
West Virginia’s Supreme Court Impeachment Crisis - smacktoward
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/west-virginia-supreme-court-impeachment-constitutional-crisis.html
======
ConceitedCode
This was much easier for me to follow / less politically divisive.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2018/10/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2018/10/15/west-virginia-botches-impeachment-of-chief-justice-faces-
constitutional-crisis-stay-tuned/)

------
bilbo0s
Wow, and I thought Wisconsin was corrupt.

I knew that states like Florida, New Jersey, and Louisiana rivaled us in
corruption, but now I'm starting to wonder if maybe the entire US is just as
bent as we are? Maybe all these other states just don't land themselves in the
papers as often, but they have all the same problems with public corruption?

The US, in general, likely has a much larger problem with public corruption
than I thought.

~~~
lamarpye
Why is Wisconsin corrupt?

~~~
glibgil
Lack of ethics

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Could you be more specific?

------
weliketocode
> Justice Menis Ketchum, a Democrat, resigned from the court in July then
> pleaded guilty to a felony count of wire fraud.

We need to hold members of the legislature and judiciary to the same standard
as the citizenry.

It's just very, very unfortunate that this situation has spiraled so far
beyond that.

~~~
kodablah
> We need to hold members of the legislature and judiciary to the same
> standard as the citizenry.

From what I read, only the judiciary can enforce the code of conduct on
themselves here.

~~~
vxNsr
Which is honestly... insane.

------
ArchTypical
> What we are witnessing in West Virginia today is a government destroying
> itself. It began as a partisan power grab. It may end in the destruction of
> an entire state judiciary

Given the amount of criminality and conviction, I see this as a good thing.
Treating the political elites as something more than citizens, is already a
corruption of the state body.

~~~
SpikeDad
Really? You approve of Republicans in both houses and the governors office
wholesale impeachment of an entire Court? Does the fact that the Governor get
to appoint replacements not suggest some sort of power grab going on?

~~~
ArchTypical
> Does the fact that the Governor get to appoint replacements not suggest some
> sort of power grab going on?

That's doesn't invalidate wrongdoing. I am neither R nor D due to their long
standing hipocrisy as organizations.

------
rayiner
This is why it makes me nervous when people suggest we should be able to
prosecute members of Congress for insider trading. Imagine how easy it would
be for a malicious executive to bypass the separation of powers through an
unfounded charge of insider trading: ("you knew about [x] and your grandson
traded on it!" where "[x]" is almost anything because Congressmen are privy to
so much insider information). And if you didn't think something like that
would be abused--maybe in today's political climate you do?

~~~
jellicle
> This is why it makes me nervous when people suggest we should be able to
> prosecute members of Congress for insider trading.

This thing that you fear may happen in the future happened in 2012 (STOCK Act,
clarifies that insider trading is banned for Congress). You are six years
behind.

So how has your prediction panned out? Have malicious Presidents used it to go
after Congress? No. There have been no prosecutions whatsoever.

~~~
mattnewton
No need to risk the optics, Congressional Reps and Senators are mostly in
lockstep with things corporations care about.

I will say I agree with you that it’s strong evidence the fear is overblown,
but it certainly doesn’t disprove that threats like this are being made and
are just working.

------
socalnate1
This is terrifying in that it's not all that hard to imagine this happening at
the federal level in coming years.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I don't see it. I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court
justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. All nine being impeached? I
really have a hard time seeing that happening.

I guess it _might_ happen if one party (let's just call them the Pinks) holds
both houses of Congress. They would probably have to hold the Presidency, too.
This party decides to run the country in total disregard to the other party,
the established rules, and even the Constitution. Someone brings a lawsuit
over something the Pinks have done. The Supreme Court hears it, and rules
against the Pinks. Now, for this scenario to work, it would have to be a 9-0
ruling against the Pinks, even though some of the Supreme Court lean toward
the other party (let's call them the Browns).

Possible? Yes, I suppose. But personally, I find it quite hard to imagine.

~~~
tzs
> I don't see it. I could see the Democrats impeaching five Supreme Court
> justices, or the Republicans impeaching four. All nine being impeached? I
> really have a hard time seeing that happening.

More likely than impeachment would be expanding the court. The Constitution
doesn't say anything about the size of the Court other than it must have a
Chief Justice. The number of Justices is set by legislation.

A very good case can be made for such an expansion to slow down the amount the
Court can change in the short term. 9 worked fine when both parties had strong
moderate factions, and so the Court would move a little more conservative
under Republicans and a little more Liberal under Democrats. Now the moderate
factions have diminished, especially among Republicans, and 9 doesn't provide
enough hysteresis.

~~~
rayiner
The fact that people are actively talking about court packing, much less
saying a "very good case can be made for" it blows my mind. I would not be
surprised to see a civil war within my lifetime if that happens.

~~~
tzs
I said a good case could be made for expanding the Court, not for packing the
Court. For example, Congress could pass an expansion plan that adds a new
Justice every 4 years until the new size is reached.

As far as prompting a civil war goes, we had a minority party use filibusters
for years to block most judicial appointments of the majority party from even
getting considered, with the intent of holding them open until they could get
a majority. That same party also held a Supreme Court seat open for a year,
refusing to even hold a hearing on the nominee--a nominee that they had just
told the President was someone they could approve of! (And they openly talked
of holding the seat open during the entire term of the next President if that
President was not of their party).

And now that the aforementioned minority party has a majority in Congress,
they are rapidly filling all those seats they held open, often with young
lawyers with little judicial experience, and some rated "unqualified" by the
ABA, and accuse anyone who tries to actually vet the candidates of partisan
obstructionism.

If that didn't get anyone up in arms, I doubt a little court packing would do
so.

~~~
dctoedt
Gorsuch occupies a stolen seat but realistically can't be removed. So a tenth
justice would neutralize him, and an eleventh justice would restore things to
the way they would have been were it not for McConnell's despicable
obstruction with Garland (for which he should be expelled from the Senate, but
I know that will never happen).

~~~
tptacek
"Stolen"? (I would, I hope obviously, prefer Garland to Gorsuch.)

~~~
dctoedt
Yes, stolen — McConnell's refusal to put the matter to a vote, in the hope of
holding out for a GOP president, was a gross subversion of the implicit
constitutional norm that when a president officially nominates someone, it's
the Senate's _duty_ to render an up-or-down vote. That was one of the many,
many reasons I finally left the GOP this year after being a Republican since
age 9 (I got in trouble for putting a Goldwater sticker on my parents' car).

~~~
tptacek
What's the difference between a "down" vote and a refusal to let it out of
committee? Doesn't this just mirror the cloture drama from a few years back?
Also: again, aren't Senate rules delegated specifically to the Senate in the
Constitution, and subject to no external oversight?

It seems pretty clear that the Senate has the authority to blockade
nominations. By contrast, the Constitution is clear about duties and timelines
elsewhere (for instance, bill vetoes).

There's lots of good reasons to leave the GOP! I'm glad you did! I just don't
see this as one of them.

~~~
dctoedt
Blocking an up-or-down confirmation vote strips away the only actual oversight
we have under the Constitution, namely the prospect of uncomfortable
publicizing of a senator's voting record during his or her next reelection bid
— or when s/he runs for president. (I read once that whenever _any_ senator
looks in the mirror, s/he sees a future president.)

~~~
tptacek
Is this really a materially relevant argument? Does anyone have any illusions
on where any of the 2016 GOP Senators stood on Garland? They all effectively
cast a "no" vote. There's nobody in the country who thinks otherwise. Even The
Daily Caller wouldn't put that argument forward. So what's the harm to the
Constitution?

Bills have been not-getting-out-of-committee for a _very_ long time prior to
the McConnell blockade, and you can easily make an argument that killing
things in committee is actually more harmful to transparency than what
McConnell did --- whatever else you might say about the blockade, it was
_pretty transparent!_

------
kodablah
A strange tone to this article. "X did this bad thing and obviously this bad
thing because they are obviously bad." "To be clear, while excuse here and
excuse here, Y did a thing that could be perceived as bad, but not as bad
because it's their rules and it has been done before." Really tough to read.

Also, I am not very familiar with the case, can anyone shed any light on
whether the justices are remorseful for their overspendings and other
wrongdoings? Any links to apologies or denials? Are some not voluntarily
resigning because they don't feel like what they did was bad enough? I clearly
understand the legislature's faults in this story just want more details from
the judges themselves.

------
40acres
Increased polarization has caused the legislative Branch at all levels to
grind to a halt. As a result the majority party, in many cases Republicans,
have used illiberal means to consolidate power. As a result are heading down a
path of making the court so politicized that the rulings lose their backing.

The West Virginia cases is ridiculous but I won't be surprised if there are
other shenanigans w.r.t the court being executed all across the country.

~~~
forapurpose
> Increased polarization has caused the legislative Branch at all levels to
> grind to a halt. As a result the majority party, in many cases Republicans,
> have used illiberal means to consolidate power.

I think calling it "polarization" and using similar concepts that don't assign
blame is the modern political correctness. If we don't identify the cause of
the disease, we can't even begin the cure it; it's a self-inflected wound. If
there's a problem with the switches in your datacenter, it would be shooting
yourself in the foot to say 'the whole infrastructure is freezing up'. No,
it's the switches.

I'm not partisan in that I don't care for one party or another, but I believe
the disease in the U.S. is the Republican Party. They are the ones
implementing all these things, disregarding all limits, moral, democratic and
otherwise, to the pursuit of power. They elected this president, embraced
torture, deny climate change, embrace naked partisanship in the federal
judiciary (and in states), etc. etc etc. We can say bipartisan things, but
until Americans recognize the disease and act, they will get sicker, and the
condition of democracy is becoming grave now.

------
excalibur
Is it not possible to appeal an individual state's supreme court decisions to
the US Supreme Court?

~~~
s73v3r_
You can sometimes go from the state Supreme Court to the US Court of Appeals
and then to the SCOTUS, but usually only if the case tends to involve some
kind of question concerning the US Constitution. Otherwise those courts may
decline to hear the case.

~~~
rayiner
To challenge a state Supreme Court decision, you'd file for _certiorari_ to
the U.S. Supreme Court under 28 U.S. 1257. However, there must be an issue of
federal law (federal constitution, statute, or regulation). If there is not
one, or the only federal issues would not change the outcome, the Supreme
Court lacks the power to hear the case, because state supreme courts have the
last word on issues of state law.

Here, the case is primarily about West Virginia law (impeachment under WV law,
who can enforce the Code of Judicial Conduct). There is a federal due process
issue, but it can't change the outcome--the WV Supreme Court found the
impeachment illegal under WV law, so it doesn't really matter whether it's
_also_ illegal under federal due process law. In that case, the state-law
decision is called an "adequate independent ground," and the Supreme Court
lacks jurisdiction ( _i.e._ authority) to hear the case.

~~~
mmusson
Technically, the Supreme Court decides whether it has jurisdiction.

~~~
rayiner
The Supreme Court either has jurisdiction or it does not; whether it figures
out the correct answer to that question is a separate issue.

------
krapp
Also see this Lawful Masses video about the issue:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjRQapb7DLs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjRQapb7DLs)

