AP photo by way of Politico
Yesterday we noted that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is married to a paid advocate against the health reform law, which raises the question of whether he'll recuse himself now the Supreme Court says it will hear the case.
Today, the LA Times raises another point:
The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.
Steve Benen makes a third point:
[A]ll of this might be slightly less disconcerting were it not for the even larger context, including Scalia and Thomas having attended a conservative strategy session hosted by Koch Industries last year.
Steve asks whether anyone can have confidence in the objectivity of Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, knowing their connections to electoral politics. More on the show tonight.
Leave a Comment:
If Thomas and Scalia hear this case, they should be impeached. Inexcusable
It is nearly impossible to impeach a judge, particularly the Supreme Court. That can only happen when there are enough votes in the Senate (2/3rds) to convict. However, it would not stop either house of Congress from investigating and proposing ethics requirements. Investigation of a justice like Thomas or Scalia might prove more damaging than an impeachment. An investigation could be death by a thousand cuts if there is a lot of questionable matters.
While I agree with your sentiment, there is no way a recusal decision could ever qualify as a high crime or misdemeanor. Heck, even higher courts give deference to recusal decisions of lower courts.
@Mike: the Supreme Court would absolutely and correctly rule any attempt to pass rules of conduct for internal USSC matters Unconstitutional. NOT within the powers of Congress. At all. Ever. What you propose would be like Marbury v. Madison completely flipped on its head. Ironically, the two Justices most likely to rule to overturn Marbury are Scalia & Thomas.
Impeach
Failure to recuse could be construed as a high crime if there is a significant amount of money involved, but impeachment is also for misdemeanors per the Constitution. What constitutes an impeachable offense is left to the determination of Congress.
Marbury v. Madison applies to areas of substantive law, but has never been extended to administrative functions of the court. I doubt if there is any case law on the issue. Regardless, the Congress controls the purse and the impeachment process. The court can be coerced.
IMHO, all SCOTUS Justices should all be Independents, not affiliated with the Reds or Blues. I think that Scalia and Thomas should excuse or recuse themselves from this issue, most definitely.
Impeached? LOL! You leftist kooks are very amusing. You're desperate for this disaster that is Maobamacare to succeed, and being on the left, you'll do ANYTHING. You don't care that it is a disaster. Or that the American people made it clear they did not want it. You only want to support the Marxist, Maobama, no matter what. So much crony capitalism and crookedness in this regime and you want to whine about a dinner and a job.
Go away, sonny. You bore me.
that would be my story
@conservativerod - a disaster - why don't you ask the people who have their children above the age of 23 on their health insurance policies, thanks to the new health care laws brought about by what you call Obamacare, if they think it's a disaster.
Occupy the halls of justice! Throw them out!
Of course they should not be allowed to hear the case. Prejudice.
Of course they will be allowed to hear the case. This is a democratic president, remember?
You do know that a President can't dismiss SC Justices, don't you? Nor can he make any calls related to potential recusals or really any other matter that is the purview of the SC. It's this thing we have called "Separation of Powers." You should look it up.
The one branch of government that is supose to be the defender of our constitution is baught and paid for. The country, I fear, is doomed.
I agree that the politicians are corrupt. My next fear would be that the military might become corrupt.
Become corrupt? The military can't be corrupted in the same sense that Congress can, of course, but it's still part of a corrupt system. At least, the general officers are.
WOW..only in America......the one percent talks......and pays.....
Actually, it happens all over the world.
Neither one of them will recuse themselves because they have no ethical foundation and their ideological positions always take precedence to them over judicial objectivity. What is ironic is the constant claims by the right of judicial activism whenever any court makes a decision that doesn't go their way, yet they see no problem with clowns like this making decisions, no matter how biased and just plain wrong those decisions may be.
This is what Citizens' United was all about. Time for Occupy SCOTUS.
Is there a process for removing
injustices?Impeachment by the House of Representatives and Trial by the Senate. Must find one guilty of "high crimes and [or] misdemeanors."
"High crimes and misdemeanors" can mean whatever the House and Senate want them to mean. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.
In the '90s it meant lying about a blowjob. So, yeah, 'high crimes and misdemeanors' can mean anything at all.
Clarence Thomas may have sexually harassed Anita Hill prior to his nomination to the Supreme Court, but the American public has been getting screwed by him since he was confirmed.
Occupy SCOTUS!!!!!
"Steve asks whether anyone can have confidence in the objectivity of Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, knowing their connections to electoral politics."
The short answer is: no. The long answer is: hell nooooooooooo.
I know this is the "liberal" side of things, so I don't expect to see ties between so-called justices and liberal political groups, yet they do exist. Reading about this today, each side seems to be predicting the outcome of the case, but each side claims that kennedy, scalia, breyer and roberts as being "on their side." Those against the law seem sure that Kagan will decide in favor of it, while those for the law are not so sure about her support. Thomas will decide against, goes the popular wisdom, but I've come across some prognosticators that rate his decision as less than certain.
By my count, leaving out Thomas, that's 4 of the 9 up for grabs.
If you can't prove your point by reference to specifics, please admit here and now that you are only repeating far right bullet points.
LOL.
Can you provide me a link to these "far right bullet points?" I'd love to read them.
No one is taking you seriously, John.
That's good, because it's not meant to be taken seriously.
The entire right-wing, left-wing discussion in the media, by people that don't even understand the law or constitutional questions before the court, spit-balling about which way which justices will decide based on the commentator's political views.
It's absurd and not to be taken seriously. Any more than they idea of "far right bullet points" is to be taken seriously.
You know what I take seriously? The actual legal and constitutional questions that have been raised. The rest of this "sound and fury" is meaningless propaganda from the right and the left to be laughed at.
Very pretentious. And meaningless. Did your supervisor help you with the longer words? Get a real job, winger.
Dylan Ratigan who says you are not a practicing Christian, when your actions say you are by what you do to help people. You silly goose.
Scalia & Thomas believing in their "objectivity" in this case is like coach Sandusky believing he was just "horsing around" with naked boys in the shower.
... the sad thing is, while in both cases the people involved will steadfastly claim that they have hurt nobody in the process, "everyone else" bears silent witness to the results of such conduct.
If there are any attorneys out there, under what conditions can a SCOTUS justice be recalled or impeached? My impression was that except for the most egregious cases (capital offenses) it is darn near impossible to do so. Does the President have any powers to stop this?
No, the President does not have any power over the Supreme Court's internal workings. The president has the power to appoint, and that's about it. "Capital offenses" have nothing to do with it. They (Justices) can be impeached by Congress for high crimes and misdemeanors. You're right that it's very difficult to do.
Elena Kagan should also recuse herself. She was solicitor general when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was being debated.
You'll have to show more to demonstrate a conflict of interest. Something personal.
Like arguing before any court about the act at the time. And she didn't. And she's not corrupt like Scalia and Thomas appear to be.
don't you mean she doesn't appear to be corrupt they way Scalia and Thomas appear to be.
That you don't know about her potential corruption doesn't make it non-existent.
You are projecting your own ignorance. Go away, now. Nobody likes a tr0ll.
Existential Troll....that would be a good name for a band.
Come on, Monk, you've gotta lighten up a little bit. You don't see any absurdity in the commentary on the SCOTUS hearing this ACA case?
I see plenty of absurdity...in you.
You need to take this in. I do not respect "conservatism". I do not respect "conservatives". Every time there is a topic which impinges on something that rates highly on the right-wing scale of things that must be beaten down, there is a sudden in-rush of new registrations (just like you) all simultaneously making inflammatory, condescending, ignorant or insulting comments. It's as predictable, and tiresome, as clockwork. And you think it's a joke, as though you all were malicious children digging up an anthill, just to see all the little nothings scurry. That's how I see you and every other tr0ll. I don't like being treated like an ant, and I refuse to laugh with you as you laugh at us.
Are you laughing yet?
I've been laughing all along. But not for the reasons you think. I'm not a "new register", you could have bothered to check. You and I have traded posts before, on a generally pleasant basis. Nor am I conservative in the sense that you mean. But that's all beside the point...your bias against conservatives and conservatism is making you nearly irrational. But, hey, I'm just a troll, right? As long as you can dismiss me as such, you don't need to question your own position. <shrug> That's too bad. I may not have always agreed with you, but at least I respected your opinion. So much for that.
I misread your registration date. Other than that, I'm fed up with the attitude of some treating the blog as their personal playground and others as playthings. If you think that's "irrational" I'm perfectly OK with you thinking that. I don't expect otherwise. And now I'm going to put you on ignore, because although I've made a decision to be more aggressive for tactical reasons, you're pushing me too far with your attitude. So, I'm turning you off. Which, I'm sure, will only be additional proof of insanity.
SCOTUS quorum is 6. No recuse? 4 other justices go to Illinois.
While I know the real story is their ethics, I've got another question. Why would conservative leaders invite supreme court justices to such events, knowing that the invitation could be used as a reason to force ethics questions, like this? It's like taking your star pitcher out of a game early, just to put in a pinch hitter for one at bat.
Why would conservative leaders invite supreme court justices to such events, knowing that the invitation could be used as a reason to force ethics questions, like this?
Because they can, AND get away with it. It's called "rubbing our noses in it".
Remind me as to which presidents proposed these two?
Reagan and Bush 41
Two biased, narrow minded fat old men who think they can get by with this mockery of the system.....and I predict they will get by with this nonsense....I lost all confidence in the Supreme Court when the the "Supremes" intervened in the Bush Election .............I also lost any hope that they could be fair ....a lost cause!!!
Thomas's wife is a very outspoken Tea Bagger Activist..and he has no business voting on the President's Healthcare issue ...but as I have lost all trust in the Court..he will probably be part of the decision. Welcome to the Right wing version of American justice....it is a total joke! The only wray of hope is that people will finally sit up and notice, and realize they should vote Democratic to get any new judges some day who are not biased by their own personal political persuasions ...and merely follow the LAW OF THE LAND...period!
You are absolutely correct!
After the "Supremes" intervened on the Bush Election....I have lost all faith in their decisions being made without bias! The day that happened...my stomach just dropped ..........end of my faith in them!
Thomas has no business being part of the upcoming Obama Healthcare case....his wife is a huge Activist for the Tea Party............but I imagine somehow he will be part of it...with some lame explanation.
Scalia and Thomas...two narrow minded old fat guys who can rule on the destiny of you and me...and we can't do a thing about it!!!....except VOTE for a Democratic President who will not appoint such old dyed in the wool Conservatives who see the world and probalby will always vote on laws based on their own personal policital persuasions, not for the spirit of the Law! Oh well...there's nothing new under the sun! The world has always had dragons chasing after the little lambs!
When both houses of congress achieve Democrat majority, then impeachment hearings should begin for Thomas and Scalia just for participating in the decision to hear the case.
Does Webster's Dictionary define "scuzzball"? If not, it needs to show pictures of Scalia and Thomas.
Why does the White House think that the SC will uphold this law. There are two justices that really dislike the president and one that hates him. I remember when then Senator Obama spoke with that Warren guy the one who wrote "The Purpose Driven Life." This guy asked him which justice would you not have appointed and President Obama said "Clarence Thomas" well I think that kicked off their feud. I realized at that time President Obama did not like Thomas, but I did not know how Thomas felt about him at the time. I know now though that Thomas' wife hates the president. I am sure they will say the mandate is unconstitutional, they do not want President Obama to win another term. Perry is now saying there should be term limits for SC justices and if he is president he will make that happen. Perry is worst than Palin all she wanted to do was change everything too when she ran for vice president. She was going to just tell McCain to go somewhere and sit down while she told congress what to do and change all sorts of laws. I mean she thought she could do that. Now Perry thinks he can change everything under the sun and sell off the rest of America just like he has done in Texas. I'm pretty sure that is the reason he wants to become president, there's nothing left of Texas to sell.
Do the White House actually believe the Court will? If there's been any statement to that effect, I must have missed it. It happens.
On the other hand, isn't the case being taken up coming from the most recent ruling, in which a conservative judge shredded the right's position on the law? Will that make a difference? If Judge Silberman's decision was framed from a conservative position, maybe it will pass muster for this Supreme Court. We'll see. Kennedy, as usual, may prove to be the only one who needs convincing.
Yes you are right they are a wholly owned subsidiarity of Koch Industries, and they could give a good Ka-hoot what you or I think about it.
The Republicans are desperation. They are in their last death throws. The more the public learns about this evilness the smaller the party is getting. Part of their desperation is to suppress voters from even voting,.....it's getting that bad.
They have not kept up with society and have hung on to their old draconian ideals and are now paying in spades for it.
The congress on the Rep. side is also owned by the Koch Bros. They are scared s#itless about the next election.
Yes those chickens are coming back to roost.
Never vote republican.