Impeachment and the Democrats

The Daily Caller reports that Congresscritter Keith Ellison has noted that a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives could impeach a Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice. He’s correct. A handful of federal judges have been impeached by the House, and some convicted by the Senate.

Indeed, the Democrats could use one of their members as an expert to guide such a process. Before being elected to Congress, Rep. Alcee Hastings was impeached, convicted, and removed from his office as a U. S. District Judge.

Don’t Know Much About History

CNN’s Legal Analyst: The Founders never envisioned Supreme Court justices living past their 50s (H/T: The Washington Free Beacon)

Here’s the roster of the first six justices of the Supreme Court who were a nominated under the Judiciary Act of 1789 by George Washington and confirmed by the Senate:

John Rutledge, confirmed 1789, born 1739, age 50
John Blair, confirmed 1790, born 1732, age 58
John Jay, confirmed 1789, born 1740, age 49
William Cushing, confirmed 1790, born 1732, age 58
James Iredell, confirmed 1790, born 1751, age 39
James Wilson, confirmed 1790, born 1742, age 48

Four of the original justices lived past their 50s: Rutledge, 61; Blair, 68; Jay, 83; and Cushing, 78.

UPDATE—In fact, at least one of the Founders, the author of Federalist No. 78, explicitly stated that lifetime judicial appointments were critical to the proper functioning of the judiciary.

Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices, in point of duration; and that so far from being blamable on this account, their plan would have been inexcusably defective, if it had wanted this important feature of good government.

Read the whole thing.

Politicians Acting Bad

So what did the Canadians think they were getting when the gave the Liberals a majority and allowed Trudeau to form a government?

He’s not the first person with the kind of ego needed to be a national-level politician who has felt entitled to take what he wants when he wants it. He won’t be the last.

Free Speech and Power

The recent free speech wins in the Supreme Court and the Left’s meltdown over the retirement of Justice Kennedy set me to thinking about the collision between the Left’s traditional support for free speech and the Left’s use of their political power to suppress speech. As usual, others have been pondering what I’ve been pondering, and they’ve beaten me to the keyboard with their thoughts.

Ron Coleman has a post over at Likelihood of Confusion™ dealing with the free speech, trademarks, and “weaponized” speech. (The Slants were the band Coleman represented before the Supreme Court in the Tam trademark case.)

A sad day. How did we get past this mentality — the “weaponized” language comes from Justice Kagan’s dissent in the recent Janus decision — to get the result in Matal v. Tam (in which all the justices, including Kagan, joined), when the progressive professoriate was already nipping at the heels of free speech?  “Vile trademarks will be registered!” they wailed. And they were right… kind of.

I told you that case was about more than trademarks, and certainly more than the Redskins’ trademarks.  So did Rich Lowry.  So did Martha Engel.  Everyone knew it — including those who did not support the outcome.

I don’t quite know how The Slants managed to set a high-water mark for free speech before “weaponization” set in. But thank God, and everyone else I’ve thanked already, we did. It could be a long time until we get back there again.

Read the whole thing, and then check out Victor Davis Hanson’s piece over at NRO.

Progressive pundits and the liberal media almost daily think up new ways of characterizing President Trump as a Nazi, fascist, tyrant, or buffoon. Celebrities openly fantasize about doing harm to Trump.

Yet the current progressive meltdown is about more than just political differences. The outrage is mostly about power — or rather, the utter and unexpected loss of it.

Furious over the sudden and unexpected loss of power, enraged progressives have so far done almost everything to lose even more of it.

And that paradox only leads to more furor.

Read all of that post as well.

Given the neo-Marxist ideas underpinning so much of what passed for thought on the Left these days, it’s not surprising that the search for Truth via free speech would be abandoned for an attempt to shore up losing arguments with raw power.