Skip to main content

The Supreme Court Term, continued

This term, largely because of the bang-up way it ended, has seen the beginnings of right-wing resentment against Chief Justice John Roberts. There is even an "impeach Roberts" meme bubbling about in some quarters!

It will go nowhere, unless some extra-judicial scandal is brewing I haven't heard about, but it is an intriguing symptom.

In the Warren Court era, there were "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper stickers and billboards apenty. Never got traction.

There was also a push to impeach Justice Douglas, who was a good bit to the left of Warren by anyone's metric, and that did get a little traction.


 
That arose from Douglas extra-judicial activities. He wrote an artticle for "Avant Garde," a magazine published by Ralph Ginzburg, at a time when litigation concerning alleged libel by Ginzberg, litigation that had constitutional significance and would eventually reach SCOTUS, was underway in the federal courts.

The content of the actual article by Douglas was uncontroversial. It involved folk singing of all things. But Ginzberg was a specialist in both smut and scandal and even aside from the potential conflict, it was boundary-pressing behavior for a SCOTUS justice to associate himself with this.
(Douglas' payment for that musicological article? -- $350.)

Rep. Gerald Ford sought to have Douglas impeached largely on this ground, while also asserting that he, Ford, would never do something like this on the basis of any judge's "political philosophy or the legal opinions which he contributes to the decisions of the courts."

The Ford presidential library has Ford's big speech on the subject here.
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/700415b.htm
Anyway, Ford got nowhere.

Scandal can keep some one off the court. But scandal only very rarely allows for anyone to be knocked off the court. A rare counterexample -- also from the Warren Court era -- was Justice Abe Fortas. That also involved some extra-judicial activities, legal work that Fortas was doing for a Wall Street wheeler-dealer, Louis Wolfson, that may have included asking the president for a pardon for Wolfson in connection with securities fraud charges.

Yet even in Fortas' case, the Wolfson matter would probably not have threatened his tenure as an associate justice except that he over-reached and sought to become the next chief justice. LBJ nominated Fortas for Chief when Earl Warren indicated his interest in stepping down. Republicans naturally wanted to let the next President -- whom they hoped would be Nixon, not Humphrey -- decide on the next Chief Justice, so they made a fight of this. The Wolfson business came out in the course of that fight, and it not only kept Fortas out of the CJ seat, it led to pressure that caused his resignation from the AJ seat as well.

The point?

Justices are very seldom impeached or pressured off the bench in any case. In the rarte exceptional case, it is something they've done 'on the side' that causes the trouble, not as Rep. Ford put it "the legal opinions which he contributes to the decisions of the courts," however misguided.
But hey, if you wanna try, try. There are worse things you could be doing with your time. There just aren't any less fruitful things you could be doing.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers