Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[Picairn]

No, because bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are still illegal.

What do bills of attainder and ex post facto laws have to do with impeachment and conviction? Senate convictions are not like court convictions, it's not like the Senate is gonna straight up throw the judges into jail.

It says judges can be impeached, it does not say they could be impeached for no reason. That would start a constitutional crisis.

If that is the case the US would have been plunged into civil wars since Jefferson.

What happens when the courts declare your impeachment of them was illegal? You are going to send armed police in?

Throw the Constitution in their faces and laugh at their ignorance of the powers of impeachment and conviction granted to Congress.

Smarter to just expand the court If you think it has gotten to that point. That has no legal issues.

Tell that to the opponents of court packing here on NS.

Impeachment without a crime is far more contentious and probably illegal.

Where have you been since the hit job on Samuel Chase by Jefferson? Technically Congress can decide whatever "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be, with enough votes.

[Thermodolia]

Technically high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever Congress wants them to be. Your pseudo-principles are already outdated since the Clinton impeachment. And did I stutter in the part where it is explicitly backed by the Constitution to impeach and convict judges?

No, because bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are still illegal.
It says judges can be impeached, it does not say they could be impeached for no reason. That would start a constitutional crisis. What happens when the courts declare your impeachment of them was illegal? You are going to send armed police in?

Clinton committed perjury. Which is a crime. They still caught him in an actual crime, even if you think it is not one severe enough to warrant impeachment. And they failed to convict.

Abusing impeachment just because you disagree with a court ruling is a very bad idea. Also to do it you need a two thirds super majority and hope you never lose again.

Smarter to just expand the court If you think it has gotten to that point. That has no legal issues.

Impeachment without a crime is far more contentious and probably illegal.

I mean if a president wanted to they could pull an old hickory and tell the court to pound sand

[Nobel Hobos 2]

There is no box you can tick to opt out of healthcare. We simply do not trust you to keep to your principles when you've been shot and only an operation will save your life. "I'm out of money but I'll pay the half million later, promise" is not good enough.

This is why universal healthcare is the best. You don't have to opt in (at expense to yourself). You can opt out (to private, at expense to yourself). You are never put in that position between dying, or living but paying for it later.

But whatever. When the medic looks in your eyes and says "your bronze negative plan doesn't cover the operation, you can only have it if you take on a debt" then you can make the heroic choice. Your money or your life!

But see that is the problem with the ACA. If it simply placed everyone not on some other form of adequate insurance on Medicaid then it would be Constitutionally fine. It could have done that. But it did not. It instead said “buy insurance (regardless of if you can afford it or not) or we hike your taxes”.

Yeah, and 59 Democrats in the Senate voted for that. Also one Turncoat. Democrats did all they could ...

And yet, it turned out quite popular. It did extend coverage upwards from the poor to the working poor, it required private insurers to sell their plans in an open market, and it was a whole lot better than nothing.

This is how you get the big things done. You do all you can, you make it permanent (or mostly, given that the Supreme Court might pick at it), and you suffer for a term while it is still not popular with the voters.

Then you come back 4 or 8 years later, when your first package has proven its worth with voters, and you finish the job.

Australia has universal healthcare. But it took two tries. The Whitlam Labor government put it in, '74 or '75, fully formed (all citizens get free medical care, excluding specialities like optical or prosthetic) but the Fraser Liberal government removed it gradually, finally privatizing the remnant. Then in the early 80's the Hawke Labor government legislated it again, with some improvements designed to stop fraud from the provider side, and it has been very popular since. Even the Abbott Liberal government was very cautious to cut Medicare (that's what we call it, I'm embarrassed, but the Hawke government couldn't think of a name that wasn't used already) ... wouldn't cut Medicare significantly, though he did hold it to ransom by threatening to raise the income flat tax which pays for it.

It's on. Then it's off. Then it's on again. Some think this is a crazy kind of government. I think it is perfect. When your enemy has control of government: give them some rope! Let the people suffer or enjoy the full consequence of their policy. Then vote.

Anyway to return to the US. If the Democrats have control of all three branches, they should go hard on healthcare. Do it right the second time, then it will please the voters in the long term, and never be undone. And the other things.

Even you acknowledge it was a poor way of going about it. Although judges are not supposed to determine if they like a law or not, but on the legality of a law. Even something you might like could be done in an illegal manner, and then you are still supposed to strike it down, and tell Congress to try again, this time better.

Definitely agree with the latter sentiments. The Court should always be mindful of the other power (Congress) and consider them -- not equal to, but contending with -- the Constitution. The Courts are a branch of government, contending with them but always with the Constitution and all precedent of law from their branch. The Court should never be high-handed, they have advantages enough, and when the intent of Congress is plain, the Court should advise them how best to achieve their aims in a legal way.

In a sense, the Supreme Court is the brains of government. The responsibility which falls on them is immense, in most rulings. I think there is a case to be made for an intermediary court which is not bound by geographical boundaries.

[Celritannia]

Republican hypocrisy. This is how she got appointed.

[Novus America]

Which is basically declaring being a conservative judges is a crime. Which is a terrible idea. Is almost certainly unconstitutional.

Nope, the mechanism is established by Section 2, Article 1 and backed by Section 4, Article 2 of the Constitution. I believe Constitutional Articles can not be unconstitutional itself.

Impeachment is not a carte blanche, you are actually supposed to prove a crime.

It is already carte blanche when the vague "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause is included. Technically they can be whatever Congress wants, just like what happened with Andrew Johnson (violating a later-declared unconstitutional law), Clinton (for lying about a blowjob), Samuel Chase (for "alleged" political bias when it was actually a hit job by Jefferson and his party).

And requires a senate supermajority to convict. Not just a majority. But two thirds of the senate.

That's why I'm speaking in a hypothetical.

The Constitution does NOT say the mechanism is immune from the provisions of due process, prohibitions of bills of attainder, prohibition of ex post facto laws.
Obviously impeachment CAN be constitutional but that does not mean it is ALWAYS constitutional.

The constitution also laws out a mechanism for passing laws. Yet you can still use that mechanism to pass an unconstitutional law. Because one provision does not necessarily override all others. To say that particular article is supreme above, completely severable from, and immune to the rights provided in other articles is a stretch.

On Clinton he did commit a crime. That really cannot be disputed. One maybe arguably not severe enough to warrant it. But still a crime. Although he was not removed by the Senate anyways.

Neither Andrew Johnson nor Chase were convicted, and had they been, they probably would have raised legal challenges.

The fact that one was over a crime you find minor (and failed to remove him) and the other two might have not been over a legitimate crime (and also failed) is hardly proof that you can successfully abuse it without legal challenges.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Republican hypocrisy. This is how she got appointed.

Say what you want, but now there’s a conservative majority on the Supreme Court no matter who wins the election

[Kexholm Karelia]

Well, unless the Democrats pack the court. The DNC can't keep fielding uninteresting centrists as Presidential candidates forever.

The democrats in office lack the balls to pack the court.

I know, it’s great!

[The Emerald Legion]

No, because bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are still illegal.

What do bills of attainder and ex post facto laws have to do with impeachment and conviction? Senate convictions are not like court convictions, it's not like the Senate is gonna straight up throw the judges into jail.

It says judges can be impeached, it does not say they could be impeached for no reason. That would start a constitutional crisis.

If that is the case the US would have been plunged into civil wars since Jefferson.

What happens when the courts declare your impeachment of them was illegal? You are going to send armed police in?

Throw the Constitution in their faces and laugh at their ignorance of the powers of impeachment and conviction granted to Congress.

Smarter to just expand the court If you think it has gotten to that point. That has no legal issues.

Tell that to the opponents of court packing here on NS.

Impeachment without a crime is far more contentious and probably illegal.

Where have you been since the hit job on Samuel Chase by Jefferson? Technically Congress can decide whatever "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be, with enough votes.

Do remember that it's the court that decides what's constitutional regardless of the actual text of the constitution.

[Vassenor]

Republican hypocrisy. This is how she got appointed.

Say what you want, but now there’s a conservative majority on the Supreme Court no matter who wins the election

And this is an objectively good thing how?

[Ifreann]

Republican hypocrisy. This is how she got appointed.

Say what you want, but now there’s a conservative majority on the Supreme Court no matter who wins the election

Yes, because the Republicans value power over all other things.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The democrats in office lack the balls to pack the court.

I know, it’s great!

Republicans would do it. Republicans have balls.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Say what you want, but now there’s a conservative majority on the Supreme Court no matter who wins the election

And this is an objectively good thing how?

This has already been explained to you at least once before.

So what makes this an objective positive thing for everyone?

People stop trying to take my guns and stop trying to make me buy health insurance. This seems to be an objective positive to me.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Republican hypocrisy. This is how she got appointed.

Say what you want, but now there’s a conservative majority on the Supreme Court no matter who wins the election

Hubris rules the Supreme Court. Hubris rules everything!

[Novus America]

But see that is the problem with the ACA. If it simply placed everyone not on some other form of adequate insurance on Medicaid then it would be Constitutionally fine. It could have done that. But it did not. It instead said “buy insurance (regardless of if you can afford it or not) or we hike your taxes”.

Yeah, and 59 Democrats in the Senate voted for that. Also one Turncoat. Democrats did all they could ...

And yet, it turned out quite popular. It did extend coverage upwards from the poor to the working poor, it required private insurers to sell their plans in an open market, and it was a whole lot better than nothing.

This is how you get the big things done. You do all you can, you make it permanent (or mostly, given that the Supreme Court might pick at it), and you suffer for a term while it is still not popular with the voters.

Then you come back 4 or 8 years later, when your first package has proven its worth with voters, and you finish the job.

Australia has universal healthcare. But it took two tries. The Whitlam Labor government put it in, '74 or '75, fully formed (all citizens get free medical care, excluding specialities like optical or prosthetic) but the Fraser Liberal government removed it gradually, finally privatizing the remnant. Then in the early 80's the Hawke Labor government legislated it again, with some improvements designed to stop fraud from the provider side, and it has been very popular since. Even the Abbott Liberal government was very cautious to cut Medicare (that's what we call it, I'm embarrassed, but the Hawke government couldn't think of a name that wasn't used already) ... wouldn't cut Medicare significantly, though he did hold it to ransom by threatening to raise the income flat tax which pays for it.

It's on. Then it's off. Then it's on again. Some think this is a crazy kind of government. I think it is perfect. When your enemy has control of government: give them some rope! Let the people suffer or enjoy the full consequence of their policy. Then vote.

Anyway to return to the US. If the Democrats have control of all three branches, they should go hard on healthcare. Do it right the second time, then it will please the voters in the long term, and never be undone. And the other things.

Even you acknowledge it was a poor way of going about it. Although judges are not supposed to determine if they like a law or not, but on the legality of a law. Even something you might like could be done in an illegal manner, and then you are still supposed to strike it down, and tell Congress to try again, this time better.

Definitely agree with the latter sentiments. The Court should always be mindful of the other power (Congress) and consider them -- not equal to, but contending with -- the Constitution. The Courts are a branch of government, contending with them but always with the Constitution and all precedent of law from their branch. The Court should never be high-handed, they have advantages enough, and when the intent of Congress is plain, the Court should advise them how best to achieve their aims in a legal way.

In a sense, the Supreme Court is the brains of government. The responsibility which falls on them is immense, in most rulings. I think there is a case to be made for an intermediary court which is not bound by geographical boundaries.

The exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid are not being seriously challenged though.
Good ideas, (although simply expanding Medicaid to 125% the poverty rate expanded who it covered, it did not fix the issue of that someone making 126% might still not be able to afford insurance, it should have simply changed the Medicaid qualification to cover everyone without access to insurance, something that arbitrary cut off failed to do.

The ACA has some good parts, and some badly written parts.
But those parts are going to be almost certainly found severable from the individual mandate.

So hardly time to panic. Those popular provisions will almost certainly be fine.

[The Emerald Legion]

Say what you want, but now there’s a conservative majority on the Supreme Court no matter who wins the election

Yes, because the Republicans value power over all other things.

Not really. If that were the case they would be more aggressive like the Democrats. Instead they hem and they haw and do nothing.

[Novus America]

No, because bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are still illegal.
It says judges can be impeached, it does not say they could be impeached for no reason. That would start a constitutional crisis. What happens when the courts declare your impeachment of them was illegal? You are going to send armed police in?

Clinton committed perjury. Which is a crime. They still caught him in an actual crime, even if you think it is not one severe enough to warrant impeachment. And they failed to convict.

Abusing impeachment just because you disagree with a court ruling is a very bad idea. Also to do it you need a two thirds super majority and hope you never lose again.

Smarter to just expand the court If you think it has gotten to that point. That has no legal issues.

Impeachment without a crime is far more contentious and probably illegal.

I mean if a president wanted to they could pull an old hickory and tell the court to pound sand

In theory they could. But that could still start a constitutional crisis.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

And this is an objectively good thing how?

This has already been explained to you at least once before.

People stop trying to take my guns and stop trying to make me buy health insurance. This seems to be an objective positive to me.

And you're so confident in your gun rights, that you'll freely tell everyone how many guns you have, and what type, and what you consider a reasonable amount of ammo to keep.

We're living in the information age. You should consider how much a Justice raised in Biblical and Catholic tradition knows about privacy or the use of information.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yes, because the Republicans value power over all other things.

Not really. If that were the case they would be more aggressive like the Democrats. Instead they hem and they haw and do nothing.

You don't think Republicans are more aggressive than Democrats?

Sure, Democrats talk a great deal, but do nothing. Republicans are silent and carry big sticks.

[Celritannia]

Republican hypocrisy. This is how she got appointed.

Say what you want, but now there’s a conservative majority on the Supreme Court no matter who wins the election

Courts should not be partisan based in any capacity.
She is a danger to progressive policies.

[Thermodolia]

I mean if a president wanted to they could pull an old hickory and tell the court to pound sand

In theory they could. But that could still start a constitutional crisis.

Didn’t happen to ole hickory himself when he told the courts to go fuck themselves

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Yeah, and 59 Democrats in the Senate voted for that. Also one Turncoat. Democrats did all they could ...

And yet, it turned out quite popular. It did extend coverage upwards from the poor to the working poor, it required private insurers to sell their plans in an open market, and it was a whole lot better than nothing.

This is how you get the big things done. You do all you can, you make it permanent (or mostly, given that the Supreme Court might pick at it), and you suffer for a term while it is still not popular with the voters.

Then you come back 4 or 8 years later, when your first package has proven its worth with voters, and you finish the job.

Australia has universal healthcare. But it took two tries. The Whitlam Labor government put it in, '74 or '75, fully formed (all citizens get free medical care, excluding specialities like optical or prosthetic) but the Fraser Liberal government removed it gradually, finally privatizing the remnant. Then in the early 80's the Hawke Labor government legislated it again, with some improvements designed to stop fraud from the provider side, and it has been very popular since. Even the Abbott Liberal government was very cautious to cut Medicare (that's what we call it, I'm embarrassed, but the Hawke government couldn't think of a name that wasn't used already) ... wouldn't cut Medicare significantly, though he did hold it to ransom by threatening to raise the income flat tax which pays for it.

It's on. Then it's off. Then it's on again. Some think this is a crazy kind of government. I think it is perfect. When your enemy has control of government: give them some rope! Let the people suffer or enjoy the full consequence of their policy. Then vote.

Anyway to return to the US. If the Democrats have control of all three branches, they should go hard on healthcare. Do it right the second time, then it will please the voters in the long term, and never be undone. And the other things.



Definitely agree with the latter sentiments. The Court should always be mindful of the other power (Congress) and consider them -- not equal to, but contending with -- the Constitution. The Courts are a branch of government, contending with them but always with the Constitution and all precedent of law from their branch. The Court should never be high-handed, they have advantages enough, and when the intent of Congress is plain, the Court should advise them how best to achieve their aims in a legal way.

In a sense, the Supreme Court is the brains of government. The responsibility which falls on them is immense, in most rulings. I think there is a case to be made for an intermediary court which is not bound by geographical boundaries.

The exchanges and the expansion of Medicaid are not being seriously challenged though.
Good ideas, (although simply expanding Medicaid to 125% the poverty rate expanded who it covered, it did not fix the issue of that someone making 126% might still not be able to afford insurance, it should have simply changed the Medicaid qualification to cover everyone without access to insurance, something that arbitrary cut off failed to do.

The ACA has some good parts, and some badly written parts.
But those parts are going to be almost certainly found severable from the individual mandate.

So hardly time to panic. Those popular provisions will almost certainly be fine.

No. You missed the point. Obamacare is popular. The next Democratic Congress is going to finish the job.

Even if it costs them the Senate at the mid-terms. This is an epochal win for Democrats, the will not miss the opportunity.

And it would be a brave, brave Justice who would shoot that down. Universal Healthcare is a winner.

[Salus Maior]

Say what you want, but now there’s a conservative majority on the Supreme Court no matter who wins the election

Yes, because the Republicans value power over all other things.

People who actually want to win generally do.

[Picairn]

The Constitution does NOT say the mechanism is immune from the provisions of due process, prohibitions of bills of attainder, prohibition of ex post facto laws.

It doesn't need to, because the impeachment and conviction powers, as well as punishments from them, are entirely different from all those things. The only punishments for Congress' impeachment and conviction are "removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States", as detailed by Clause 7, Article 3. And Congress gets to decide what "high crimes and misdemeanors" mean.

Obviously impeachment CAN be constitutional but that does not mean it is ALWAYS constitutional.

Weird constitutional (mis)interpretation but okay.

The constitution also laws out a mechanism for passing laws. Yet you can still use that mechanism to pass an unconstitutional law. Because one provision does not necessarily override all others. To say that particular article is supreme above, completely severable from, and immune to the rights provided in other articles is a stretch.

Impeachment and conviction, as granted by the Constitution, is just that. And the punishments are also outlined in details. So how does following the process and making proper convictions and removals unconstitutional?

On Clinton he did commit a crime. That really cannot be disputed. One maybe arguably not severe enough to warrant it. But still a crime. Although he was not removed by the Senate anyways.

Neither Andrew Johnson nor Chase were convicted, and had they been, they probably would have raised legal challenges.

The fact that one was over a crime you find minor (and failed to remove him) and the other two might have not been over a legitimate crime (and also failed) is hardly proof that you can successfully abuse it without legal challenges.

No legal challenges arose when the House impeached them. Ask yourself why.

[Novus America]

No, because bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are still illegal.

What do bills of attainder and ex post facto laws have to do with impeachment and conviction? Senate convictions are not like court convictions, it's not like the Senate is gonna straight up throw the judges into jail.

It says judges can be impeached, it does not say they could be impeached for no reason. That would start a constitutional crisis.

If that is the case the US would have been plunged into civil wars since Jefferson.

What happens when the courts declare your impeachment of them was illegal? You are going to send armed police in?

Throw the Constitution in their faces and laugh at their ignorance of the powers of impeachment and conviction granted to Congress.

Smarter to just expand the court If you think it has gotten to that point. That has no legal issues.

Tell that to the opponents of court packing here on NS.

Impeachment without a crime is far more contentious and probably illegal.

Where have you been since the hit job on Samuel Chase by Jefferson? Technically Congress can decide whatever "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be, with enough votes.

Because those are provisions to ensure the right to a fair trial or hearing.

You say senate convictions are severable from, and thus above and immune to all other constitutional provisions but that is a reach. Nothing in the constitution says that.
After all it has been ruled dur process applies to even to most administrative government hearings, even ones that have lesser rules of it than a regular court case still have restrictions.

Just because a power exists in the constitution does not mean it is a completely unrestricted power immune to the other provisions in the constitution.

This is a much more complicated issue.

A constitutional crisis does not always cause a civil war. And the existence of a few (it is extremely rare) impeachment’s that FAILED to convict is hardly evidence it is an effective and legal method. Given you know they failed to convict.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Yes, because the Republicans value power over all other things.

People who actually want to win generally do.

Stupid. Like Democrats don't want to win now.