House Trying To Relitigate Kavanaugh Case
Turns out Nader, after losing out on the Mueller hearings is not quickly moving on to try to undo what the left sees as a mistake, the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The problem here is once a Justice is appointed to the Supreme Court, it will take an act of breaking the law while on the bench to remove them, something that has not happened.
There is another problem, the Justices are appointed for life, and with good reason, it keeps them out of the political fray, something people like Ginsburg seems to forget, she is after all one of the most activist justices there are.
Then there is the case that it is the Senate, not the house to places justices on the bench, to try to dig on a fishing expedition with no probable cause, against a sitting Supreme Court Justice is something that has never been done, but none of this matters to the leftist in control of the house. Turns out they want their pound of flesh, it looks like they can’t get it from Trump so are casting about to see who they can get it from.
If you look at the constitutional requirements of a Judge, you start to see problems, it states in Article III, Section 1:
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
Once one is on the bench, then the grounds for impeachment is if they were not in good behavior, yet none of this has been shown, so how can they go forward with such a inquiry?
This does not include the big elephant in the room, even if the House did chose to impeach, it would most likely galvanize the right to come out and vote in 2020 in rejection of this move, the only thing that would bring out more is if they were stupid enough to try this with President Trump.
And there is the problem with the Senate, to impeach, the house does not impeach, they present articles of impeachment to the Senate. It is the Senate that does the actual impeachment and decides the punishment, does anyone in their right mind think the Senate, which is controlled by the GOP will impeach Kavanaugh when he not done anything wrong while sitting on the bench?
Last, we are still under the constitutional law of impeachment, this states, as it does with the president:
Under the U.S. Constitution, the President of the United States, the Vice President, and “and all civil Officers of the United States” may be impeached and removed from office if convicted of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
I need to explain the history of this “High Crimes and Misdemeanors
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the framers of the Constitution viewed impeachment to be an essential part of the system of separation of powers providing each of the three branches of government ways to check the powers of the other branches. Impeachment, they reasoned, would give the legislative branch one means of checking the power of the executive branch.
Many of the framers considered Congress’ power to impeach federal judges to be of great importance since they would be appointed for life. However, some of the framers opposed providing for the impeachment of executive branch officials, because the power of the president could be checked every four years by the American people through the electoral process.
In the end, James Madison of Virginia convinced a majority of the delegates that being able to replace a president only once every four years did not adequately check the powers of a president who became physically unable to serve or abused the executive powers. As Madison argued, “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could be replaced only through an election.
This is the real reason the founders put this in the constitution, the need to remove someone for crimes while in office, or abusing their office for personal or political gain, there was also the case if someone could not carry out their duties, such as with Wilson, who suffered a major stroke, it was his wife and cabinet members who ran the government until Wilson passed away.
This brings us back to Kavanaugh, there is no crime that he has been convicted of, all you have are shady claims at best, ones that not one witness claimed to have been at the event had any recollection of. This was handled in the conformation hearings, so rehashing them is not necessary. Further, Bush most likely will claim executive privilege over all documents during his presidency, something even a ex-president can do.
Some will claim that a ex president does not have this right, that is debatable, but there is a presidence to this, it most likely though would end up in court to be ruled on by the High Court.
Harry Truman made such a post-hoc claim of executive privilege in 1953 when subpoenaed to testify before a congressional committee about why he had appointed a suspected communist to the IMF. The committee backed down, meaning the claim became a historical precedent — and was subsequnetly invoked by Richard Nixon, while still president in 1973 when he refused to cooperate with the committee investigating Watergate.
It seems that all we are going to see from Nadler and Fisk are nothing but hearings to try to find something, anything with this administration for them to say there is corruption.
The risk they run is the Americans will tire of this, and it already looks like they are, in the latest polls, the idea of impeachment of the president shows support of just 43% that support impeachment, verses 50% that don’t. One of the things that startled me was that the majority of Americans that supported impeachment said they favored impeachment from Congress, but not removed from the office from the Senate.
We can see that America has lost its stomach for impeachment, the Mueller findings found nothing, but they gave enough to keep the hopes of the far left alive. The left can pursue this; they run the risk of being seen as vindictive sore losers; this could cost them significantly in the upcoming election.