Re: impeachment of federal judges, Congress has effectively allowed tenure de bene gesserint – during good behavior – to be supplanted by life tenure, which is NOT what Art. III says. Another example of an important Constitutional safeguard disappearing because of non-use. Cf. Gideon v. Wainwright and the rise of “civil Gideon,” a gratuitous and unlegislated Constitutional expansion spreading because of overuse and its resulting entitlement mentality.

Joe:The first two times, R. got the support of three and four justices. For those who say he kept on ignoring the law, four justices disagree with you.

Sure. And on the third time, he blatantly mischaracterized the facts of the case, going so far as to reverse his own previous characterization. He amply demonstrated on the third time that he cares nothing for the truth or the law, merely using legal forms to cover his efforts to clothe his naked power-abuse. Impeach him.

Sure. I realize the motivations. But, the actual impeachment was based on his actions during trial, not just his ideology. There also was another case where a judge was found innocent in the criminal trial but still impeached. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the judicial impeachment choices over the years had some sort of political angle to them.

Anyway, there has been various cases where a ruling was remanded and the lower court in effect ignored the SC. The SC has been selective in calling them on it. Another repeat offender was a case against the defendant, a peremptory challenge case. To be evenhanded, the SC called them on it.

The Court even chided the 9th Cir. for its sophistry. “More evidence, the Court of Appeals now concluded, would have made a difference; in particular, more evidence to “humanize” Belmontes, as that court put it no fewer than 11 times in its opinion.”

Hmm. This might be the motivation, but the articles of impeachment cite actual procedural problems.

The motive was disguised, but thinly. A summary is here.

Hmm. This might be the motivation, but the articles of impeachment cite actual procedural problems.

James N. Gibson points to something. The first two times, R. got the support of three and four justices. For those who say he kept on ignoring the law, four justices disagree with you.

As to the last time, Stevens didn’t want them to take the case but agreed as to the specific matter at hand.

Were I Roberts, I’d specifically call out the behavior of Reinhardt in a letter to Congress and advise that he is not behaving in a manner consistent with the Constitutional standard for judges, given his overt nonsense on the latest 9-0 reversal.

And if there are other district judges consistently failing to demonstrate “good behavior” but not managing to draw the attention of the Supreme Court, the Chief Judges for those circuits should similarly write Congress about them.

As someone who tried cases before Judge Hauk and Judge Lydick and others, I can verify that there were judges worse than Real, as hard as that is to believe.

Why was God so angry with you?

A lot fewer than Judge Real, an unprincipled conservative. If you want to punish Reinhardt, then at least be even handed and call for the punishment of all the judges who have their thumbs on the scale.

I second tha. As someone who tried cases before Judge Hauk and Judge Lydick and others, I can verify that there were judges worse than Real, as hard as that is to believe.

You’re right about Chase. I meant to say that there have been no impeachment of District Court or Court of Appeal judges for ideological offenses

A good test is when he changes his characterization of the same set of facts to suit his different legal argument at the time. An advocate is supposed to characterize the facts to suit their argument. An impartial judge is not. But when you go from calling the same evidence “substantial” to “cursory,” it’s pretty clear that you’re not acting as a judge anymore but as an advocate. As such, it seems obvious that removal is the appropriate remedy.

Honestly, I think this is a classic case of bias and deserves appropriate punishment. On what other issues has he had his thumb on the scale? How many other parties to the court has he screwed over because he decided to be an advocate? How many other victims of murder wouldn’t receive justice because this lib decided that he’d call something “substantial” one day and “cursory” the next day.

ShelbyC: Well, since judges get to interpret the law, it’s pretty tought to determine that a judge is refusing to follow it, unless he says “I find that the says X but I’m going to rule Y anyway.” Hell, even if a judge says, “binding precedent case says X, but I find that the law doen’t require me to follow binding precedent” I think it would be tough to determine that he isn’t following the law.

They’ll never come out and say that. That’s why the “death is different” jurisprudence is so complex and irrational; the abolitionist judges keep creating novel approaches in particular cases to strike down death sentences. They should either do like Blackmun did and just say outright they won’t vote to uphold any of them, or else realize that the penalty is not their moral responsibility and they commit no moral crime by failing to strike it down. That responsibility lies with the legislators who choose to allow the penalty, the prosecutors who choose to seek the penalty, and the juries who choose to impose it. (And, if you’re in favor of capital punishment, you would say responsibility also lies with the perp who committed the crime.)

In fact, the ONLY impeachment of federal judges in the history of the country have been for commission of crimes, not ideological offenses.

Just to nitpick a little history here, Justice Chase was impeached for ideological offenses. There was another early impeachment of a judge who probably was insane and was not, IIRC, accused of any criminal offense.

richard: I don’t support Reinhardt’s pretty obvious refusal to follow the law but if that is grounds for impeachment, then there are going to be quite a few openings on the federal bench. In the USDC for the Central District of California, we have had numerous judges other than Reinhardt who could care less about following established law (Real and Hauk come to mind), most on the conservative side, and there have been no attempts to impeach them. In fact, the ONLY impeachment of federal judges in the history of the country have been for commission of crimes, not ideological offenses.

Well, since judges get to interpret the law, it’s pretty tought to determine that a judge is refusing to follow it, unless he says “I find that the says X but I’m going to rule Y anyway.” Hell, even if a judge says, “binding precedent case says X, but I find that the law doen’t require me to follow binding precedent” I think it would be tough to determine that he isn’t following the law.

There go you typical leftists again, making more unsupported assertions, like we’re supposed to just trust you when you say, like, “Trust us”, or something.

Trust but verify? Sounds vaguely familiar…

BT says:

so nothing counts that’s from ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, NYT, LAT, WaPo, HuffPo, DU, KOS, Media Matters, FighttheSmears, Time, Newspeak, or any other source except Fox, the WSJ, or the Limbaugh radio show).

You mean I can’t listen to G. Gordon Liddy?

Hey, you can listen to anyone you want (I recently read that several hundreds of people (not a typo) even continue to watch or read the antique media that I listed, but can’t find the link about their viewership/circulation right now, so that figure may be wildly overstated), you just can’t use it to “prove” MarkField’s unsupported assertion above.

I don’t support Reinhardt’s pretty obvious refusal to follow the law but if that is grounds for impeachment, then there are going to be quite a few openings on the federal bench. In the USDC for the Central District of California, we have had numerous judges other than Reinhardt who could care less about following established law (Real and Hauk come to mind), most on the conservative side, and there have been no attempts to impeach them. In fact, the ONLY impeachment of federal judges in the history of the country have been for commission of crimes, not ideological offenses.

bailey: Does “liberal lion” translate to “fundamentally dishonest”? It sounds like that is exactly what this jurist is and why the glib talking point about the law pretty much being what any given judge says it is can be so frightening.

The first few pages of results on Google for “Liberal Lion” point to Senator Ted Kennedy. So feel free to make your own judgment.

Also, if the judge is steadfastly refusing to apply the law in these cases, at what point does Congress step up and impeach him? Is that a possibility with the current Congress? Could Congress separate the policy issue of judges upholding the law from the policy issue of the death penalty?

so nothing counts that’s from ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, NYT, LAT, WaPo, HuffPo, DU, KOS, Media Matters, FighttheSmears, Time, Newspeak, or any other source except Fox, the WSJ, or the Limbaugh radio show).

You mean I can’t listen to G. Gordon Liddy?

Mark Field: Elaborate statistical analysis of his previous posts. :)

There go you typical leftists again, making more unsupported assertions, like we’re supposed to just trust you when you say, like, “Trust us”, or something.

Let’s have the cites, the sites, the links, the formulas, the population and sample sizes, the unadjusted raw data, the assumptions, and the peer reviewed articles in absolutely totally objective venues (and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the objective part while you’re at it, too, so nothing counts that’s from ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, NYT, LAT, WaPo, HuffPo, DU, KOS, Media Matters, FighttheSmears, Time, Newspeak, or any other source except Fox, the WSJ, or the Limbaugh radio show).

:-)

mls: why does the name of the warden keep changing? Is it because they move the prisoner, or is there that much turnover in the prison system?

My favorite law school professor once commented that the easiest way to achieve immortality is to become the warden of a maximum security prison or the director of a state prison system. Calderon, Strickland, Schriro, et al. would likely agree.

(Though it is ironic that when I googled “Strickland v. Washington,” two of the first five listings asserted that Strickland was the criminal when he was actually the Superintendent of the Florida State Prison)

I, of course, enjoy irony. Since the Attorney General is sometimes a named party in habeas corpus litigation, I would have loved to have seen this case captioned Brown v. Belmontes given Jerry Brown’s past personal opposition to capital punishment.

On the other hand, Brown might not have been as amused. And for the DAGs filing the cert. petition, he is still the boss.

mls: why does the name of the warden keep changing?Is it because they move the prisoner, or is there that much turnover in the prison system?

San Quentin (the relevant California facility for death cases) had four wardens between Woodford (2004) and Ayers (2006). Ayers, an experienced warden nominated by Governor Wilson to restore stability, retired after Governor Davis withdrew his nomination. Wong, another experienced warden, is acting until Governor Schwarzenegger selects a permanent replacement.

PatHMV: Note to law reviewers… when you find yourself reflexively cite-checking even blog posts, it’s time to step away from the F.3ds and go have a drink.

FIFY.