

It turns into a cooking thread for a long time- thanks Frank.

arcane1 (23,773 posts)
20. I don't know, this says to me "look what we could do if we won more seats in 2014"

1monster (9,561 posts)
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 (15,549 posts)
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.

That is just scary. All three branches of the government are equil and are set to balence each other. DUmpmonkiez think that the President is Emperor  and controls the Congress and that Congress controls the courts. Oh, how few years have passed since they fought against an 'Imperial' presidency under W and how they now wish for one under O.

genwah (308 posts)
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...) 

Louisiana1976 (2,289 posts)
2. Good idea. Impeach those fascists.

rock (8,171 posts)
3. That could almost be a tilting point as in when a ship capsizes.

Barry's plan all along.

tinrobot (5,732 posts)
33. ...and the Supreme Court declares the law unconstitutional

In a 5-4 vote, of course.

GarColga (13 posts)
36. Am I the only one to notice that this story is almost a year old? What happened to the bill?

 

  My latest mole, btw.

calimary (34,787 posts)
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.

Fake but Accurate...

whathehell (13,107 posts)
134. Please, pretty please?!!

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

That isn't how this works, I am afraid.

[Big Dog]

Be careful what you wish for, DUmmies.

Federal impeachments originate in the House of Representatives. Ruth Buzzy, Butch, and Lumpy (aka The Other Butch) could find themselves in the dock.

[Dori]

Be careful what you wish for, DUmmies.

Federal impeachments originate in the House of Representatives. Ruth Buzzy, Butch, and Lumpy (aka The Other Butch) could find themselves in the dock.

Impeachment in the house only requires a simple majority, but it has to pass the Senate by 2/3 vote.

Hey DUmmies, doesn't look like this is going to happen any time soon. 

[JohnnyReb]

They threw in the white guy just so it wouldn't look RACIST....they hate conservative black people.

[txradioguy]

The DUmmies lust for a totalitarian regime in the U.S. is frightening.

[Ptarmigan]

Impeachment in the house only requires a simple majority, but it has to pass the Senate by 2/3 vote.

Hey DUmmies, doesn't look like this is going to happen any time soon. 

Good luck with that DUmmies.

[Ogre]

<shakes head> The primitives would execute any who have differing opinions if given the power,

No wonder they identify so strongly with Muslim extremists.

[Fourwinds]

<shakes head> The primitives would execute any who have differing opinions if given the power,

No wonder they identify so strongly with Muslim extremists.

The hell of it is, if it came to that. Quite a few of them would find themselves lined up against the wall as well. They would realize their utopia wouldn't be all that great and stupid as they are, would open their mouths thinking they were safe.

[Ogre]

The hell of it is, if it came to that. Quite a few of them would find themselves lined up against the wall as well. They would realize their utopia wouldn't be all that great and stupid as they are, would open their mouths thinking they were safe.

Yep, at least if the extremist ever win it will be comforting to know the primitives will be some of the first ones disposed of.

[I_B_Perky]

Yep, at least if the extremist ever win it will be comforting to know the primitives will be some of the first ones disposed of.

And the ones not disposed of immediately would be sent off to a work camp and made to work for a change. For some reason the bestest, smartest folk on the internet cannot understand this.

[HawkHogan]

Kagan didn't recuse herself from the Obamacare case, and she was involved with its creation before she became a Justice.

On top of that, Scalia and Thomas base their rulings on the Constitution.  However, Thomas and Scalia do disagree slightly in how they apply their originalist interpretation.  For example, Thomas doesn't believe that certain principles, like establishment of religion, even apply to the states.

However, the liberal Justices never disagree on anything.  They constantly rule in favor of liberal ideals.  You will never see Kagan split from Ginsburg.  They always push the same liberal/progressive values.

Shut up Dummies.

[Ptarmigan]

I wonder if they want to impeach Clarence Thomas because of Anita Hill. I bet they are harp on it still. 

[SVPete]

I wonder if they want to impeach Clarence Thomas because of Anita Hill. I bet they are harp on it still. 

They'll jump on that as soon a they figure out how the Grush stole Fitzmas!

[BlueStateSaint]

Kagan didn't recuse herself from the Obamacare case, and she was involved with its creation before she became a Justice.

Wouldn't that be grounds of impeachment in the future?

[SVPete]

Nutters tend to be self-defeating without realizing it. The nutters among the Ds need to be as noisy and visible as possible --- nutterhood-by-association.

[DumbAss Tanker]

tinrobot (5,732 posts)
33. ...and the Supreme Court declares the law unconstitutional

In a 5-4 vote, of course.

I think that'd be more like 9-0.

If there were any remote chance of such a stupid law being passed, they'd find out it disqualifies all of Obama's appointees.  Be careful what you ask for DUmmtards, you might get it, and you won't like it,