|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: NPR ... Food For Thought (LONG)From: Dean Huffman . (dean@thehuffpeople.net)Wed Nov 16 11:50:38 2005
.. Impeachment by the House (majority vote), followed by conviction in the Senate (two-thirds majority) is the only way to (involuntarily) remove a sitting federal judge whose appointment by the president was confirmed by the Senate. Other ways of removal from office include death and retirement/resignation. Retirement was not an option in the early history of the United States, explaining why many judges held their seats until death, since they needed the income. Of course, judges can receive what is called a "recess appointment" -- an appointment while the Senate is in recess. This type of appointment does not require confirmation by the Senate, but it is good only until the end of the next session of Congress following the appointment. Rugledge was given a recess appointment as Chief Justice of the United States by George Washington, but was never confirmed by the Senate, so that is why he was on the Supreme Court for only a short time. Likewise, Brennan (I think) was a recess appointment by Eisenhower, but was later confirmed by the Senate. There were three judges impeached (by the House) and convicted (by the Senate)in the 1980's and 1990's. Nixon (from Mississippi) was one, Hastings from Florida, and Clairborne (I think that is his name) from Nevada was the third. As I remember, the issue involving Walter (not Richard) Nixon was that the "trial" in the Senate was held by committee meeting, open to all Senators who wished to attend, but attendance was not manditory. The final vote, however, required the entire Senate to vote. Nixon contended that since the evidence was heard only by committee, without the required attendance of the entire Senate, the vote for impeachment conviction was not valid and that his conviction should be overturned and that he should receive his judgeship back. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by White, wisely said that, the mechanics of a Senate trial were up to the Senate and it was not the place of the Supreme Court to make or enforce rules for the Senate impeachment trial. The only absolute requirement was a two-thirds majority vote by the entire Senate in order to convict. Hastings, from Florida, was impeached and convicted and removed from his judgeship. He later ran for, and was elected to the House of Representatives from Florida. Someone brought a case in Federal District Court canllanging his being awarded a seat in the House of Representatives. The contention was that the penality for conviction, following impeachment, was to be removed from office and to be barred from holding future office in the United States government. The articles of impeachment, however, only mentioned removal from office and did NOT mention prohibition from holding future offices. The case was thrown out by the district court because, the court said, that the person who brought the suit in the first place did not have standing in the case. I beieve that Hatings was allowed to keep his seat in the House. The former Chief Justice, Rhenquist (I may be incorrect in the spelling of his name) wrote an excellent book, "Grand Inquests". It talked about the two most important impeachment and trials in the history of the United States. (This was before the Clinton impeachment and trial.) One was of President Andrew Johnson. The other was of Samule Chase, an early Supreme Court Justice, although the impeachment was for actions taken while riding circuit (as was the case in the early history of the Superme Court). Fascinating reading. Interestingly, Bryon White, in his opinion in the Nixon v. US (506 U.S. 224 (1993) Docket Number: 91-740) Supreme Court Case, makes reference to the book by Rhenquist, who was then the Chief Justice, and who participated in the decision of the case. The oral arguements in the case can be found at: <http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/810/>. The written opinion can be foud at: <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=506&page=224>. I am not sure where the Hastings case can be found. Dean Huffman - - - - Quoting "Robert J. Carpenter, Jr. MD" <zygote@icsi.net>: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:40:15 -0600
>
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Thu Oct 2 04:50:43 2008 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.