why the libs who whine about scotus killing obamacare are FOS

[^_^ 5,021]

I’m not terribly worried about warnings from the left that a ruling against the ACA will undermine the Court’s legitimacy.

Who, after all, is going to lead the charge against the Court? Liberal journalists like Linda Greenhouse and Dahlia Lithwick, whose human capital is invested in covering the Court? The fraternity of elite liberal lawyers who served as Supreme Court clerks, for whom undermining the Court’s legitimacy means undermining the value of their own prized credential? Liberal constitutional law professors, who are as invested as anyone in the Court’s significance? (It’s hard enough to get people to read one’s latest article on “A Kantian/Weberian Approach to the Fourth Amendment” when the Court is as important as it is now!) Liberal activist groups and think-tankers, who still treasure the Court’s rulings on abortion, due process rights for terrorism suspects, term limits, and more, and who hope that a future Court will recognize a right to gay marriage? Liberal Congressmen, when Congress’ popularity rating is well below the Court’s, and who have hardly shown themselves to be constitutional scholars?

...

At most, a ruling against the ACA will have the same effect as Bush v. Gore or Citizens United, or Roe v. Wade and Boumediene for that matter; a fair amount of caterwauling, with the Court as an institution remaining unscathed.

http://volokh.com/2012/03/30/the-courts-legitimacy/

Edited March 30, 2012 by \

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The only thing that bothers the nine old farts in black, is dying before they get a chance to enjoy retirement. If the libs had any balls, they could start impeaching judges, just as soon as they get a majority in the House again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Federal_officials_impeached

[luckytxn 2,264]

The only thing that bothers the nine old farts in black, is dying before they get a chance to enjoy retirement. If the libs had any balls, they could start impeaching judges, just as soon as they get a majority in the House again.

http://en.wikipedia....cials_impeached

They could get the house and even initiate impeachment proceedings but they would never get the 2/3 needed in the Senate to remove from office.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

They could get the house and even initiate impeachment proceedings but they would never get the 2/3 needed in the Senate to remove from office.

The Tea Party Republicans in the House managed to impeach two judges, with a Democratic Senate: Samuel B. Kent and Thomas Porteous

Edited March 30, 2012 by ☼

[Mike X Man 37]

I personally do not like that word "impeachment" being used so loosely. It's a conservative leaning court, such decisions are not exactly surprisingly. A liberal leaning court would generate an equivalent teeth-gnashing from the right. Like scotus Justice Kennedy once said, an activist court is one that renders a decision you don't like.

[luckytxn 2,264]

The Tea Party Republicans in the House managed to impeach two judges, with a Democratic Senate: Samuel B. Kent and Thomas Porteous

Yes we know Kent very well where I live. They were both removed due to corruption and rape. Removing judges due to ideology is way different.The Senate would not do it by a 2/3 majority.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Tea Party Republicans in the House managed to impeach two judges, with a Democratic Senate: Samuel B. Kent and Thomas Porteous

Both impeachment proceedings began with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate in 2008 and early 2009, respectively. The Tea Party wasn't quite born yet at that time.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Both impeachment proceedings began with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate in 2008 and early 2009, respectively. The Tea Party wasn't quite born yet at that time.

You are right. Time flies when you are having fun. The Democrats didn't lose the house until 2011.

Even better. The Democrats have shown they can impeach judges.

[luckytxn 2,264]

You are right. Time flies when you are having fun. The Democrats didn't lose the house until 2011.

Even better. The Democrats have shown they can impeach judges.

Not sure where you are trying to go with this. Yes these last two judges were impeached and even the Senate removed them from office. An impeachment just needs a simple majority in the House. After that if successful it is sent to the Senate for removal proceedings. It is rare to get a removal. Getting a 2/3 majority is extremely hard to do.

These last two judges had to be removed. One was going to prison for sexual assault but refused to give up his Federal Judgeship. The other got caught receiving bribes and was another Federal judge. One was appointed by a Bush and the other was appointed by Clinton. There was no ideology going on. To suggest that one party get a majority and start impeaching the court so that the party could get favorable rulings has been tried and failed. Roosevelt tried it to get his Socialism programs passed. The court kept ruling that the government programs were unconstitutional. Then Roosevelt came up with the 'packing of the court' and was looking to make that a reality when the court caved in and started ruling that the Socialist programs were Constitutional.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You don't think it is beyond the capacity of the left to create a scandal around an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, say like finding a pubic hair in a soda can leading to an accusation of sexual harassment in a work situation, or accusing a spouse of racketeering and embezzlement?

Edited March 31, 2012 by ☼

[luckytxn 2,264]

You don't think it is beyond the capacity of the left to create a scandal around an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, say like finding a pubic hair in a soda can leading to an accusation of sexual harassment in a work situation, or accusing a spouse of racketeering and embezzlement?

Yes. Or when Clinton was impeached. The house easily impeached and sent the case to the Senate for trial and removal from office. The Senate couldn't get close to a 2/3 majority.to remove him. Business went as usual.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes. Or when Clinton was impeached. The house easily impeached and sent the case to the Senate for trial and removal from office. The Senate couldn't get close to a 2/3 majority.to remove him. Business went as usual.

Justices don't have the same influence on the Senate that a popular President does. Republicans could not even get a majority of Senators on either charge. That was a dumb move.