Sandra Day O'Connor is departing the Supreme Court with a whimper--and a whine. The high court's first female member told an audience in Spokane, "the present climate is such that I worry about the future of the federal judiciary... In our country today, we're seeing efforts to prevent an independent judiciary." No, what we're seeing are masses of people waking up to the Supreme Court's realized ambition of becoming a second national legislature. These same masses never elected O'Connor, or her eight colleagues, so they're vocalizing their displeasure. Members of Congress have noticed.

Andrew Cohen of CBS News, believing that no unkind word should be spoken against one branch of government and that congressional oversight of the courts is indecent, sees O'Connor's hysteria and raises her one. He writes: "Justice O'Connor has spoken. She speaks for hundreds, perhaps thousands of other judges around the country. She speaks for a system of government where one branch cannot bully another. She speaks for a balance of power that is needed more in a time of war than in a time of peace. She speaks for Hamilton and Madison and Washington. She speaks as a Republican, a former legislator, and the first woman ever to sit on the High Court. She speaks for history and to history. She speaks to her successor and to his successor, and the only question now is whether our Congressional leaders can stop howling at the moon long enough so they can hear her." Keep howling.

Does anyone know if a federal judge has ever been impeached for handing down bad decisions?

I remember a famous line by one of the first Presidents - "You've made your decision, now let's see you enforce it" (or something like that) - but I can't recall the President or the context.

That quote is from ole Andrew Jackson and was over his refusal to charter the National Bank, I believe.

I think I have read that impeachment of judges has handed very sporadically but am not sure that there have been any significant cases of them occurring b/c of abuse of office in the form of bad decisions. There was a real fervid grassroots movement to impeach Earl Warren but the pols only gave it lip service. That's all I know on the topic.

What irritates me as of late with Washington is that they spend more time DECIDING who will run the country than actually running the country.

Be well,

Sponge

District John Pickering was impeached and convicted during Jefferson's administration. The Federalists claimed he was insane and, therefore, couldn't be convicted of a "criminal offense." The Republicans ignored the evidence that he was insane, for various reasons, and convicted him for his actions while on the bench. Very shortly thereafter a partisan, but not insane, High Federalist, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, was impeached for things he did on the bench (charges to juries, orders to prosecutors, and dealings with grand juries). The Republicans split on the issues involved, and a desire on the part of some of them not to appear partisan, led to a failure to convict.

Brian,

It seems that you are right about the President and wrong about the context:

"Westward expansion brought the United States into contact with numerous Indian tribes and the admission of new states brought certain Indian lands within the national boundaries. In the following message to Congress of December 6, 1830, President Jackson inaugurated the policy of extinguishing all Indian title to such lands and removing the Indians to an area beyond the Mississippi River. The President asserted that such a policy would avoid a 'collision' between federal authority over the Indians and state jurisdiction of their lands, and that it would open to 'dense and civilized population' areas previously occupied only by 'a few savage hunters.' The policy was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, but when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that the Indians retained certain rights in their own lands, Jackson is said to have retorted, 'John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.'"

http://www.search.eb.com/elections/pri/Q00054.html

My Googling hasn't been able to determine who prevailed in this disagreement between the Marshall Court and Jackson. Did Jackson continue the policy in defiance?

Also, here is Jackson's letter to Congress regarding his veto of the National Bank in which he acts as an interpreter of the Constitution.

http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/garraty8e_awl/chapter9/medialib/primarysources3_10_2.html

From Wikipedia on John Pickering:

"Political controversy waged in the Congress with Federalists accusing Democratic-Republicans of trying to usurp the Constitution by attempting to remove the Judge from office though he had committed neither high crimes nor misdemeanors as required by the Constitution. On 4 February 1803 President Thomas Jefferson sent evidence to the U.S. House of Representatives who voted to impeach Pickering on 2 March, 1803 on charges of drunkeness and unlawful rulings. The US Senate tried the Impeachment the next year beginning 4 January 1804 and convicted him of all charges presented by the House by a vote of 19 to 7 on 12 March 1804."

Historians I have read indicated that Marshall's decision, if enforced, would have made the "trail of tears" (the removal of the majority of the Cherokee to Oklahoma) illegal. The fact that Van Buren implemented Jankson's removal policy would indicate they both defied Marshall. On this point it is also clear that Lincoln defied Taney and his Court over the use of habeus corpus (Ex Parte Merriman) and that Jefferson was intent on defying Marshall and his Court had Marshall decided for Marbury in Marbury v Madison.

Odd. Though I agree in principle with presidents (et al.) standing up to the court when it obviously decides something wrongly, in all three of the cases listed by DocMcG, I think, the court was right in their findings (for civil rights of the Cherokee before US courts, for Madison against Marbury, and against Lincoln's habeus corpus abuse). This makes me a bit uncomfortable appealing to them as precedents for court-defying, but oh well.

I've always wondered why the Supreme Court scores so high in opinion polls when it has no exposure to democracy at all and the Congress scores so low even though it's much more democratic than the court. Why do the people frown upon the democratic institutions they have the most control over?

I would be more interested to hear what O'Connor thinks is the role of the judiciary vis a vis the Constitution. If the judiciary's proper role is somehow in jeopardy, this would be of concern to all. What is quoted here is vague and without foundation. I suspect she feels it important to "interpret" the Constitution to better fit the modern context. IMO, if the Constitution does not fit contemporary times properly, amend it. That is the founders' solution, and I have more faith in them and in their idea than the political appointees of Republicans or Democrats.

I think I should point out that the "Republicans" of Jefferson's era were of the Democratic Republicans, and not of any sort of affiliation of today's sort, given that the Republican Party was founded in Jackson, MI in the 1840s or 1850s.

Historical clarification demands that I say the Democratic Republicans were Jefferson's party and are the forebearers of the modern Democratic Party.

I'm not making a point; I just think we should keep our terms clear.