Oversight of Judges

The House Judiciary Committee needs to look at Federal Judges, as part of their oversight, starting with Justice Ellis, especially with the Senate confirming so many poorly vetted & horrible people to the bench.

There is just too much evidence of wrongdoing to ignore:

Justice Thomas and his political activities off the bench,

... these need to be looked at.

Justice Kavanaugh and the information left out of his confirmation hearings.

The entire current rapid fire & corrupt confirmation process.

Please look at these subjects and call witnesses to testify:

It may be too early to impeach, but it is never too early to do oversight!

cc:

@RepJerryNadler

@marygayscanlon

@tedlieu

@RepTedDeutch

During Good Behavior

The Constitution States:

“Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior”

Gold Standard “During Good Behavior”

Hamilton put faith in this standard:

“The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” [Fed78]

Madison Agreed. In Federalist 38 he writes:

“according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior.” [Fed38]

Federalist 38 and 65 Defining “During Good Behavior”

Unquestioningly the Founders intended Judges to be “regulated”, implying overseen, by the legislature. Congressional oversight of the Judiciary is for the purpose of defining & enforcing "good behavior." Which means that judges aren't to be impeached for their personal opinions or private views, but for bad behavior that leads to abuse of power, law or constitution or would make them susceptible to graft, extortion or destroy their credibility.

Madison says:

“The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office. The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior. The tenure of the ministerial offices generally, will be a subject of legal regulation, conformably to the reason of the case and the example of the State constitutions.” [Fed38]

Should not be an arbitrary process

Congress has a duty to look at the behavior of judges, and to remove them from office on evidence of bad behavior, through the impeachment process. Unfortunately, historically the process for doing this has tended to be arbitrary.

“Impeachment proceedings have been brought against 12 Federal officials; only four have been convicted. Only one of the 12 was a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Chase, who was acquitted by the Senate in 1805 after the House had impeached him for partisan, harsh and unfair conduct during trials.” [cqpress]

Violating the code of judicial conduct ought to be impeachable. But too many impeachment cases have been political.

John Pickering

In 1804 John Pickering was impeached on charges of “unlawful rulings” and drunkenness. The case was controversial as the Federalists claimed that the charges were political. But in the end, when it reached the Senate, the Senate ruled on the articles and convicted him.

Samuel Chase

A supreme court justice was among the first officers removed by the Early Government. Samuel Chase was impeached by Congress in 1804, by the House and acquitted by the Senate.

Arbitrary Impeachment: O'Douglas

The far right in this country was constantly trying to impeach "liberal" judges such as William O'Douglas. They also tried to blackmail or force resignations. In 1970 they succeeded in driving Abe Fortas off the bench for admittedly accepting a:

“retainer from the family foundation of Wall Street financier Louis Wolfson, a friend and former client, in January 1966.[28] Fortas had signed a contract with Wolfson's foundation. In return for unspecified advice, it was to pay Fortas $20,000 a year for the rest of Fortas's life”

This clearly violated any sane rules of ethical conduct. If he'd tried to remain on the bench he'd have been impeached in a bi-partisan fashion. Encouraged by this they want after William O'Douglas:

In 1953 the House tried to impeach O'Douglas “after he had granted a stay of execution to convicted spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.”

In 1970 they tried again with a list of charges including:

That in 1966, Douglas dissented in a 5 to 4 decision that upheld the obscenity conviction of Ralph Ginzburg, publisher of Eros.

They alleged that O'Douglas should have recused from the case due to his relationship with Ginsburg, including publishing books and articles in his publications.

They also alleged he'd engaged in legal work for the Albert Parvin Foundation and been paid for it. The RW in congress alleged that that foundation was a left wing organization as was the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions.

Gerald Ford tried to bypass the Judiciary Committee and do an exclusively Republican impeachment. In the end they found that he hadn't violated the law or Judicial ethics codes. It was pretty clear to all, but rw, observers that the O'Douglas impeachment had been partisan. This did Democrats no favor since everything they accused O'Douglas of doing has become a ceiling on even worse bad behavior by RW justices since then, such as Thomas, Scalia and Brown. They could point to O'Douglas and say "If he can take a 300$ payment then I'm entitled to my 60,000$ emolument from book sales (Scalia).

Defining Good Behavior

In order for Congress to do their oversight duties they must first clearly define what good behavior is and ensure that guidelines for what that behavior are established and that those guidelines apply to both the Supreme Court and its lesser courts. Currently the Supreme Court seems to think they are immune from the Code of Conduct for the Judiciary. This needs to change.

It is Congresses job to disabuse them of that conceit. "Good Behavior" standards apply to everyone. It is up to congress to codify and enforce that code.

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently

Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That are Consistent With the Obligations of Judicial Office

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity

Compliance with the Code of Conduct

Applicable Date of Compliance

https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies

And judges who engage in sexual harassment or violate that code should be impeached.

Sources and Related Posts

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed38.asp

https://pages.wustl.edu/calvert/articles-impeachment-against-justice-chase

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/impeachment-trial-samuel-chase

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/pdf/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3-20.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1843004?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal70-1292316

When Followers are the problem!

Attributes of a Dictator's Fans

The fact is that, what makes authoritarian dictatorships so maddening and difficult to handle is not the dictator. It is the people who follow him, hold him up and enable his misdeeds who drive the awfulness of authoritarian regimes. I've written on Altemeyer's book on Authoritarianism;

Authoritarian Followers

& And EMAD Dominators

But this book formulates a simplified version of how Authoritarian Followers work. Trumptater's followers perception of his 4 attributes written down and sourced. They tend to:

1. See their leader as superhuman.
2. Blindly believe him.
3. Unconditionally comply with his directives.
4. Give him unconditional support.

Author is Dr. Bandy X. Lee. Book is called

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health…

Lawrence O'Donnell and his late night News/Commentary Show on MS-NBC introduced this subject as part of a longer talk about Trump and Trumpism. We are in trouble. But it's not mortal yet. Headed there.

Of course Authoritarian systems actually have a hierarchy of leaders. The ones at the top are seen as infallible by the rank and file, they are treated as infallible by each other. But much of that middle tier's devotion is dishonest. They know the truth, it is just expedient to go along to get along.

Related Posts

Understanding Social Dominance Theory

Authoritarians and Totalitarians Reviewing Altemeyer's book

Fighting Authoritarianism

Authoritarian Versus Totalitarian

Note: I initially spelled Bandy Lee as Brandy Lee, sorry.

Why the House Must invoke it's impeachment Powers

Impeachment is for stopping misuse of power

Impeachment as a tool of Oversight

There is a lot of talk of impeachment among those of us in the rank and file of our country. Much of it is emotional, hasty or based on exaggerated expectations of the powers of the House of Representatives. The impeachment power is assigned to the House. However, Trying impeachments is assigned to the Senate. Impeachment isn't solely to punish petty criminality. It is meant to punish "high crimes and misdemeanors." Early uses of the impeachment power included impeaching a Federal Sea Captain for wrecking his ship. Impeachment was:

“designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?”[Fed 65]

A Well Constituted Impeachment

It wasn't intended to be solely a last resort, nor a tool for disrupting the judiciary or executive, but a tool for oversight and regulation for use when dealing with naughty, corrupt, treasonous, or reckless officers – who abuse their power. Hamilton insisted that a well constituted impeachment involve the maximum number of jurors to minimize its use for trivial or purely partisan purposes. It was designed as difficult to do as it was intended to be a remedy against tyrants:

“The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding. This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security. There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it. The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.”[Fed 65]

Impeachment is about Fitness for Office and tyranny

Impeachment was limited, because impeachment is about the officers of the United States and their fitness for office and limited to:

“removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:” [COTUS Article 1, Section 3, last par]

The Judiciary has a duty to indict and bring to trial

Impeachment doesn't preclude an obligation of justice to bring lawbreakers to justice, no matter how high their office. Article 1, Sec 3 last paragraph makes it clear that no one should be above the law or the "ordinary courts." Impeachment is also not a substitute for the courts except in producing evidence.

“but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” [COTUS Article 1, Section 3, last par]

Impeachment is DESIGNED to limit the Pardon Power

The founders envisioned the impeachment power to limit the pardon power. Both impeachment and trial for crimes were explicitly envisioned to apply to the President, absurd guidelines to the contrary or not. Federalist 69 emphasized that the Pardon power applied:

“EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT;”[fed69]

A Check on the Executive

The Constitution gives the grounds of:

“treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

A quick look at the history of impeachment is that:

“The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.” [crf]

Malfeasance, Recklessness and Incompetence

Misdemeanors was intended to cover things like malfeasance in office, gross recklessness or incompetence as well as abuse of power.

The President Cannot Shelter Offenders!

The author, Alexander Hamilton, elaborated that the law was designed to limit the President's ability to “shelter” offenders!

“A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction.”[fed69]

Dangling Impeachment Should be Impossible

It is as if the founders anticipated what Trump would try to do by dangling impeachments. Hamilton, was even referring to the chance that a President might seek to use force of arms, and that people would be hesitant to back him on the fear that such a revolt might miscarry:

“Would not the prospect of a total indemnity for all the preliminary steps be a greater temptation to undertake and persevere in an enterprise against the public liberty, than the mere prospect of an exemption from death and confiscation, if the final execution of the design, upon an actual appeal to arms, should miscarry? Would this last expectation have any influence at all, when the probability was computed, that the person who was to afford that exemption might himself be involved in the consequences of the measure, and might be incapacitated by his agency in it from affording the desired impunity?”[fed69]

Presumption of a Limited Government

Of course Federalist 69 also presumed a Country where only a small portion of the militia was in the President's hands and that we had no standing army. So our situation now is much worse than it was in the time of George Washington. Still the power to impeach the President and his offices was intended as a check on the usurpation of Article 1 and 3 powers by a venal and corrupt President. And that is born out by even a cursory reading of Federalist 69.

Use it or lose it

Of course the other two checks on the President; a limited standing army and the fact that the legislature has to declare war are no longer enforced either. The British Monarch:

“possesse[d] that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority.”[fed69]

Now Congress has ceded the rights to wage war, given the President powerful military and police powers. Impeachment is all the people have left. We need to use it or lose it.

Related Posts:

Congress Must Impeach

Giving the President Immunity from Prosecution is unconstitutional

Iran Contra and Bill Barr's Pardons

The Southern Empire Strikes Back

Sources

Federalist 65

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

Federalist 69:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

Feinstein Video

Senator Feinstein was the subject of an active measure this past week.

Waleed Shaheed (_waleedshahid) who is the “Communications Director” of Justice Democrats, sent a group of young kids, accompanied by a Chaparone, under the banner of the Sunrise Movement, to Dianne Feinstein's office to attack her in the name of getting her to support their version of the Green New Deal, Or else, She resisted. Waleed then edited the video in a way that made it look like she was criticizing the kids when she was trying to dicuss things with the chaparone. This edited tape was then shared with the Media, O'Keefe Style. They were clever. They produced a short version of the interaction and one that was about 15 minutes which they claimed was the unedited version. But the actual interaction took some time.

Feinstein offered one of them a job. She also sent a letter to them that made clear what she felt.

I'm thoroughly disgusted with the so-called "justice democrats". Their terminology harkens back to the days of radical Bolshevik Marxism and it is clear that they think they can use the same strategies the hard right uses to ruthlessly drive division into the party. I see them as traitors. These are the strategies the Hard Right has adopted from playbooks written by Lenin and Mao. They are ruthless and self defeating.

Atlantic:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/dianne-feinstein-video-climate-change-sunrise-movement/583501/

Democratic Underground:

https://www.democraticunderground.org/100211855238

Threaded on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/1099137889043140609?s=19

Democratic Principles under Assault

I started this post on September 17, 2018. Actually I thought I'd published it back then. It talks about democracy and how we used to practice it and how Trump is subverting it. With Trump's efforts to use decree powers to build his Southern Border wall, this assault is now in the critical stage. He's declaring a National Emergency, where there is none.

When I debate with some Radical Right folks, they will tell me,

“The United States is a Republic not a Democracy”

Well John Locke dealt with that question more than 300 years ago. In a Federated Republic, which is what we are, democratic features are either part of the equation or the country is tyranny!

The Fourteen Characteristics of Tyranny

The reality of this world is that most people try to do right and try to do good. Some people think that they are doing good when they do ruthless, manipulative things, but most people justifying the ends justify the means are simply not thinking about doing good. They may justify their efforts as helping some long term good, but it is clear that they are thinking of their own fame and fortune.

For some people life is a game, an often cruel game, where all that matters is who is on top and who is not. For some people, the world is an animal place. People who see things that way live in politics and business as if they were snakes, dogs, wolves and the rest of us were sheep. Such people fit psychological profiles that sometimes are labeled as mentally ill, but in truth, spiritual illness is not something that can be treated by psychologists and is reinforced by perverse religions. People can be motivated by anger, ambition, fear. They can be motivated by an unhealable pain. They can be motivated by joy. There are people who don't feel much pain themselves, but inflict it on others. There are many terms for them;

• Psychopaths,
• Sociopaths,
• Narcissists,

But when we give such people, power, they make others suffer.

 

The incredible Stupidity of GOP Taxes

Since the 90s we've had a cycle of the GOP running the same con over and over again. Initially some of the more sane Republicans would push back. It was George Herbert Walker Bush who called Reagan's economics a con, "Voodoo Economics" and who helped coin the term "trickle down economics." The more honest cons in the Reagan Administration soon knew that their con didn't work. David Stockman would admit it later. Summarized in the famous quote:

“None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers.” —David Stockman

The Atlantic Magazine describes his cognitive dissonance in an article titled "The Education of David Stockman." The entire Reagan Administration knew from 1981 on that lowering marginal taxation on the wealthy and making up for tax cuts with cost shifting to workers, doesn't help the economy.

Big Lie

Even so “trickle down” was very popular among the "donor class", so its shills held (and still hold) their noses and supported the con anyway. They rationalized that if they adopted the Hitlerian Big Lie principle and repeated a lie often enough it becomes an article of faith.

Investopedia, Voodoo Economics

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/305760/

Consequently, among republican business preachers and operatives, this con is an article of faith. kind of a 13th commandment.