Sen. Ted Cruz: Another Supreme Court vacancy coming ‘very soon’

[Fantom]

@Fantom

LOL! Good one!

And yes...I realize. 

[Fishrrman]

Mesaclone wrote:
"Clearly they can impeach an SCJ, but is it just a function of the Senate, or is it like a presidential impeachment process? Is there any precedent for this?"

Hasn't Ginsburg been observed sleeping through oral arguments already?

No justice is going to be impeached for physical or mental incapacitation.

Impeachment occurs for willful misbehavior, perhaps to the same standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" reserved for impeaching presidents.

Other justices have deteriorated to near-incapacity on the bench, yet refused to resign.

If Ginsburg's problems get to the point where she can no longer "make it to Court", her chair will just sit there unoccupied until she resigns or dies.

This isn't necessary a bad thing, particularly if Mr. Trump appoints a second justice "of the right" to fill Kennedy's vacancy this summer.
It will result in lopsided victories as a result of one less leftie justice's vote.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Mesaclone

There is precedence.  One case:  Alcee Hastings was Impeached and removed as a Federal Judge.  The process was identical to impeaching a President:  Simple majority in the House to issue the Articles to the Senate, 2/3 vote of the Senate to remove.  There are other cases, but this is the one I remember well enough without going to Google.

@Fishrrman the Senate will never meet the 2/3 majority required to remove an incapacitated Justice, because virtually all Democrats would vote against the impeachment just to deny Trump a pick, even if it means the vacancy lasts for years.  They benefit from a 4-4 Court because every rotten Ninth Circus decision would stand by default.  Just as we've seen recently, the left will shop for Ninth Circus jurisdiction Courts for exactly that reason.

[DCPatriot]

Would you point me too my ignorance?

Although I am enjoying the back and forth discussion immensely, ....I just love when this happens!      ^-^

[sneakypete]

@Mesaclone

There is precedence.  One case:  Alcee Hastings was Impeached and removed as a Federal Judge. 

@Cyber Liberty

Yeah,but he wasn't a Supreme. He was a federal court judge caught taking bribes to throw criminal cases.

His punishment was to be elected to congress,where he is now a Senior Dim Congresscritter that gets daily national security briefings and updates. We can only imagine how much he is selling them for.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

Yeah,but he wasn't a Supreme. He was a federal court judge caught taking bribes to throw criminal cases.

His punishment was to be elected to congress,where he is now a Senior Dim Congresscritter that gets daily national security briefings and updates. We can only imagine how much he is selling them for.

You have a point because officers of the inferior courts are definitely under Congressional jurisdiction (they have to be confirmed by the Senate).  In Article 3, the Constitution specifies "good behaviour" as a qualifier for SCOTUS Justices, and in other places where that's mentioned, Impeachment is the remedy.  I don't know if that can be applied to a SCOTUS Justice or not, especially when the Chief Justice would preside over the Senate deliberations.  Besides, the Dems are as likely to remove Ginsburg as they were to remove Billy Clinton.

Is someone in a persistent vegetative state practicing good behavior?  Bad?  A cynical case could be made for "good behavior."  A Justice consistently abstaining could be said to be not making mistakes.

[TomSea]

Thank goodness that those of us who voted the conservative ticket in of Trump and Pence are getting conservative court nominees.

 

[andy58-in-nh]

For anyone who cares about American liberty, the importance of the future of our Supreme Court cannot be overstated.

Trump's first pick was terrific. I hope the second is as commendable.

The Left will fight like nothing you have ever seen. The treatment accorded Clarence Thomas will, in retrospect look like a 1960s Love-In.

Fortunately, Chuck (the Schmuck) Schumer overplayed his hand on the wrong bet. 51 votes might just be enough to save us from a deep dive off the slamming on the brakes before Thelma Thoughtcrime and Louise Lockstep join hands and hit the gas.     

[Cyber Liberty]

Thank goodness that those of us who voted the conservative ticket in of Trump and Pence are getting conservative court nominees.

 

I wouldn't pop the cork on that Champagne just yet.  But I'm hopeful too. 

[Bigun]

You have a point because officers of the inferior courts are definitely under Congressional jurisdiction (they have to be confirmed by the Senate).  In Article 3, the Constitution specifies "good behaviour" as a qualifier for SCOTUS Justices, and in other places where that's mentioned, Impeachment is the remedy.  I don't know if that can be applied to a SCOTUS Justice or not, especially when the Chief Justice would preside over the Senate deliberations.  Besides, the Dems are as likely to remove Ginsburg as they were to remove Billy Clinton.

Is someone in a persistent vegetative state practicing good behavior?  Bad?  A cynical case could be made for "good behavior."  A Justice consistently abstaining could be said to be not making mistakes.

My reading of the Constitution leads me to the conclusion that "good behavior" is whatever the congress says it is and the likelihood that a sitting federal judge would be removed for failure to meet that standard is exceedingly remote.  That is why there have been only 15 impeachments of judges in our entire history and of those only 8 were actually convicted and removed from office.  Alcee Hastings is among that august group. 

Yes, SCOTUS falls under the same standard as all other federal judges but, to my knowledge NONE have ever been impeached, convicted and removed from office.

A complete history can be found at the link below:

https://ballotpedia.org/Impeachment_of_federal_judges

[Sanguine]

Congress has the power to dissolve (and re-establish) federal courts wholesale, except for the SCOTUS.  They simply lack the fortitude.

That is the correct answer.

[Bigun]

That is the correct answer.

Absolutely!  As I have been saying here for some time now.

[Fantom]

Although I am enjoying the back and forth discussion immensely, ....I just love when this happens!      ^-^

So I used "too" instead of "to". Meh.

[Fishrrman]

andy wrote:
"Fortunately, Chuck (the Schmuck) Schumer overplayed his hand on the wrong bet."

Yep, he sure did.
Because all the Pubbies need now are 50 Senators and the vote of Mike Pence to seal the deal. Susan Collins doesn't even matter.

Thank you, Senator Schumer!