General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn general, the federal judges---and justices---that Trump and McConnell have elevated
to the bench will continue to be a festering wound on the body politic until they are reviewed and many, if not most, of them removed. Many were rated "unqualified" by the ABA; others were known racists, homophobes and ideologues. Several have absolutely NO COURTROOM EXPERIENCE---have never tried a case. As a whole, they are the most unqualified collection of sycophants and toadies ever to be called "Your Honor"!
It matters not if they are removed by impeachment or if their appointments are deemed "invalid nullities" or if they are "persuaded to resign". They have to be excised from the judiciary if we hope to ever again have "a nation of laws, not men".
Please, let's INSIST that this be addressed when we take the reins and begin the reconstruction of the United States of America.
Lochloosa
(16,065 posts)Resign? Not going to happen.
Invalid Nullities is a constitutional argument. We would be tied up in the same courts for years.
Impeachment would take 67 votes. We are a long way from that.
I think expanding the Supreme Court would be the most effective way to nullify these judges.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)how to play "hardball" or "smashmouth politics". "Nice" will be laughed at by these fascist bastards.
Many of us have, for years - even decades - yearned for our Dems to stop being nice.
Lordy I wish theyd stop. Being nice with the GOP just gets you run over.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)There are not many examples of gritty, tough and resilient dems, but Gov. Cuomo is starting to look like an example of that in some ways. Tough and effective.
SergeStorms
(19,201 posts)of Democrats "keeping their powder dry" always stuck in my craw as well. Democrats should have so much dry powder stored away by now that we should be able to blow every trace of Donald Trump away from United States history. I'm willing to spend a lot of that dry powder to that end.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)We'll need a big win in November to make that possible though.
Amishman
(5,557 posts)There are no required qualifications specified in law, so it would not be possible to remove them for being unqualified.
Nor is there a mechanism to nullify their appointments.
The only option would be to dig into every one of their backgrounds and hope to find some hidden crime or misconduct to use for impeachment charges. We could definitely get cases against some of them that way, as based on their character they have more skeletons in their closets than most. Still would need 67 in the Senate, which isn't possible.
Overall though we are stuck with them.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)Amishman
(5,557 posts)nine are ABA unqualified, which would be easy https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_during_the_Trump_administration
After that we would still be down to digging into their closets for skeletons.
Removing the rest just because we don't like their politics should absolutely NOT be an option. It sets a terrible precedent, and is even more fascist than the bullshit the republicans are pulling.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)who opposed them.
And, I am not proposing getting rid of Republicans because they are Republicans. I am proposing getting rid of grossly unqualified and transparent racists, bigots, homophobes misogynists and some who may be subject to bar association sanctions. Some have publicly advocated and supported white supremacist and anti-semitic groups.
Will it be messy? Absolutely. Is it necessary? Absolutely.
Amishman
(5,557 posts)much of what you are condemning is not a crime, and would not and should not be grounds for removal.
what you seem to want to do is remove people just because they do not align with our values. That is not valid and is stepping over the line into rather nasty authoritarianism. It would be no different than bible thumpers claiming morality as a reason for removing those they do not agree with.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)that any objective reason that SHOULD have prevented their confirmation can be the basis for their impeachment. "Crimes" are, to my knowledge, not required to be alleged.
I do NOT advocate removal simply because they do not "align with our values" so please put that strawman away. I DO advocate removal of all for whom the concept of "American values" is irrelevant. In general, people who have publicly made it clear that they believe people of color, LBGTQ folks, women and non-Christians are inferior beings and not entitled to the full protection of our laws and Constitution should not be sitting in judgment of anyone. I do not believe that is a radical view.
Amishman
(5,557 posts)Jesus tapdancing Christ that is scary shit, even coming from someone on the same side.
And yes, a crime is needed for removal. We are into the same 'high crimes and misdemeanors' definition we discussed in depth with the SCOTUS.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)In my post, "American values" was in quotes and was followed by several EXAMPLES of what that referred to. Which of those do you think would be okay to hear federal cases? The "out" racist"? The one who believes discrimination against gays is not just legal but "Biblically mandated"? Hm-m-m?
Further, " high crimes and misdemeanors" HAS been determined to mean whatever Congress says it means. A specific statutory "crime" is NOT required. Your position is identical to what the Republicans argued unpersuasively in an attempt to prevent Trump's impeachment. It is still bogus.
I suspect that you will find the above unsatisfactory as you seem more concerned with painting me as some sort of "morality police" than you are with civil discussion. I will give you the last word in this exchange as I do not believe we are currently contributing anything productive with this back-and-forth.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)There really is no other standard. If two thirds of the Senate concur, there is an end to it.
A charge of 'he accepted appointment from Trump' would stand if the votes were there, and the resolve.
Note also there is no 'double jeopardy' where impeachment is concerned, because someone impeached again is not again put in peril 'of life and limb', but suffers only dismissal from office, and a bar from holding in future any Federal office.
onenote
(42,714 posts)And there are no legal means to remove a Federal judge outside of impeachment and any attempt to do so would be summarily laughed out of court - by any and every judge currently sitting on the bench -- and therefore would never happen.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)nothing WILL be done. Do not think for an instant that "they" are not relying on that attitude.
onenote
(42,714 posts)One of the features of living in a nation of laws, I guess.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)Sorry.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)and I've yet to see you suggest any means for doing so. Maybe you think a comet will pass over the US and magically cause them to disappear?
Atticus
(15,124 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)in2herbs
(2,945 posts)let them keep their title I don't see why we can't move them to a newly created judicial position that doesn't allow them setting precedent. Or start divisioning the courts into topics (taxes, medical, corporations, etc.) and allow trump appointed judges to handle only cases that would cause the least disruption to the greater good. Then, if reviewed by the USSC, the expansion of the USSC would nullify their decisions.
calimary
(81,304 posts)This sounds like it might be one.
Seems to me the shrewdest strategy is, immediately upon seizing power, to use the same over-inflated powers trump abused - to clean house and/or make any emergency adjustments. Like rerouting or reassigning these judges were stuck with.
How bout we design a new court division where, if indeed we are stuck with these neanderthals, they cant do as much harm. Appoint decent replacements to fill ALL those vacancies in the important positions that just opened up. And immediately.
Get so much done so fast that itll be the GOP who start feeling that sense of overwhelm - that deluge when youre trying to drink out of a firehose syndrome.
onenote
(42,714 posts)There isn't much in the way of precedent for Congress transferring judges from one court to another. The standard, to the extent one exists, is that it may be okay to transfer a judge from one court to a comparable court, but not to a position that is substantially different. In 1980, the Carter DOJ opined on this subject (see OLC opinion starting on page 538).
https://books.google.com/books?id=8_62FkxZ-AkC&pg=PA538&lpg=PA538&dq=s.+1477+transfer+judges&source=bl&ots=p6nLzo8X5P&sig=ACfU3U20ax1U9-TeuDBwKAEHbPFIqNMTGg&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwic5_6R3-XoAhVNhXIEHW0XAJ4Q6AEwCnoECAYQKA#v=onepage&q=s.%201477%20transfer%20judges&f=false
The power to nominate judges is vested by the Constitution in the President. It would be a tricky thing for Congress to step in and designate specific judges for transfer to a court different from the one the president selected.
Also, as a practical matter, court cases don't always break down into neat categories like "medical" or "taxes" or "corporations" so that seems like a particularly impractical solution.
Archae
(46,335 posts)Back when I was a kid, Richard Nixon nominated a guy named Haynsworth for the Supreme Court.
As Herblock called him "Vend-A-Justice."
He dropped out.
Nixon nominated a known racist named Carswell, who had given a white supremacy speech.
The Senate gave him the boot.
Nixon and his people covered up Rehnquist's past, and he got in.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)more conservative, whenever the Republicans had the power to cram intellectually and morally unfit, and even blatantly corrupt, far-right agents into the judiciary, they did.
The sheer volume of court packing during this administration, on top of and accelerating over that of Bush II's admin, itself accelerating over court packing of 20 years before that has become an enormous problem and corruption of government of, by and for the people, and even an enormous threat to its very continuance. Right now we're seeing the Supreme Court itself blatantly upholding various techniques Republicans are using to subvert elections.
What the Republican leadership has become is America's current counterpart to the RW criminals and authoritarianism that have taken over in places like Russia, Hungary, and Syria. What we're seeing now is nothing to what's coming if we don't succeed in rescuing our liberal democracy.
Btw, in many nations, not just ours, RW authoritarians are using the coronavirus pandemic to seize and consolidate greater power. Many RW conspiracies have grown far more powerful since the end of the last century when Hillary spoke out to a populace she knew had become increasingly conservative and reactionary over the past 20 years and was in no mood to listen. And those were the good old days comparatively.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)99% will be there till death or retirement.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)But I suppose there are non-legal means to fight it.
You know anyone who's up for fighting Federal judges? Most lawyers won't do it in an ethical and legal manner.
Not even going to get into the fallout from other means.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)...in past or PRESENT behavior. They need to be lined up and impeached en masse.
Scruffy1
(3,256 posts)Increase the number of federal judges to at least dilute there effect. Especially, the Supreme court.
lastlib
(23,244 posts)But (to be a realist) you know where it got FDR.
And as another poster above suggested, realign the courts into divisions and move the bad apples into positions where they can do little harm. It's problematic, but if we get a big enough Senate majority in 2021, it might be doable.
Delmette2.0
(4,166 posts)We have to do this or at least try before there is too much damage.
bucolic_frolic
(43,176 posts)in favor of a Trump Crimes Commission. I think he called for review or revote on unqualified judges. Be assured something will be done about this when the next Democratic majority ensues. Perhaps they could be persuaded to resign because they don't understand the job, and people don't usually like what they don't or can't understand, or perhaps they could just be laughed off the bench!
onenote
(42,714 posts)I seriously doubt any of that is going to happen.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)When they in fact firmly believe that they ARE qualified for it.
The number of lifetime jobs available for lawyers is pretty limited.
bucolic_frolic
(43,176 posts)Being unqualified and incompetent does lead to dissatisfaction with a job. Some might leave on that basis. It's unhappy to be humiliated often, forced to examine your own failings and lack of credentials. Superiors rule against you. Lawyers force you to confront what you don't agree with as you ignore the law. Most people, and I daresay at least some of these people, perhaps a majority, aren't immune to criticism unless they are narcissists like Trump and can let it roll off.
onenote
(42,714 posts)And their decisions are likely to be affirmed by higher courts as often as not.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)not qualified. And, some are too damn STUPID---literally---to know they are unqualified or even understand the concept of "qualified".
The first category, of course, should stay. The other two categories should be flushed.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Will jump at the chance to give up 2nd most prestigious legal job available?
One with lifetime security?
Maybe the dumb ones i guess.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)Ponietz
(2,980 posts)The lawRICOmay be the best way to bury them.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Will be a ground breaking legal precedent if it's done once.
Several hundreds times. That quite optimistic.
Ponietz
(2,980 posts)fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Ponietz
(2,980 posts)a stake through the heart. They are our enemies, now.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)I don't know what everyone is waiting for.
Ponietz
(2,980 posts)turbinetree
(24,703 posts)and that is why we should be voting, it is the main reason why I vote.....................
calimary
(81,304 posts)Tactical Peek
(1,210 posts)Anyone who was appointed to their office by an agent of the Kremlin or any other foreign power should resign and reapply for the position subject to confirmation, or be impeached and removed with prejudice. Yes, this includes Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, especially them.
And yes, this is radical but the rule of law under our Constitution is in the balance. Establishing the Constitution also was radical.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)lastlib
(23,244 posts)'...to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such forms...."
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)a lawyer disgust me that so many young, right-wing extremists were and are being appointed. The first goal should be to fully investigate and remove Kavenaugh for his lies during his confirmation hearing. Stupid lies about the meaning of Boof, Renata Club and other references he could have attributes to youthful immaturity. Those lies were the most audacious to me because they were so blatant. Did he assault women, of course he did. I was went to an exclusive private Catholic school at the same time as Kavenaugh and was one of thecool kids and I know what was going on in my school. Girls being cornered and grabbed all over in cars, blackout drinking, drugs etc. I recall the word Boof and it didnt mean fart. These lies were blatant and disqualifying to sit on SCOTUS. I was far from an angel in high school but never touched a girl inappropriately. In fact, I started dating my future and current wife of 35 years during My Junior year and had to bang some heads around and threaten some of my fellow students who tried to grab her in a car. It wasnt known that we were dating at the time and because I matured earlier than most and had a mans body nobody would mess with me or my girlfriend. Kavenaugh must go then we can deal with some of the radicals Trump appointee to the Federal bench.
DenverJared
(457 posts)However, we can dilute them by increasing the size of the SCOTUS and all circuits. That will require a simple majority in the senate. Then appoint liberals to the vacant slots by the thousands.
kurtcagle
(1,603 posts)I'd not be that much in haste to remove these judges. It's worth noting that in several cases Trump appointed justices voted against Trump's actions, not for him. Additionally, judges do not actually need to be lawyers first, and the one thing that Trump may have done, albeit inadvertently, was to seed the courts with different viewpoints. My expectation is that should we regain the Senate (as I believe we will), we'll also be in a position to balance these judges out. Yes, it sucks, but the one thing I've noticed is that when you're seeding judgeships by patronage, when that patron goes, so too goes a lot of the perks of being in office.
Six117
(205 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2020, 08:11 AM - Edit history (1)
Let's learn that nothing is written in stone. Republicans have shown us time and again that there are no laws (constitutional emoluments, federal election, campaign finance, etc.. add to that tools of the law -subpoenas... Congressional or otherwise... the list goes on and on.) that they will not violate in letter and spirit to maintain their death grip on the people of this country. It is understood that, as a society, we need the framework of law to function cohesively. However we cannot allow ourselves to be tied up in knots and not do what is needed to protect ourselves and those most vulnerable among us from what amounts to tyranny.
What they did to the people of Wisconsin during the election was unconscionable and blessed by the right wing majority on the Supreme Court. Republican judges upholding the republican agenda.
Chattel slavery, Jim Crow, etc. were enshrined in the laws of this land. That changed -because we the people made it change.