Text 6958, 80 rader
Skriven 2010-04-12 19:34:16 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
   Kommentar till text 6866 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Question about democracy
================================
Hello Michiel!

11 Apr 10 11:35, you wrote to me:

 RC>> The procedure is the same as it was for Clinton.

 MV> Hmmm. That does not impress me much. The impeechment of Clinton was a
 MV> joke and it didn't result in his removal from office.

That means the system worked, the House didnt prove its case to the Senate.

 MV> I didn't know about congress having the authority to impeech the high
 MV> court members, others gave the impression that they are truly
 MV> untouchable, but I am still puzzled.

Congress can impeach most Federal Civil officials, President or Vice President,
Cabinet Members, Federal Judges and technically anyone among their number, but
they dont bother using the impeachment process for their own anymore, both
chambers have rules in place to expel one of their own. A not so recent usage
of that was several years ago when the House voted to expel one of their own, a
James Trafficant, a Representative from Ohio. (Member expelled, states Governor
notified etc etc, at which point the state decides how to fill the seat based
on its laws or constitution)

This is part of the checks and balances the legislative branch has over the
executive and judicial.

 MV> You seem to have an almost pathological aversion for life time
 MV> appointments. Yet you seem perfectly happy to have the members of the
 MV> body that is the top guardian of democracy appointed for life. I still
 MV> don't get it.

The politicians belong in the legislative branch and the single politician that
has to stand for election in the executive.

To have the Justices stand for election, means they become politicians too, for
they have to do and say things that curry favor with the electorate, in order
to get into office.

No office holder exists that is devoid of personal or political opinions on any
issue.

It is no secret that a President will, if given the opportunity to do so,
appoint a judge that has a ideology that is close to his own or his agenda.
Usually, but not always, a USSC Justice nominee has prior judicial experience,
in some cases in a lower Federal Court, so this nominee's prior rulings on
various cases get scrutinized in the nomination process and during
confirmation.

You have to look at things differently here though, because in the case of a
USSC nominee, they are usually old geezers by the time they get on the court,
only a teaspoon away from a geritol overdose, lifetime doesnt have the
connotation as one of your Royals.. We have people in Congress whom have been
in Congress, albeit elected, longer than any current member of the high court.
John Paul Stevens so far has tenure, since 1975 or 6 and he is retiring later
this year. In this decade, we have had one Justice die in office and 2 retire,
with Stevens retiring.

Being picked by a President for ones idealogy is no guarantee, anyway, no
matter what the conspiracy theorists say.. (Sorry Bob Ackley)

Gerald Ford, a Republican President, appointed John Paul Stevens, a Republican
Conservative from the midwest. John Paul Stevens went onto ruling on and for
many cases that nestled nicely with Liberal causes and idealogy. The same thing
happened with President George H.W. Bush, who appointed David Souter. Like
Stevens, Souter has much the same track record..

Hence forth, it is likely that the Justices Bush younger appointed, might rule
the same way, or that Justices nominated by Obama, end up ruling differently
than what was thought of, when they were first nominated.

No guarantees.

==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: http://www.easternstar.info
E-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Other Places: http://links.cassell.us
... CDC study cites that being a Democrat is hazardous to society.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20060121
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Spartanburg, SC USA (1:123/456)