Judge Amy Barret Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

[Punished UMN]

Women’s rights to do what?

To control their own bodies and to be treated as people rather than walking baby factories.

"The right to control your own body" is illusory. You can use medical practices to impose things on the body, to a certain degree, but there is no control over the body.

[Picairn]

What if the Senate decided to impeach a Supreme Court justice for being black? Would that be constitutional?

No, because of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

[Vassenor]

To control their own bodies and to be treated as people rather than walking baby factories.

"The right to control your own body" is illusory. You can use medical practices to impose things on the body, to a certain degree, but there is no control over the body.

Give my your kidneys then. You have no right to control your own body, after all.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

What if the Senate decided to impeach a Supreme Court justice for being black? Would that be constitutional?

No, because of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Yes, exactly.

So, the Senate is still bound by some rules. They cannot bar a justice for being nominated by a Republican president. And they cannot make up some crime to circumvent that, because the court would be onto that immediately.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Women’s rights to do what?

To control their own bodies and to be treated as people rather than walking baby factories.

You think children are part of the woman’s body? Biology called

[Kernen]

But legislative procedure is essentially off limits per Nixon v. US. They won't do it where the issue is the exclusive constitutional domain of the legislature.

But it's not a legislative procedure. It's apart from the legislative powers of the Senate. And, like with laws, the outcome can be declared unconstitutional.

That isn't in keeping with court rulings on this exact issue in Baker v. Carr and Nixon v. US. Sure, the court could declare the 13th amendment to legalize serfdom and only ban chattel slaves, because there's no constraints on how they rule, but that doesn't mean anybody argues its remotely likely.

[Punished UMN]

"The right to control your own body" is illusory. You can use medical practices to impose things on the body, to a certain degree, but there is no control over the body.

Give my your kidneys then. You have no right to control your own body, after all.

If you can pass a law saying that I have to, then I don't really have much choice, but you miss my point. Bodily processes cannot be controlled by willpower, so what a right to control one's body is actually asking for is a right to specific medical procedures.

[Novus America]

Obviously senate convictions are not automatically bills of attainder.
But that does not make them immune to all other provisions. The Constitution dies say you have a right to a fair trial, (that is why bills of attainder are banned), a right to due process that applies to not only regular court proceedings but also most other government processes, even most those in which you are not charged with a crime. And a protection against ex post facto laws.

And what relevance does all this make in regard to Congress's final say on impeachment and conviction?

Courts have ruled you generally cannot fire a federal employee without due process, EVEN IF congress passes a lay saying you can!

Punishment for Senate convictions are granted by the Constitution. Constitutional Articles can not be unconstitutional themselves.

Courts have never said Congress has absolutely unrestricted powers. Thus your claims somehow impeachment is unrestricted by any other provisions is without good basis.

Congress can decide what high crimes and misdemeanors mean. That alone is quite broad powers.

You are making claims without good support. Certainly it is not an established law the impeach trials can be done without any due process.

And since when due process and Congressional votes can not go together? As I said, Congress reserves the final say, even with due process and all that. Impeachment and conviction is a political process, not judicial.

Had they had the votes, the could have convicted yes, but then the convicted could challenge their conviction.

How?

The fact it never got that far is good evidence it is not an easy thing to actually get a conviction with no real crime.
The fact it never got that far does not prove that convicting without any evidence of a crime is constitutional and that the senate trials cannot be questioned

Senate convictions are decided by a two-thirds majority votes, as it is the only requirement mandated by the Constitution. With enough votes, the Senate can make convictions.

But anyways what are we even arguing? Yes you could impeach, vote to convict in theory with no crime.
Just as you can pass a completely unconstitutional law or have an unfair trial or hearing. But if you do so you will be probably be challenged. Being able to do something is quite different than being able to do something without challenges or consequences. The Supreme Court still would claim it has the final say.

No, the Court would likely not intervene due to the political question doctrine. Congressional impeachment and conviction are political, not judicial.

Almost certainly there would be legal challenges if you convicted. And you cannot prove the court would not hear or support those legal challenges. So you absolutely would be setting up a constitutional crisis. You really think the courts would just surrender without any fight?

Any legal challenges would fall apart if Congress followed the exact same rules mandated by the Constitution. Courts can not declare the Constitution unconstitutional. Is this another attempt at "yes, but no" on the constitutionality of impeachment?

Besides you admit this is grossly impractical because the votes are not, and almost certainly never will be there.
You admit is a silly hypothetical, not a practical plan.

If both Houses turn blue then the Democrats can.

I have already waste enough time on this. I am quite sure if your extremism hypothetical was somehow a reality, there would be legal challenges. I doubt courts would let things get that extreme with no pushback. The would almost certainly not allow the political purging of the courts, as that would eliminate their independence.

Again just because a process is constitutional does not make it immune to all other constitutional provisions. It does not work that way. Again passing laws is constitutional. That does not mean all laws are constitutional. Sure the courts have not gotten involved in impeachment so far, but that does not mean they never would if you pushed it far enough.

The chance of the Senate going so far “blue” that 2/3rds would agree to remove all conservative justices without real cause is virtually nonexistent. It is much more complicated than that. Just because someone is a member of a party does not mean they would agree with that party on everything either.

[Punished UMN]

And that thing Alito and Thomas wrote? Or does that not count because it's bad for your narrative?

Oh yes, I forgot that 3 justices is a majority of a 9-person court. Also, what narrative? I don't think she should have been confirmed.

Still waiting on a response to this btw, Vass.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Remind me again which body can decide what high crimes and misdemeanors mean. And what sole requirement is needed to convict.


Any legal challenges would fall apart if Congress followed the rules mandated by the Constitution. Who can argue with the actual text of the Constitution itself?

What if the Senate decided to impeach a Supreme Court justice for being black? Would that be constitutional?

Don't be silly. The Senate would never rule that way. How about impeaching a SC Justice for being outspokenly Democrat?

It's 2/3 of the Senate required. It hasn't happened in the last two centuries (Chase, 1805). What are you flapping your wig about?

[Vassenor]

To control their own bodies and to be treated as people rather than walking baby factories.

You think children are part of the woman’s body? Biology called

So you agree that the developing fetus is making use of another person's body and said person has the right to withdraw consent to that?

[Punished UMN]

You think children are part of the woman’s body? Biology called

So you agree that the developing fetus is making use of another person's body and said person has the right to withdraw consent to that?

If someone chains you in their basement do they have a right to kill you for refusing an eviction notice?

[Vassenor]

So you agree that the developing fetus is making use of another person's body and said person has the right to withdraw consent to that?

If someone chains you in their basement do they have a right to kill you for refusing an eviction notice?

Reductio ad absurdum. Everybody drink.

[Punished UMN]

If someone chains you in their basement do they have a right to kill you for refusing an eviction notice?

Reductio ad absurdum. Everybody drink.

It's no more absurd than alleging that a bodily process which no one caused is another person maliciously making use of another person's body.

[Kexholm Karelia]

ACB supports women’s rights to be born, without being killed

[Picairn]

I have already waste enough time on this. I am quite sure if your extremism hypothetical was somehow a reality, there would be legal challenges. I doubt people would let things get that extreme with no pushback.

Ok, you can make better use of your time educating yourself on the powers of impeachment and conviction, as well as punishments, from the Constitution itself. This will also be my last post on the matter.

Again just because a process is constitutional does not make it immune to all other constitutional provisions. It does not work that way. Again passing laws is constitutional. That does not mean all laws are constitutional.

Sure, but using bills of attainder and ex post facto laws hurts your arguments more than proving anything. The only ones saying "impeachment is unconstitutional attainder" are from right wing conspiracy sites.

The chance of the Senate going so far “blue” that 2/3rds would agree to remove all conservative justices without real cause is virtually nonexistent. It is much more complicated than that. Just because someone is a member of a party does not mean they would agree with that party on everything either.

Do I need to tell you it's a hypothetical again?

Remember the word "If".

[Vassenor]

ACB supports women’s rights to be born, without being killed

By killing women who exercise control over their bodies.

[Tarsonis]

ACB supports women’s rights to be born, without being killed

By killing women who exercise control over their bodies.

unsubstantiated smear is unsubstantiated.

[Novus America]

What if the Senate decided to impeach a Supreme Court justice for being black? Would that be constitutional?

Don't be silly. The Senate would never rule that way. How about impeaching a SC Justice for being outspokenly Democrat?

It's 2/3 of the Senate required. It hasn't happened in the last two centuries (Chase, 1805). What are you flapping your wig about?

And they would never do what Picairn is proposing either. The issue is he proposed something that extreme. Thankfully we will probably never know the answer, because his extreme hypothetical will not actually happen.

[Picairn]

Don't be silly. The Senate would never rule that way. How about impeaching a SC Justice for being outspokenly Democrat?

It's 2/3 of the Senate required. It hasn't happened in the last two centuries (Chase, 1805). What are you flapping your wig about?

Oh yeah, the whole hit job on Chase by Jefferson and co. was based on his alleged political bias. Turns out political bias now also qualifies for high crimes and misdemeanors.

[Novus America]

I have already waste enough time on this. I am quite sure if your extremism hypothetical was somehow a reality, there would be legal challenges. I doubt people would let things get that extreme with no pushback.

Ok, you can make better use of your time educating yourself on the powers of impeachment and conviction, as well as punishments, from the Constitution itself. This will also be my last post on the matter.

Again just because a process is constitutional does not make it immune to all other constitutional provisions. It does not work that way. Again passing laws is constitutional. That does not mean all laws are constitutional.

Sure, but using bills of attainder and ex post facto laws hurts your arguments more than proving anything. The only ones saying "impeachment is unconstitutional attainder" are from right wing conspiracy sites.

The chance of the Senate going so far “blue” that 2/3rds would agree to remove all conservative justices without real cause is virtually nonexistent. It is much more complicated than that. Just because someone is a member of a party does not mean they would agree with that party on everything either.

Do I need to tell you it's a hypothetical again?

Remember the word "If".

I never said impeachment is automatically an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Simply that other provisions indicate the Congress does not have absolute and unrestricted powers. That is a check on congressional powers. Which indicates congressional powers are not absolute.
Stop straw manning.

And hypothetically alien space bats could come down and force everyone to dress like clowns. But it is not worth debating unless it is actually probable.

[Novus America]

Don't be silly. The Senate would never rule that way. How about impeaching a SC Justice for being outspokenly Democrat?

It's 2/3 of the Senate required. It hasn't happened in the last two centuries (Chase, 1805). What are you flapping your wig about?

Oh yeah, the whole hit job on Chase by Jefferson and co. was based on his alleged political bias. Turns out political bias now also qualifies for high crimes and misdemeanors.

2/3rds did not vote to convict Chase. He is correct, 2/3rds have not voted to convict.

[The Alma Mater]

ACB supports women’s rights to be born, without being killed

By forcing women to give bloodtransfusions against their will.

I wonder if she will also be willing to rule the other way - mandate vasectomies for men who desire sex with women that do not wish children.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

ACB supports women’s rights to be born, without being killed

By forcing women to give bloodtransfusions against their will.

I wonder if she will also be willing to rule the other way - mandate vasectomies for men who desire sex with women that do not wish children.

But what if a famous violinist has a kidney failure?

[Celritannia]

To control their own bodies and to be treated as people rather than walking baby factories.

You think children are part of the woman’s body? Biology called

If the government forces a woman to have a baby, then the government must financially support the child until 18.