Skip to main content

Tim Milbrodt: Impeaching a Supreme Court Justice


Tim Milbrodt
Pols 304
Blog Post 1
Impeaching a Supreme Court Justice
            In the last week more allegations of sexual assault or misconduct have surfaced against recently appointed Supreme Court Justice Bret Kavanaugh. In the wake of these new allegations, Democratic Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment (Zhou 2019). The calls from Harris and Warren for impeachment are examples of national representation because these Senators are trying to display leadership on a national scale; something which may also serve to increase the chances of each Senator becoming the next Democratic candidate for President (Adler et al 2019). While these Senators themselves cannot initiate an impeachment based on Article I of the U.S. Constitution, their calls for impeachment have spurred younger colleagues in the House of Representatives to take action.
            Recently, Representative Ayanna Pressley filed an impeachment resolution against Kavanaugh in the House of Representatives. If the House passes the resolution, it would launch an investigation against Kavanaugh by the House Judiciary Committee (Zhou 2019). After the investigation the House could then initiate impeachment proceedings by a simple majority vote. According to Article I of the United States Constitution, the Senate would then conduct an impeachment trial, with a two thirds majority vote necessary for conviction. If Kavanaugh were to be impeached and removed from the Supreme Court, it would be the first time in United States history that Congress has successfully executed the impeachment of a United States Supreme Court Justice. While Congress has removed eight federal judges from office via impeachment, the only attempted impeachment of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice failed to remove Samuel Chase from the bench when he was acquitted in 1805 (Brockell 2019). While Kavanaugh’s fate remains uncertain for now, there are several factors which will influence the outcome.
            Representatives such as Ayanna Pressley looking to initiate impeachment proceedings currently have an attentive public backing them, as sexual assault has become an issue of concern for many voters. Currently advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood and Demand Justice have called for further investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh (Zhou 2019). These attentive publics and groups will have some impact on legislators as they are the individuals most likely to organize, donate time and money, and vote in elections (Adler et al 2019). The fact that Rep. Pressley has many colleagues who are also freshman congress people could increase her chances of success. As Adler et al note “...newly elected members of Congress will often reflect the most recent trends in public opinion better than the members they replace...”(Adler et al 2019). These newly elected representatives would be more likely to be influenced by recent social movements such as #MeToo, making them more likely to vote in favor of initiating this process. While these factors might increase the chances of Kavanaugh being impeached, there are many factors which suggest Rep. Pressley’s attempt will likely end in failure.
            While Rep. Pressley may have an attentive public backing her position, she does not seem to have unified backing from her party, as Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee are currently more focused on their attempts to impeach the President (Silverstein 2019). If this challenge is overcome and the House does vote to impeach Kavanaugh, this action will face its biggest challenge in the U.S. Senate where the Republicans hold fifty-three seats and the Democrats hold forty-five seats. With the Republicans holding the majority in the Senate, getting the two-thirds majority necessary for a conviction may be an insurmountable hurdle for Democrats favoring impeachment.
Still, it is not inconceivable that Kavanaugh could be impeached as hypothetically, if a big enough minority from the Republican party were to vote in favor of conviction along with the Democratic minority, they could overcome the Republican majority in what is known as a “roll” (Hitt 2019). However, this is highly unlikely based on the fact that the current Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell has been an outspoken supporter of Bret Kavanaugh’s since his confirmation hearings last fall (Silverstein 2019). Republican Senators would be highly unlikely to jeopardize re-election, or a desired committee appointment by going against the current Senate Majority Leader.  Adler et al note that “...filling vacancies on the Supreme Court has emerged as one of the most partisan issues of the 21st Century” (Adler et al 2019). Because of this I suggest that the impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice is likely to be an extremely partisan issue as well, making the possibility of removing Bret Kavanaugh by impeachment an extremely unlikely outcome at this time.



Sources Cited
Adler, Scott E., Jenkins, Jeffery A., and Shipan, Charles R. The United States Congress, first ed.
            W.W. Norton & Co. 2019. Ebook. Kindle.
Brockell, Gillian. “Only One Supreme Court Justice Has Ever Been Impeached”. The Washington
Post. 16 September 2019.
Hitt, Mathew. “Social Choice and History”. Lecture. Colorado State University. 9 September
2019.
Silverstein, Jason. “Could Bret Kavanaugh Be Impeached?”. CBS News. 16 September 2019.
Zhou, Li. “Ayanna Pressley Just Filed an Impeachment Resolution Against Bret Kavanaugh in the
House”. Vox. 17 September 2019.




Comments

  1. This was a really well written post. It made some very good points from each side. The quote from Adler et al. about newly elected members representing the more recent trends in public opinion more than the members that they replace really stood out to me. That is not something that stood out to me initially in the reading, but especially in this case, I think that it is very true. Newly elected officials probably campaign more on current issues compared to the agenda and focus of current officials. These new people want to serve their constituents well, so they will focus on the things that are currently happening in order to win votes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great article all around. You are absolutely correct when you point out that the Senate is highly unlikely to convict Kavanaugh. The only Supreme Court justice to be impeached was Samuel Chase in 1805 but he was not convicted by the Senate. The same goes for the only two presidents that were impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither president was convicted by the Senate. Given the current Republican majority, there is no way a supermajority could be reached in order to impeach Kavanaugh. The Democrats could possibly move forward with impeachment if they win back the Senate and keep the House but they would have to win by a significant margin.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great blog post and a great topic. When most people think of Impeachment, they often think of the president. I believe you did a great job showing how a supreme court justice can be impeached. Additionally, I can honestly say that I learned something new from reading your post. Personally I am interested to see how history will view these current events and the actions that are taking place within our government. For example, I am not sure history will be too kind to those who allowed Kavanaugh to be a Justice. I personally think that his seat in the court will have long lasting effects on this country.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support. [1] The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below. [2] The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market. [3] ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for ca...

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...