rbj: I wonder if Alcee Hastings voted for impeachment. Can’t find the vote at house.gov.

In the case of Aguilar, I don’t believe it ever went to impeachment hearings. He was convicted in District Court, the conviction was overturned by the Ninth Circuit, and then when the Supreme Court said it would review the case, Aguilar resigned in exchange for the Justice Department agreeing to drop the case.

Even if the Senate convicted Hastings, that doesn’t affect his ability to serve in the House, because the Senate has no say in the membership of the House. If the House doesn’t want him, they can expel him, but the Senate can’t judge his qualifications.

There is a side-effect dating from the 18th century: A Senator cannot be impeached, because that would give the House a power over Senate membership. (Established with William Blount in 1797.) The Senate could, and did, expel Blount, but the impeachment process had no power over him, because neither house can determine the membership of the other.

S: I did not know that judges were tried by a committee of the Senate but that’s what the article says.

That procedure was how Walter Nixon tried to fight his impeachment trial. He wasn’t successful. I tend to agree with the majority opinion that impeachment is left so strictly to Congress that even if they were to resort to flipping coins to decide someone’s fate that there’s nothing a court can do to reinstate the official or tell Congress to try again.

I am, however, glad that both the House and Senate treat impeachment as a serious proceeding.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair directs the judgment to be entered in accordance with the judgment of the Senate as follows:

The Senate, having tried Alcee L. Hastings, U.S. district judge for the southern district of Florida, upon 17 articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senate present having found him guilty of the charges contained in articles I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, and IX of the articles of impeachment: It is therefore,

Ordered and adjudged, That the said Alcee L. Hastings be, and is hereby, removed from office.

Soronel Haetir:
…

As for whether he gets to keep his pension I seem to recall seeing a recent change in law that conviction on impeachment for offenses related to the office forfeits any pension.I would have to think these articles qualify for that provision.

I’d have to think that the constitutional language would make that change in the law rather dubious; The Constitution sets the maximum penalty for impeachment, you couldn’t impose a greater penalty without holding a separate trial via the justice system. At least, I think that argument would stand a pretty good chance of prevailing in court.

You’re right, I should’ve cited rather than gone from memory. Per official source, “Beginning at age 65, a judge may retire at his or her current salary or take senior status after performing 15 years of active service as an Article III judge (65+15 = 80).” The part about retirement being a cliff, however, is correct.

Steve2,

there is no requirement of residency for a federal judge, but yes, it would be just about impossible politically to appoint an out-of-stater.

An interesting near-analogy to that, involving Louisiana, was Eastern District Judge J. Skelly Wright, of the court where Porteous now sits- his enforcement of Brown v. Board of Education drove Louisiana pols wild. They burned him in effigy, and lampooned him on the floor of the legislature with a blackface life-size doll, calling him judge “J. Smelly Wrong.”

President Kennedy appointed him to the court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit, getting him out of town and to a much more prestigious gig. (Though, as an aside, there’s probably a lot to dislike about being on the D.C. Circuit compared to the others despite the “prestige”- i.e., your bulky administrative appeals from the FERC and the like, must be soul-crushing drudgery.)

DjDiverDan:
I guess that, since Alcee Hastings was elected to Congress after his impeachment, a United States Representative is not an “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”I can see that there is no honor or trust in most Representatives, but history would certainly indicate that it’s an office that can be quite profitable for its holders.

Except it specifies “shall not extend further than”, not “shall be”. As I read it, that means the House can ask for, and the Senate can impose, any punishment they can think of so long as it’s equal to or less than removal from current office intersection disqualification from future offices, not that Removal & Disqualification is the Constitutionally-stipulated punishment.

Nunzio: Just find someone honest, if that’s possible in Louisiana.

Is picking District Court nominees from the state the District’s in a requirement of the Judiciary Act or some other statute, or is it just a matter of tradition and that it would make the Lousianans angry if some random Iowan moved down to Louisiana to become the judge there?

pensioner: But he won’t reach the magic formula (age + years of service = 75) until December 2011

Is my math off? According to wiki he’s about 64 and he’s been a judge for about 15 years, no?

This is the entire reason that Porteous has, shamelessly, fought the impeachment: he’s been hoping to run out the clock until he can just retire. But he won’t reach the magic formula (age + years of service = 75) until December 2011, and it looks like Congress isn’t going to let him run out the clock till then.

Also, he tried to take a “disability” retirement, but that was denied.

Assumedly, an impeached judge who’d already earned a pension would get to keep the pension. However, a judge with a pension in his pocket would probably just retire and save everyone the trouble of disgracing him. One like Porteous who hasn’t earned it yet will get nothing.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.

I guess that, since Alcee Hastings was elected to Congress after his impeachment, a United States Representative is not an “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” I can see that there is no honor or trust in most Representatives, but history would certainly indicate that it’s an office that can be quite profitable for its holders.

Unless I’m really having a bad day, I don’t think anyone has answered, at least yet, though . . . .

Eluchil: I found the wording of Article I odd. It seems to be saying that the problem is his failure to disclose his corrupt relationship at the recussal hearing or on appeal. But, I would have thought, requesting and taking bribes and perverting the course of justice on account of said bribes would be an impeachable offence on its own, without any failure to disclose.

Perhaps it is because those activities were from before he was elevated to the Federal bench?

The impeachment of a federal judge is indeed an exceedingly rare event. Take note that there was a 50 year gap between 1936 and 1986 in which no judges were impeached. Here’s the complete list: http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/autoframe?openform&top=/history/home.nsf/page/judgessitecontent&nav=/history/home.nsf/page/judges_nav&page=/history/home.nsf/page/topics_ji_bdy

rbj: I wonder if Alcee Hastings voted for impeachment. Can’t find the vote at house.gov.

Maybe Porteus will be able to successfully emulate Hastings and join him in Congress, that is if he is as lucky as Hastings was in avoiding jail.

Just find someone honest, if that’s possible in Louisiana.

I don’t see any problems asking Senator Landrieu or Governor Jindal for input.

If Hastings was capable of feeling any shame, he’d not be in Congress right now.

I hope Porteous is banned from further office, you would have thought it SOP for punishment but Hastings proved that assumption wrong.

Still trying to wrap my head around that.

Nunzio: If the Senate convicts, I don’t think the President should take any input from Louisiana politicians as to who should be nominated. 

Out of fairness to both of Louisiana’s Senators (Mary Landrieu and David Vitter), neither was in the Senate at the time President Clinton nominated Judge Porteous.

One article I saw mentioned that only 15 judges have been impeached (not sure if that’s just lower court judges or if it includes Chase). While I do believe we get good judges for the most part I find it hard to believe that there have been so few worthy of removal. Although you do have folks like Kent who are willing to resign before the articles are finalized so that will lower the number actually impeached.

As for whether he gets to keep his pension I seem to recall seeing a recent change in law that conviction on impeachment for offenses related to the office forfeits any pension. I would have to think these articles qualify for that provision.