Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’

[UniversalAlien]

A political decision made by so-called 'Conservative' judges of the United States Supreme Court has overturned a fundamental Constitutional right of millions of American women to have legal ownership of their bodies.

If it can be shown that the judges who made this ruling lied to obtain office - Should they and can they be Impeached by Congress

"AOC: We Must ‘Very Seriously Consider’ Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices Who ‘Lied Under Oath’"

“There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and a hostile takeover of our democratic institutions,” the congresswoman said"

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is advocating impeachment for Supreme Court justices who she says lied during their confirmation hearings when they assured senators that Roe v Wade was established precedent. “If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land and then issue, without basis… rulings that deeply undermine the human and civil rights of the majority of Americans, we must see that through,” the congresswoman said during an interview on Meet the Press.

“I believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense,” she added, referring to Trump-appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. “I believe that violating federal law in not disclosing income from political organizations, as Clarence Thomas did years ago, is also potentially an impeachable offense. I believe that not recusing from cases that one clearly has family members involved in with very deep violations of conflict of interest are also impeachable offenses.”

Since the court issued its decision on Friday, both Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) have said in statements that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh assured them during the confirmation process that they would not overturn the 1973 ruling. “This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon,” Collins said in a statement following the ruling.

Manchin issued a statement as well, saying, “I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans.”

Quotes source:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... h-1374447/


Today the United States of America is engaged in a political and moral war between politicians of at least some ethical principles
and unscrupulous, disingenuous and power hungry political elements that have no respects for Law or the people of the
United States.

Legal processes and hearings are now in play for a President who has defamed the Democratic process in an attempt to hold power
and subvert the American Democracy - How about his Supreme Court Justices - Should they too be held
accountable and impeached from office Can just and equitable legal precedent extending back 50 years by overturned
by judges whose integrity is questionable Will impeachment of these judges nullify their rulings

[Leontiskos]

Are Supreme Court justices primarily accountable to the Constitution or to the senators who confirmed their nomination?

Beyond that, there are various problems with the idea that these judges could be impeached for so-called "lying under oath." As Ruth Bader Ginsberg correctly observed <during her confirmation hearings>:

“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints,” explained Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her hearings in 1993, adding that doing so would “display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

...The idea that senators can filter nominees based on partisan shibboleths would "display disdain for the entire judicial process." What happened here is that the justices interpreted the Constitution instead of the senators, and that is precisely how it is supposed to work.

Another problem is that for a judge to say that they accept the principle of stare decisis does not mean that they cannot overturn decisions, for stare decisis does not demand such a thing. Similarly, to say that Roe was "settled law" was true two weeks ago and is now no longer true, for what was settled has become unsettled. That's what overturning a decision does.

Finally, even if nominees are unfortunately coaxed into giving "forecasts and hints," such forecasts must be considered judgments and not promises. Even if the justices straightforwardly said "I judge that Roe should not be overturned" (which I am almost positive that they did not say), this is only a demonstrable lie if it was a promise rather than a judgment, and it cannot be a promise without entirely corrupting the confirmation hearings and the role of the judiciary.

[AverageBozo]

Ordinary citizens of the US may be held in Contempt of Congress for lying under oath in a Congressional hearing.

Article III of the US Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and the federal judicial system without any mention of an exemption for Supreme Court justices.

Those who lied under oath should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This won’t happen if Republicans control Congress or have any way of blocking impeachment.

[Leontiskos]

...this is only a demonstrable lie if it was a promise rather than a judgment...

I should amend this. Judgments can be altered since human beings are capable of changing their mind over time. On the other hand, promises can be broken. So technically speaking if it was a promise it still wouldn't necessarily be a demonstrable lie, but rather a broken promise.

In any case, this impeachment idea is going nowhere.

[AverageBozo]

Are Supreme Court justices primarily accountable to the Constitution or to the senators who confirmed their nomination?

Beyond that, there are various problems with the idea that these judges could be impeached for so-called "lying under oath." As Ruth Bader Ginsberg correctly observed <during her confirmation hearings>:

“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints,” explained Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her hearings in 1993, adding that doing so would “display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

...The idea that senators can filter nominees based on partisan shibboleths would "display disdain for the entire judicial process." What happened here is that the justices interpreted the Constitution instead of the senators, and that is precisely how it is supposed to work.

Another problem is that for a judge to say that they accept the principle of stare decisis does not mean that they cannot overturn decisions, for stare decisis does not demand such a thing. Similarly, to say that Roe was "settled law" was true two weeks ago and is now no longer true, for what was settled has become unsettled. That's what overturning a decision does.

Finally, even if nominees are unfortunately coaxed into giving "forecasts and hints," such forecasts must be considered judgments and not promises. Even if the justices straightforwardly said "I judge that Roe should not be overturned" (which I am almost positive that they did not say), this is only a demonstrable lie if it was a promise rather than a judgment, and it cannot be a promise without entirely corrupting the confirmation hearings and the role of the judiciary.

In other words, no one lied—they fooled the Senators instead.

[Astro Cat]

Unfortunately I doubt impeachment could stick if Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett just made strong hints and insinuations during their confirmations, which is what I believe they did.

Gorsuch’s seat is stolen, but there is no precedent and no explicit recourse to that since the founders never foresaw a party as ill-intentioned as modern Republicans.

I think I’m still leaning towards packing the court as recourse.

[Astro Cat]

Now the court strikes down Lemon based on a gross misrepresentation of the facts in another miscarriage of justice.

[UniversalAlien]

Unfortunately I doubt impeachment could stick if Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett just made strong hints and insinuations during their confirmations, which is what I believe they did.

Gorsuch’s seat is stolen, but there is no precedent and no explicit recourse to that since the founders never foresaw a party as ill-intentioned as modern Republicans.

I think I’m still leaning towards packing the court as recourse.

Did they lie or just distort the truth Is there a difference

Did SCOTUS justices mislead on Roe v. Wade stances? CNN legal analysts weigh in
See short YouTube Video here:

https://youtu.be/zfA0TBFjq-M

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) says several Supreme Court justices “mislead the Senate” during their confirmation hearings with the intention to overturn Roe v. Wade. CNN legal analysts Jennifer Rogers and Jeffrey Toobin weigh in on the claim.
#CNN #News

I'm not a lawyer - So I perceive it this way:

As:
"A ROSE IS A ROSE IS A ROSE"
Then:
"A LIAR, IS A LIAR, IS A LIAR"
And:
The Truth is what it is - Facts don't lie

[Leontiskos]

Did SCOTUS justices mislead on Roe v. Wade stances?

If we want to take a principled stance, then a Supreme Court nominee has a duty to mislead senators who are attempting to impose partisan litmus tests in a qualitatively similar way that the German hiding Jews has a duty to mislead the Nazi knocking at his door. In both cases the questioner is placing the answerer in a pickle by asking them questions with a known intent to use those answers immorally.

The left is grasping at straws. Go read my quote from Ginsburg above. Nominees always have and always will do what they can to evade the inappropriate partisan litmus testing that comes from senators, whether they are on the left or the right. The nominee effectively has a duty to do so. If they overtly shirked this duty their peers on the Court would hold them in disdain, and rightly so!

[UniversalAlien]

Did SCOTUS justices mislead on Roe v. Wade stances?

If we want to take a principled stance, then a Supreme Court nominee has a duty to mislead senators who are attempting to impose partisan litmus tests in a qualitatively similar way that the German hiding Jews has a duty to mislead the Nazi knocking at his door. In both cases the questioner is placing the answerer in a pickle by asking them questions with a known intent to use those answers immorally.

The left is grasping at straws. Go read my quote from Ginsburg above. Nominees always have and always will do what they can to evade the inappropriate partisan litmus testing that comes from senators, whether they are on the left or the right. The nominee effectively has a duty to do so. If they overtly shirked this duty their peers on the Court would hold them in disdain, and rightly so!

The left is grasping at straws. Go read my quote........

Better still why don't you read my post:

"The Republican Party classified as RICO [Racketeer.....]"
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17996

And you know, though may not want to admit, that this no longer a political question.
It is a question of whether this country will be ruled by a Constitution under law or by political racketeering
- Donald Trumps', stolen election fraud, the ends justify the means ideology; the lying Supreme Court,
the religious right, that really stands for no true religious principles except those that demean and degrade the US Constitution,
for a right to life that has little to due with the living and will do much to hasten the deaths of many.

No we, left, right, or whatever are not grasping at straws - We are grasping to breathe in a country whose corrupt politicians, now
mainly Republican, are fouling the air lies and BS








“When the votes of justices in controversial cases can be predicted at the outset, constitutional law simply becomes partisan politics by another name.”
― David A. Kaplan, The Most Dangerous Branch: Inside the Supreme Court's Assault on the Constitution

[Astro Cat]

Impeachment is not likely to work, but one of the only attainable things if people actually do something is to add 2 more justices. 9 isn't a magic number, and while people might complain about the spirit in which this is done, where were they in the spirit of how Gorsuch or Barrett were appointed?

I think I've gone from being extremely wary of packing the court to hesitantly accepting it might be the only way to protect people.

[Astro Cat]

Impeachment is not likely to work, but one of the only attainable things if people actually do something is to add 2 more justices. 9 isn't a magic number, and while people might complain about the spirit in which this is done, where were they in the spirit of how Gorsuch or Barrett were appointed?

I think I've gone from being extremely wary of packing the court to hesitantly accepting it might be the only way to protect people.

(This is why I need an edit function, lol).

1) Because the legislative branch is broken, and any rights that a right-partisan court breaks for already vulnerable populations can't be restored legislatively.

2) Because Gorsuch occupies a stolen seat, and if we codify the principle by which Gorsuch's seat was stolen, then it's Barrett's seat which is illegitimate. Either way, we have an illegitimate court.

3) Because 9 really isn't a magical number, and "originalism" is just as political as ruling based on modern sensibilities

But it's mostly (1). Vulnerable people have no recourse. And it is only through actions of the courts that accounted for modern sensibilities that things have been able to be accomplished like desegregation, preventing anti-miscegenation laws, protecting marriage equality, inferring a right to privacy.

I reiterate that the legislative branch is broken. Once a hyperconservative court wipes these things out, they aren't coming back except on state ballots (but that leaves so many vulnerable and marginalized people to suffer!)

[Astro Cat]

If instead we focus on (2) I would be fine if there were some way to say "either we can't appoint a justice at the end of a presidential term or we can. Either Gorsuch goes or Barrett goes, pick whether that's a rule or not and that will be what we do from now on."

But there is no way to do that. So, court packing.

[Leontiskos]

Vulnerable people have no recourse.

The most vulnerable person of all is the unborn child, and we kill them by the millions.

[Astro Cat]

Vulnerable people have no recourse.

The most vulnerable person of all is the unborn child, and we kill them by the millions.

I know for a fact that you don't have time to get into the discussion we'd have to about what personhood means to go there

So, I will instead just declare victory pre-emptively under the assumption you crumble beneath the weight of my argument. (I'm obviously giving you crap. But we would have to have that conversation to get into this).