A Modest Question

 

 "Can you impeach someone who is no longer in office?"

First, set aside that Trump has already been impeached by the House. Yes, technically, the question is - can he be convicted. 

My thoughts go to the Republicans and apparently at least one Democrat who will vote to acquit based on the logic that you can't impeach someone who is out of office. It would seem that as it stands there are reasonable though twisted legal arguments from both sides. The Constitution does not speak to this circumstance.

"Republican senators and some legal scholars have said that Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate cannot proceed now that he is once again a private citizen. But many scholars have said that Trump's return to private life poses no impediment to an impeachment trial." -Yahoo News

So, here is my question.

I believe we have these institutions we called courts. And I believe, some of them are courts of appeal. And one of them, the Supreme one, makes all of its rulings based on what they interpret the constitution to allow or not.

Why not ask first before tying up the Senate with a potentially non-event?

Before going through all the machinations of a trial and with this glaring loophole for those senators seeking to duck and cover. Why not ask the Supreme Court to rule on whether or not a former President can indeed be tried in the Senate for high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office but now out of office.

This gives the Senate time to consider the Biden appointments. And, it means, if the court says yes, the big dodge will be removed from any cowardly senator who wants to vote none of the above. If they say no, then move on, the court has spoken. Let's get those vaccines in arms, fix the bridges and save the polar bears.

Really, why not just ask first?

Calling It What It is

I was listening to a program the other day about the Supreme Court of the United States. Specifically, the program was about the Hobby Lobby decision on health coverage and birth control.

The two commentators suggested that the Justices were out of touch with the reality of the world most of us live in. They cited the recent decision in striking down the Voting Rights Act as another example of this isolation the Justices have in their lives. The point was they were making sweeping legal decisions based on a perspective that does not reflect the reality of where most Americans live their lives.

My reaction was that here were two well educated, thoughtful, liberal commentators making excuses for the Justices. These are members of the U.S. Supreme Court, they don't live in isolation, they aren't being lulled into some sense of false security in the protected bowels of Washington D.C. Don't make excuses for them.

In the Hobby Lobby decision, as well as the Voting Rights evisceration; what we have are five republican, catholic males making the law of the land based on their religious  and political beliefs. The only thing worse than having a conservative, religious cabal deciding how we live our lives, which they are; the only thing worse is progressive voices letting them off with a reprimand.

These are not isolated men doing their best to interpret the constitution. Open your eyes, these are religiously motivated bigots. Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court are bigots. They are making laws that have far reaching effects on the lives of hundreds of millions of people based on religious bigotry. As such, they are in violation of their swore oaths before that god they so solemnly bend knee to. The words you are looking for are not isolated or privileged or out of touch. The word is bigotry in its rankist form. The lives of hundreds of millions of citizens are being infringed upon by Vatican bigots.