suppose a supreme court justice does something illegal or unethical (IE in the sense of legal ethics) but because of the makeup of the legislator impeaching them is politically impossible. should there be a an alternative, ideally a-political, way to remove them?

25 comments

1. Many states and counties have recall elections and they are VERY effective and slowing government overreach although they don’t succeed too often.

2. Only if that option is used exclusively on justices admired by the party I dislike.

3. Get every American to write a letter asking them to resign or you know write their representatives asking for an impeachment.

4. Fix the legislature

5. Is this another “I don’t like justices of color” post? It sure sounds like it; there have been a lot of them lately.

6. No. They can wait until their party has power

7. If a judge (including a judge on a state Supreme Court or the Supreme Court of the United States) does something illegal, they can be prosecuted for a crime just like anyone else.

8. So… Abe Fortas, 1969. Both parties knew that the GOP couldn’t rally the numbers to impeach him. His own colleagues on the court pressured him to resign and eventually he chose to.

   With the new composition of the Court, I’m not sure that would happen. Maybe in a relatively recent time like before O’Connor, Kennedy, Stevens and Souter left you could count on it, but certainly not after Breyer goes. The court is too concerned about protecting itself these days, that the court is unlikely to have the balls to turn on one of its own.

9. This is tough. The threshold to remove justices should be *really* high, otherwise we risk a situation where a party just kicks out every justice they don’t like for the flimsiest of reasons. Under the current system, you’d *hope* that legislators would have enough integrity to realize when something is so serious that it might require action against a justice appointed by their own party, but in today’s political environment I doubt that.

   So, really, I have no idea what the solution is.

10. There IS no apolitical way to make this happen. No matter what sort of process you implement, it will be made political.

11. That’s a hard question, because that is trying to argue for a new kind of check on the judiciary, which as a lot of far-reaching impacts. This situation cannot be the only reason to justify it. This is introducing a pretty big strut into the structure of the federa government.

12. Maybe the solution is a dictatorship that can remove and even imprison political rivals. /s

    The system is setup to be a high bar on purpose. If we started finding ways to remove people we don’t like, we would be heading down a dark path.

13. No. Eventually the legislature will turn back, impeach them then. I disagree with any tinkering with any govt officials constitutional job security gaurantees. They’re there for a purpose: to reduce the threat of another branch/faction gaining excessive power and using job security as leverage to enforce preferred policy decisions. Another way the framers safeguarded the balance of powers.

14. Still no.

    We exist in a country of laws, not a dictatorship or junta. There are processes to deal with judges that violate the law. If those laws aren’t sufficient, then our remedy is to fix the laws.

    Anything else will will invariably be used for political reasons.

15. Who is this asking, Christopher Steele??

    Sounds like a job for Comey, Strozk, et al. Go ask them.

16. >should there be an alternative, ideally a-political, way to remove them?

    Oh, there’s a way, trust me.

17. We have a constitution. It has procedures to remove justices. It has procedures to amend the procedures to remove justices.

    No I don’t want it to be some easy political thing to remove a justice.

    That is exactly how Venezuela fucked itself under Hugo Chavez. He got enough political power to manipulate the Court and get them to decide term limits didn’t really exist and he could continue ruling.

    One of the most evil things FDR did was the threat of court packing.

    So no Grapp, fuck that noise.

18. There is no such thing as an apolitical removal from a politically appointed position.

19. I wonder what hypothetical situation this could be referring to

20. No, they are appointed through a political process and should be removed as one should that need arise.

21. The removal of a government official, appointed or elected, is going to be inherently political. It fundamentally can’t be separated

22. There are so many possible fixes to the supreme court – but you can’t hack your way around the fact that each one of those 9 people is enormously consequential.

23. Bring back duels

24. >The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior…

    US Constitution, Article 3, Section 1

    Supreme Court Justices are not privilaged from arrest.

    If a Justice commits a crime, they can be arrested and charged like any other citizen. If convicted, they can be imprissoned as appropriate to the crime.

    I find it exceedingly unlikely that it would be politically non-viable to impeach and remove a justice convicted of a felony, but in the strange circumstance that it occurs, presumably they would continue their supreme court duties from prison, likely remotely given modern technology.

    It also seems to me that it is not impossible that the supreme court could consider a felony conviction to be a breach of “good Behavior” in and of itself if someone brought a suit on that point, and thus the justice would lose their possition immediately upon conviction, but I’m not sure if there is any precedent in that regard.

25. No, if the impeachment fails it means enough of the legislative body agreed that the action was ethical. Thats working as intended.

    Legislative branch being corrupted is a seperate matter in the case of both branches being corrupted and would have to be tackled first.