A few days ago I mentioned, purely as a hypothetical exercise, the idea of impeaching those SCOTUS Justices who voted Yay in the Dobbs decision. Not for voting Yay, of course, but assenting to the use of false history, as asserted by the Organization of American Historians, in the justification of their vote. That they don’t know better, or worse do, but were desperate to reach the judgment that they did, is a condemnation of the implicit, ahem, institutional judgment by their professional colleagues that they are the best of the best[1]. It even suggests that this group of Republican-nominated Justices might just be … fourth-raters.
I had not expected to ever bring up the subject of impeachment again.
But then along came a Center For Inquiry, which is either akin to, or an actual, “freethinkers” organization, citation of a rather horrific, within the context of the legal world, Rolling Stone allegation:
On July 6, Rolling Stone reported that Peggy Nienaber, described in the article as executive director of DC Ministry for Liberty Counsel, though Liberty Counsel maintains that this title was made up for the article, and described her instead as “vice president of Faith & Liberty,” was caught on tape confessing to having prayed with Supreme Court Justices inside the court building and inside the homes of unspecified Justices. Liberty Counsel is a prominent conservative religious advocacy group that has brought several cases before the Supreme Court, filed at least seventeen amicus curiae briefs, and whose brief was cited in the overturning Roe v. Wade.
In a letter to Chief Justice Roberts, CFI and its allies request a formal investigation into these claims, writing, “If confirmed, the allegations cast serious doubt on the impartiality of multiple justices and the Court itself.”
Impartiality indeed. A judge being buddy-buddy with people and organizations that come before that judge in one of the most solemn and important legal forums on the planet isn’t a minor oopsie! or a She told me she was over eighteen! moment, as we might hear Rep Gaetz (R-FL) use in defending himself in the near future.
No, this is a major faux-pas that a member of the Federal judiciary of the seniority and standing of a Justice of SCOTUS shouldn’t have to think twice of not doing.
So, if this is true – and it’s merely an allegation at this juncture – then this behavior doesn’t require a reprimand. It requires an impeachment and removal of all implicated Justices, and a rehearing of all cases in which the offending Justices took part.
Because, clearly, they’ve been bought off. Not necessarily with money, but there are other objects of value: sentimentality comes right to mind.
So, yep, we may be seeing impeachments of SCOTUS judges in the future if Democrats do as well as I suspect they will in November. It won’t be vengeance. It’ll be proper oversight.
And all the fourth-raters will greatly, greatly resent it.
1 OK, OK, that’s a bit of hyperbole. The politics of SCOTUS nominations is a well-known and voluminous subject. So, yes, not all SCOTUS nominees and Justices have been considered to be at the top of their profession. While I don’t have a list of such nominees in front of me, along with their ABA ratings, names that were less than absolutely top-notch at the time of nomination include George H. W. Bush-nominated and current Justice Clarence Thomas, George W. Bush’s White House Counsel Harriet Myers, who withdrew prior to confirmation hearings, and, of course, George H. W. Bush-nominated Robert Bork, who was rejected by a bipartisan coalition of Senators, and later revealed to have taken a bribe from then-President Nixon in the form of … a promise of nomination to SCOTUS. And thus became the hatchet-man in the Saturday Night Massacre.
But I suppose this was merely an indulgence on my part.
