I read the article and it seems that the State Legislature was merely trying to remove (or threaten) the judiciary because the judge in question ruled in a way that the Legislature didn’t like - but which was within the boundaries of the law.
So, this goes into the realm of the Legislature trying to tell judges how to rule, which - itself - violates the separation of powers.
922
heyhayyhay4 days ago
+111
I read the article to verify it was fascist republicans going after some non republican.
111
todumbtorealize4 days ago
+9
Country is fucked, I'm to stupid to explain but listen to all these other people.
9
Murgatroyd3144 days ago
+126
From a different angle, this is the judiciary deciding when the legislature is allowed to use its greatest check on the power of the judiciary, which also violates the separation of powers.
126
Roadshell4 days ago
+247
The KY constitution only allows the legislature power to impeach for "misdemeanors." Since it's ruled that "misdemeanors" means actual crimes, the legislature is not vested with the power to check the judiciary over a ruling they don't like, since making said ruling is not a crime.
247
leeharveyteabag6694 days ago
+62
Exactly. The six cases cited were rulings they didn't agree with and two instances of her yelling at prosecutors in the courtroom. That has to do with judicial conduct and that's what the JCC is for. Unless she actually broke the law the legislature shouldn't be involved.
62
Adinnieken3 days ago
+2
The legislature's check is to modify the law, if they feel justice isn't served by the law.
2
LimerickJim4 days ago
+2
So it has a distinct definition from the kind of arbitrary misdemeanor the US constitution refers to?
2
ghotier4 days ago
+2
In the federal constitution "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't mean normal crimes. It means unethical things that can only be done when someone abuses their power.
2
LimerickJim4 days ago
+7
And it is defined by anything a majority of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate decide meet that definition.
7
calm_down_meow4 days ago
+1
The legislature doesn’t charge anyone with crimes though. They make accusations and do a trial in the senate I guess but there’s nothing about the rule of about that. Is that rule really, “we can only impeach you after you’ve been found guilty in a court of law (your own branch)”?
1
Roadshell4 days ago
+18
The impeachment *is* the charging of the crime and the trial in the senate is, well, a trial. The removal from office is the sentence.
18
leeharveyteabag6694 days ago
+30
Judicial conduct( she yelled at two different prosecutors so that falls under conduct) is under the purview of The JCC and incorrect rulings are corrected by higher courts. Judicial conduct is to be judged by The JCC. The six violations brought up are not impeachable offenses. If she broke the law or committed an actual "misdemeanor", that's when the legislature gets to wield the power of impeachment.
30
Bagellord3 days ago
+2
But if they don't like rulings, shouldn't they just pass legislation to resolve it?
2
FreeUsePolyDaddy3 days ago
+1
In some cases yes, unless she established some legal framework or position that all attempts at refined legislation would also fail.
If the legislature or the state administration felt she failed to apply state or federal law appropriately, appeal to a higher court.
Impeachment should be reserved for something more like "by any rational standard of good judicial practice and behavior, independent of political slant, we have solid and substantial evidence that she's an effing train wreck".
1
Icy-Impression-34164 days ago
-2
Not was that’s the literal point of the judicial branch existing
-2
Chilinuff4 days ago
-34
The judicial branch really had no point when it was created. They ruled that they had the final say over how laws are interpreted and we’ve just sorta rolled with it
-34
Drostan_S4 days ago
+14
That's some Next Level Chud thinking dude.
14
Cloaked42m4 days ago
-12
No... that's kinda how it really went. Madison v Marbury.
The Supreme Court said we get to decide even if everyone else disagrees with us.
And everyone just rolled with it. The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its rulings. We all just grump about it and say okay.
-12
evocativename4 days ago
+10
It's almost like almost everyone understood that was part of the point of a Supreme Court from the start...
10
Cloaked42m4 days ago
-6
That case set the standard we all decided we were cool with.
At the time, we did NOT all agree that was the point. There's a ton of writing about it.
We really did just roll with it.
-6
evocativename4 days ago
+2
>At the time, we did NOT all agree that was the point.
Yeah, that's why I said **almost** everyone
2
Cloaked42m3 days ago
Which is exactly what I'm saying. It wasn't a guaranteed thing. We just sorta rolled with it.
Reductionist as all hell, but still true.
0
SecondHandWatch4 days ago
-3
Then why did a Supreme Court decision need to be made for judicial oversight to be a thing? Why was it not in the constitution if it was “the point from the start?”
-3
evocativename4 days ago
Almost everyone understood what a Supreme Court was there for, and thought it was so obvious they didn't need to explain the basic premise of courts to people.
It just wasn't formally explained until SCOTUS first heard a case related to the topic.
0
Drostan_S3 days ago
+5
Wait wait wait. You're saying that the court case which established that Congress cannot pass laws which override the constitution somehow gave the Supreme Court's it's power? No. The establishment of the Supreme Court in 1798 did, and the 1903 case of Madison V. Marbury was the first test of the powers granted to it.
Madison V. Marbury was the first test of that power because Congress attempted to pass laws that were in direct violation of the Constitution. It's the literal landmark case that cements the already established power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
What you f****** chuds are suggesting, is that the Supreme Court cannot prevent Congress from passing unconstitutional laws. This is the literal separation of powers that our government is built upon and you're arguing that two hundred year old caselaw is somehow invalid because... ? ? ?
Right, it's because you want the Executive to have total power.
5
Cloaked42m3 days ago
No one is suggesting it is invalid. It was the first test. We could have gone a different way. We didn't. We rolled with it.
And yes, as States and the Federal Government and Congress continue to prove on a daily basis... they absolutely can and will pass blatantly unconstitutional laws.
And that law is 100% lawful until someone challenges it in court and wins. Republicans are willing to pass 100 unconstitutional laws to get a single sentence worded just right to get it past the courts.
And yes, we are challenging that basic structure of the court because we have two conservative judges on that bench who are compromised.
0
Epirocker4 days ago
+14
Because that is necessary. Everyone has a different opinion but if every opinion is equally valid and arguable then it’s anarchy. There needs to be adults in the room.
14
Tough-Age-59784 days ago
+4
At the federal level thats true but its not true in all state constitutions.
4
NovelCandid4 days ago
-7
Yeah, so what? Go read Marbury v Madison. It’s an early and famous case detailing how the Separation of Powers is interpreted through the principles of judicial review. It’s a USSC case from 1803. It’s a Supreme Court case so Kentucky probably hasn’t heard of it either.
-7
bluemitersaw3 days ago
+2
That's 100% not relevant. This is about the Kentucky constitution and what it says about impeachment.
2
RussMan1043 days ago
+1
Agreed. We just had a state District Court judge removed from the bench, but it was done by the state Supreme Court itself. 🚀
1
Complete_Entry4 days ago
+324
The idiot will always claim "but why did you rule wrong" when they really mean "DON'T DO STUFF I DON'T AGREE WITH"
324
Gene_Yuss4 days ago
+14
Sounds like civics education has failed most of America.
14
ShiggitySwiggity3 days ago
+11
It *entirely* has. Go spend a few hours on X, or god forbid Truth Social, and you will be astonished by how many people have absolutely no idea how *anything* works.
11
beadzy3 days ago
yeah civics education and any subject requiring critical thinking has been cast aside in an effort to “beat china” by prioritizing rote memorization to boost reading and math scores as assessed by standardized, and often high-stakes, testing.
this is an important step to killing democracy. i recommend reading John Dewey’s democracy and education” ([pdf](https://nsee.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/KnowledgeCenter/BuildingExpEduc/BooksReports/10.%20democracy%20and%20education%20by%20dewey.pdf)), where he argues that the most important component of healthy democracy is for citizens to be educated about their role and need to participate for democracy to succeed.
He goes on to argue that it’s not just learning how to participate at local, state and federal levels, but also the history. Bc American democracy is (or should be) defined by the constant work of identifying our past mistakes and working together to make sure they don’t happen again.
goddamn i love dewey. his language can be dry, but i’m sure that’s true for many texts written 110 years ago. but his message is evergreen.
0
angryarugula4 days ago
+23
Read "KY Supreme" and immediately looked for the Sponsored Post flair.
23
So_spoke_the_wizard4 days ago
+137
Specifics of this case not withstanding, this is the failure of US checks and balances. The Courts can tell the other two branches what they can and cannot do. But when the legislative branch tries to hold the court accountable in any way, the courts say you can't because of separation of powers.
137
ZonaDesertRat4 days ago
+247
The specifics of this case ARE absolutely the point. The legislature failed to follow its OWN laws and rules. It didn't get a signed affidavit. It failed to make clear charges of a misdemeanor. It failed to bring the matter before the correct disciplinary council, which the legislature ITSELF created.
This is the correct ruling. If the judge did things wrong, then remover her THE RIGHT WAY, or you're just as bad as the judge.
247
whynotjoin4 days ago
+173
>this is the failure of US checks and balances
I know you said the specifics of this case notwithstanding, but the specifics of this case are exactly why I'd disagree. The legislature can disagree with a judge's legal interpretation all they'd like, but that's literally their job and if the role of the judge is to be a supposed impartial reader of the law, you can't have the legislature able to remove a judge purely for doing their job. Honestly you could argue it is a protection of checks and balances given that finding- because it keeps both branches equal. Otherwise the entire point of the judicial branch goes out the window, as the legislature then has final say over what is allowable under the law- which is exactly what a supposedly neutral judicial review is supposed to prevent.
The legislature has plenty of options- change laws to survive future scrutiny, appealing rulings, passing specific standards/requirements applicable to all judges, or referring a judge for investigation and sanctions for example. And they can still impeach a judge- just not for issuing legal opinions the legislature disagree with as it is within the scope of the judges duties.
173
CEdotGOV4 days ago
-4
As to the specifics of this case though, a lot of your options for the Legislature are actually unavailable here.
The Court interpreted the State's constitution to bar the impeachment here, as the Court says the Legislature was attempting to supersede the Court's own "authority to both supervise and correct, when warranted, the behavior of sitting judges."
Therefore, the Legislature cannot merely pass new laws on this matter, as Kentucky's Judicial Conduct Commission (a creation of the State constitution) is the sole body that reviews the conduct of judges (subject to review by the State Supreme Court). "Appealing rulings" is also not helpful as the State Supreme Court is the last resort regarding any interpretation of State law. Moreover, it's unclear to what extent that the Legislature could impose exacting standards on judges regulating the manner they rule on cases, as the JCC is the one to determine "good cause" for removal.
Really, to overturn this particular case which interprets constitutional provisions, the Legislature would have to amend the State constitution to add express language to permit impeachments that are not subject to review in any other place. (Of course, that would mean the Legislature would have to muster the support required for such an effort, which includes ratification by the voters of Kentucky.)
-4
whynotjoin3 days ago
+5
>a lot of your options for the Legislature are actually unavailable here.
But they are- and you actually kind of cover that but seem to not consider there are actual options while discounting them.
>Kentucky's Judicial Conduct Commission (a creation of the State constitution) is the sole body that reviews the conduct of judges (subject to review by the State Supreme Court).
Then they can follow that process or amend the state constitution, or use any other authority regarding regulating that body provided by the constitution.
> "Appealing rulings" is also not helpful as the State Supreme Court is the last resort regarding any interpretation of State law.
No you are misunderstanding me- it literally worked in this case and led to the cases they are claiming they were concerned about being overruled by a higher court. If you don't like a judge's legal opinion that is what you do- you don't impeach them.
Additionally, in many cases the legislature can pass updates to the law or new laws to circumvent the root cause of the ruling the judges did not like.
>Really, to overturn this particular case which interprets constitutional provisions, the Legislature would have to amend the State constitution to add express language to permit impeachments that are not subject to review in any other place
Meaning they do, in fact, have options and just don't like them (even ignoring the concerns with the idea of making the judicial branch completely subservient to the legislature and its whims on what it finds appropriate)
If they have evidence, they could also have investigated the judge to begin with and begun impeachment. Of course now they'll run into the vindictive prosecution issue/challenge- because they turned it into a politicized process by choice.
>(Of course, that would mean the Legislature would have to muster the support required for such an effort, which includes ratification by the voters of Kentucky.)
And if they can't do that, than it seems they, again, have work to do or should recognize that the voters agree with the judiciary that the legislature is overreaching for power.
Again, impeachment is supposed to be a step related to significant misconduct and explicitly mentions category of crime as a basis for it. If they don't like it, they can amend that line to include other specific misconduct, or amend the section regarding the JCC, pass laws related to the cases the lower level judge made certain findings for they disagree with if they were not overturned on appeal, or just actually follow existing processes. But something tells me they don't want to follow existing processes, as issuing rulings that are politically disliked- which quite clearly is the primary concern- is not a reason for discipline, let alone impeachment.
5
FriendlyDespot4 days ago
+9
> The Court interpreted the State's constitution to bar the impeachment here, as the Court says the Legislature was attempting to supersede the Court's own "authority to both supervise and correct, when warranted, the behavior of sitting judges."
The Supreme Court was correct in that finding. The Legislature does not have the authority to supersede the Court's internal disciplinary mechanisms under the law as it stands today.
>Therefore, the Legislature cannot merely pass new laws on this matter, as Kentucky's Judicial Conduct Commission (a creation of the State constitution) is the sole body that reviews the conduct of judges (subject to review by the State Supreme Court). "Appealing rulings" is also not helpful as the State Supreme Court is the last resort regarding any interpretation of State law.
>Really, to overturn this particular case which interprets constitutional provisions, the Legislature would have to amend the State constitution to add express language to permit impeachments that are not subject to review in any other place. (Of course, that would mean the Legislature would have to muster the support required for such an effort, which includes ratification by the voters of Kentucky.)
You can't both say that the Legislature can't pass new laws on the matter, and then spell out how the Legislature can pass new laws on the matter. Constitutional law is law.
>Moreover, it's unclear to what extent that the Legislature could impose exacting standards on judges regulating the manner they rule on cases, as the JCC is the one to determine "good cause" for removal.
It's not unclear at all. The Constitution of Kentucky grants the Legislature sole purview over impeachments for **misdemeanors perpetrated in office**. The Judicial Conduct Commission doesn't have any say in an impeachment process conducted in accordance with constitutional law.
9
OldTobyGreen4 days ago
+46
I disagree, if impeachment is on the table as retribution for a judge's rulings alone absent any misconduct, then the legislature is effectively usurping judicial power.
46
venom216854 days ago
+18
This is kind of specific to Kentucky state law. In the federal government, impeachment has already been ruled before to solely be a political process and not a legal one. Basically Congress can decide to impeach for whatever reasons they want and there's no ground for appeal to any court.
18
bigloser424 days ago
+13
Impeachment is only supposed to be brought to bear for actual crimes. As best I can tell they were trying to impeach this judge because they didn’t like some of her rulings, not because she had committed any illegal acts. The courts ruled correctly here that she hasn’t done anything that is illegal, and thus hasn’t done anything that someone can bring articles of impeachment against her for.
13
midLevelManagement4 days ago
+48
The counter question is - can the legislature impeach a judge for whatever cause they want? Can a Democrat-leaning legislature impeach every conservative judge, or vice versa? If I read the ruling here, it is effectively that the legislature did not have an impeachable offense beyond a dislike of specific rulings (which, were overturned by appeals, so it certainly seemed the judge was getting something wrong).
I agree that this seems suspect on a lack of true checks and balances, but I get worried about a system where whatever ruling party exists can just remove everyone they don’t agree with.
48
Ranoik4 days ago
+2
It really depends on the statute or law that authorizes impeachment, but for federal impeachment under the constitution, the legislature can impeach for whatever it wants.
2
Complete_Entry4 days ago
+2
You knew it wasn't that way before you hit "comment". But I also wonder if you read the article, because this was a party line issue, with one outstanding.
2
midLevelManagement4 days ago
+3
No, I read the article and a bit of the supreme court’s decision. And it did seem that way - with the counter-point being that those 6 decisions had been overturned on appeals, but after 18 years of service as a judge. So not sure what your counter-argument is here?
3
Complete_Entry4 days ago
-2
That's not what I disagreed with you on. You tried to say "But what if it was the opposite politics"
Which, maybe don't? Sometimes color flipping an issue doesn't mean shit. And that's what's going on here. The party line shit is irrelevant, but also isn't because the world is on fire.
Like I hate all of that so much. I wish we could go back to giving a shit instead of "what color is your tie, do you have your American flag pin? You better!"
Like seriously, the law isn't supposed to bend on party lines. At least I don't want it to.
Hell, why not, I'll ask, do you?
-2
midLevelManagement4 days ago
+3
Ah, ok? I’m very confused about where we disagree based on this comment. I’m arguing that you shouldn’t be able to remove a judge because you disagree with their decisions. Political party affiliation would be the typical reason why you would do this. I picked one party in my example; could have been the other side, but seems irrelevant to the argument.
Are we misaligned somewhere? You didn’t like that I switched party direction in my example?
3
Complete_Entry4 days ago
No I mean I do think I missed something there, on this comment I think we're in agreement. Simply sometimes you can't flip red/blue, but apparently you did not intend that. So I apologize. But yeah, I was very angry for no reason, so yes, apologies.
0
midLevelManagement4 days ago
+1
All good! We’re aligned!
1
Akraticacious4 days ago
It's a great counter question. My initial thought is that if the legislature could just as easily rewrite the law that they believe the judge did not adjudicate properly, then they should have the power to impeach.
Especially if they are being overturned by appeals.
If, however, the legislature could not rewrite the law in question, such as the constitution (I presume for KY), then the question is more open and difficult.
The overturning of this impeachment stems at least in part due to not following the constitution's proper processes of impeachment, so the senate should probably do it correctly first.
0
midLevelManagement4 days ago
+1
I agree with the point that if they can just rewrite the law then then should have the ability to impeach, but I think that rewriting the law would generally then require the judge to then violate that law, vs retroactively enforcing it? Not a lawyer, so maybe I’m off here - I just don’t love the idea of one branch’s ability to basically remove political opponents based on different opinions.
1
MoonageDayscream4 days ago
+3
The legislature is supposed to write the laws so they are clear as to the meaning. If they did not, that is on them. You can't just write a vague law, and say "you know what we mean" with a nudge and a wink. If it isn't clear in the document the judge is free to interpret as they deem fit.
3
chinaski734 days ago
+9
I have to say, given state and federal ongoings this last year, I applaud the judiciary for being the only branch of government to, for the very most part, standing by the US Constitution in their rulings. While the executive branch and legislative branches are corrupted to the f****** core, one stands for people’s rights, justice and the constitution of the United States.
9
ImCreeptastic4 days ago
+15
Are you talking about the states' judiciary systems because I don't know if you know this, but the USSC is as illegitimate as they come.
15
Mattyice2433 days ago
+2
Did you read the article? Because this has nothing to do with the US Constituion, it’s entirely about the Kentucky Constitution.
2
TheWorldHasGoneRogue3 days ago
+2
Does Vaseline also have a Supreme Court?
2
Sickle_Rick4 days ago
-10
If the legislature and judiciary are supposedly co-equal branches (whatever that means) that means the legislature can just say that the court is wrong and follow through with the senate trial.
-10
whynotjoin4 days ago
+24
No- they are co-equal with different domains.
Interpretation of the law/legal process is solely the lane of the judicial branch.
Creation of the law is the lane of the legislature.
(and to complete the trifecta- the executive branch's lane is enforcement/carrying out the law, but that isn't brought into this case)
If the legislature wants to take action specifically as a co-equal branch, it would be to follow or change the law they failed to follow during the current attempt at impeachment and try again
They can certainly try and move ahead with the trial- but the courts will say 'this was determined to be illegal and we do not recognize these proceedings. The impeachment is not recognized and the judge remains in her position'
24
LimerickJim4 days ago
-1
What in Kentucky's constitution differentiates it from the CotUS that allows this ruling. Federal impeachment is a *purely* political process and Congress has the power interpret which actions constitute high crimes and misdemeanor.
-1
Square-Key-55944 days ago
-13
The article of the Kentucky constitution that sets up the judiciary of Kentucky specifically says that the power of impeachment shall remain inviolate.
If there was *ever* a case to defy a court order, this would be it. Otherwise, you're saying that it's literally impossible to constrain judicial power.
-13
FriendlyDespot4 days ago
+7
The article of the Constitution of Kentucky that establishes the impeachment process specifically says that "*the Governor and
all civil officers shall be liable to impeachment for any
misdemeanors in office*". That's the right that's inviolable. The legislature doesn't have an inviolable right to impeach anyone for anything other than a misdemeanor in office, and the Kentucky Supreme Court found that the Constitution of Kentucky doesn't allow for impeachment for the reasons offered by the legislature.
This ruling doesn't make it impossible to constrain judicial power, it simply affirms the constitutional limits of the power of impeachment.
7
Square-Key-55944 days ago
-5
1. If the Supreme Court of Kentucky is the final arbiter of what constitutes a "misdemeanor in office" and the legitimacy of the trial procedures, then it can do whatever it wants to the legislatures power.
2. That's proven by *this very case* because the Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled "only the rarest of circumstances in which a sitting judge has committed either an actual, indictable crime or an offense in office constituting the most reprehensible moral turpitude that the Legislature is permitted to veer into the judge removal lane which is, under most circumstances, reserved solely for theJudiciary"
Really? The word misdemeanor means "an offense in office constituting the most reprehensible moral turpitude"??? The Kentucky Supreme Court is obviously rewriting the constitution to abolish the single actual check the legislature (and thus the people) have on the judiciary.
-5
FriendlyDespot4 days ago
+3
> If the Supreme Court of Kentucky is the final arbiter of what constitutes a "misdemeanor in office" and the legitimacy of the trial procedures, then it can do whatever it wants to the legislatures power.
If the legislature is the final arbiter of what constitutes a "misdemeanor in office" and the legitimacy of trial procedures then it can do whatever it wants to the judiciary. See how that works? The judiciary's check on the legislature is its primary function as arbiter of law. The legislature's check on the judiciary is the impeachment process. That process is clearly defined. If the judiciary rules on impeachment in a way that's contrary to law then that's a constitutional crisis, just as it would be if the legislature conducts impeachments that are contrary to law.
>That's proven by this very case because the Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled "only the rarest of circumstances in which a sitting judge has committed either an actual, indictable crime or an offense in office constituting the most reprehensible moral turpitude that the Legislature is permitted to veer into the judge removal lane which is, under most circumstances, reserved solely for theJudiciary"
Yes, that's how the impeachment process is enacted by the Constitution of Kentucky. It's not a free-for-all, it can only be used under specific circumstances.
>Really? The word misdemeanor means "an offense in office constituting the most reprehensible moral turpitude"??? The Kentucky Supreme Court is obviously rewriting the constitution to abolish the single actual check the legislature (and thus the people) have on the judiciary.
The Court didn't rewrite the Constitution at all. The word "misdemeanor" *does* mean reprehensible crimes of moral turpitude in the context of the Constitution of Kentucky, just as it does in the United States Constitution. "Misdemeanor" at the time that these constitutions were authored was a term of art describing serious offenses against the state itself, like corruption and treason. The modern definition describing minor crimes is not the definition in use here.
3
Square-Key-55944 days ago
-2
>If the legislature is the final arbiter of what constitutes a "misdemeanor in office" and the legitimacy of trial procedures then it can do whatever it wants to the judiciary.
Which is why there's a supermajority requirement for conviction in the Senate and regular legislative elections. Those are the two checks on the impeachment process.
>"Misdemeanor" at the time that these constitutions were authored was a term of art describing serious offenses against the state itself, like corruption and treason. The modern definition describing minor crimes is not the definition in use here.
That's incorrect. "Misdemeanor" just means any offense not rising to the level of a felony. I don't think there was a class of "infractions" or petty offenses like we have today when the Kentucky constitution was ratified in 1891.
I pulled up an archived copy of the revised statutes of Kentucky, Third Edition 1881, to check the veracity of this claim. [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hl39wi&seq=881](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hl39wi&seq=881)
Here are a few uses of the word "Misdemeanor":
1. Page 367: Stealing less than $4 of cord wood from a boat.
2. Page 486: Out-of-state corporations failing to designate an agent for service of process.
3. Page 561: Selling oils that burn at less than 130 degrees.
4. Page 614: If a clerk lets someone take a record from his office and they lose it, that's a misdemeanor
5. Page 614: Failure to return any public books is a misdemeanor. (*Failing to return a library book may be the least serious offense imaginable!*)
6. Page 688: "Itinerant persons" selling goods, clocks, perfumes, jewelry, etc. etc. without a license.
7. Page 827: "Liotering" without a job is a misdemeanor.
I could go on. You are patently wrong about your "term of art" argument.
Bottom line: Whatever the legislature says is a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor.
-2
FriendlyDespot3 days ago
+3
> Which is why there's a supermajority requirement for conviction in the Senate and regular legislative elections. Those are the two checks on the impeachment process.
I'm sorry, but that's not a check on the legislature, that's internal legislative process. Checks are carried out by other branches to act as safeguards against an entire branch being compromised.
>That's incorrect. "Misdemeanor" just means any offense not rising to the level of a felony. I don't think there was a class of "infractions" or petty offenses like we have today when the Kentucky constitution was ratified in 1891.
>I pulled up an archived copy of the revised statutes of Kentucky, Third Edition 1881, to check the veracity of this claim. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hl39wi&seq=881
>Here are a few uses of the word "Misdemeanor":
>> Page 367: Stealing less than $4 of cord wood from a boat.
Page 486: Out-of-state corporations failing to designate an agent for service of process.
Page 561: Selling oils that burn at less than 130 degrees.
Page 614: If a clerk lets someone take a record from his office and they lose it, that's a misdemeanor
Page 614: Failure to return any public books is a misdemeanor. (Failing to return a library book may be the least serious offense imaginable!)
Page 688: "Itinerant persons" selling goods, clocks, perfumes, jewelry, etc. etc. without a license.
Page 827: "Liotering" without a job is a misdemeanor.
>I could go on. You are patently wrong about your "term of art" argument.
While I applaud your investigative efforts, you should extend them to investigating whether or not misdemeanors in office is a term of art rather than just use them to try to prove a different definition of the term that we already know exists.
"Misdemeanors" in the context of abuse of office is a term carried from English parliamentary process describing abuses of office. This is not an obscure reference, it's a well-known definition that is also used in the United States Constitution.
It should also be somewhat obvious to you that the definition employed in the Constitution of Kentucky isn't the one that you're arguing for. If it was, then the state constitution would permit impeachment for petty crimes not rising to the level of felonies, but not for actual felonies committed while in office.
That wouldn't make much sense, would it?
>Bottom line: Whatever the legislature says is a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor.
Both the state Supreme Court and the consensus of constitutional scholars disagrees with you, so I think that your bottom line could use some reexamination.
3
Square-Key-55943 days ago
+2
>I'm sorry, but that's not a check on the legislature, that's internal legislative process.
A Supermajority requirement is absolutely a check. It makes legislative action way harder. Your definition of a check as coming from "another branch" is simply false. You also didn't mention the most important check here, which is regular elections.
>"Misdemeanors" in the context of abuse of office is a term carried from English parliamentary process describing abuses of office. This is not an obscure reference, it's a well-known definition that is also used in the United States Constitution.
Citation needed.
>If it was, then the state constitution would permit impeachment for petty crimes not rising to the level of felonies, but not for actual felonies committed while in office.
The state constitution permits the legislature to impeach for whatever reason it wishes, because impeachments are unreviewable by any other branch of government. But even on your own terms, the greater power to impeach for misdemeanors clearly includes the lesser power to impeach for felonies.
>Both the state Supreme Court and the consensus of constitutional scholars disagrees with you, so I think that your bottom line could use some reexamination.
1. The [U.S. Supreme Court agrees with me](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/) that legislative impeachments are absolutely unreviewable.
2. You're making up this consensus. It does not exist. In contrast, many scholars agree with me, like the Supreme Court of the United States, many law professors, and eminent jurists like Justice Story.
3. The legislature agrees with me, and last time I checked, there's not much the court can do to enforce its ruling, so I think that we'll either get a Senate trial on this or legislative impeachments of the Supreme Court.
2
FriendlyDespot3 days ago
+3
>A Supermajority requirement is absolutely a check. It makes legislative action way harder. Your definition of a check as coming from "another branch" is simply false. You also didn't mention the most important check here, which is regular elections.
You can keep claiming this, but you have to understand that the concept of checks and balances applies to the system of coequal branches of government having the ability to hold each other accountable, not internal procedure.
>Citation needed.
This is such a well-known thing that you shouldn't need a citation. You could start [here](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-2/ALDE_00000699/) if you really need it.
>The state constitution permits the legislature to impeach for whatever reason it wishes, because impeachments are unreviewable by any other branch of government.
No it doesn't, and no they aren't. The Constitution of Kentucky specifically only permits impeachments for misdemeanors in office. It explicitly defines that limit, and nowhere in the Constitution of Kentucky does it say that exceeding the statutory limits on impeachment power is unreviewable by the judiciary. You're making this whole thing up.
>But even on your own terms, the greater power to impeach for misdemeanors clearly includes the lesser power to impeach for felonies.
Only if you completely ignore what I'm telling you. Felonies aren't a "lesser" class of offenses in the context of misdemeanors in office, they're a **different** class of offenses. A misdemeanor in office is official misconduct pertaining to the office itself and public trust. A felony is a separate and unrelated concept.
>1 The U.S. Supreme Court agrees with me that legislative impeachments are absolutely unreviewable.
The United States Supreme Court has no say over the State of Kentucky's impeachment process.
>2 You're making up this consensus. It does not exist. In contrast, many scholars agree with me, like the Supreme Court of the United States, many law professors, and eminent jurists like Justice Story.
I'm not sure why you seem unable to distinguish between the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky?
>3 The legislature agrees with me, and last time I checked, there's not much the court can do to enforce its ruling, so I think that we'll either get a Senate trial on this or legislative impeachments of the Supreme Court.
The legislature isn't a judicial body, so that doesn't carry much weight. The fact that the legislature can force a constitutional crisis doesn't exactly come across as a persuasive argument for them acting within their constitutional authority.
And you conspicuously still haven't really accounted for the fact that your definition of "misdemeanor" as applied to the Constitution of Kentucky would allow the legislature to impeach any public official for criminal misdemeanors like fishing without a license or hunting out of season, but not for criminal felonies like public corruption, abuse of office, or soliciting bribes.
3
Square-Key-55943 days ago
>you have to understand that the concept of checks and balances applies to the system of coequal branches of government having the ability to hold each other accountable, not internal procedure.
Here's a quote from the Supreme Court:
I note that this is the third time that you have ignored elections as a check on the legislature. Have you heard of something called representative government? You should Google it.
>Nevertheless, Nixon argues that judicial review is necessary in order to place a check on the Legislature. Nixon fears that if the Senate is given unreviewable authority to interpret the Impeachment Trial Clause, there is a grave risk that the Senate will usurp judicial power. The Framers anticipated this objection and created two constitutional safeguards to keep the Senate in check. The first safeguard is that the whole of the impeachment power is divided between the two legislative bodies, with the House given the right to accuse and the Senate given the right to judge. Id., No. 66, at 446. This split of authority “avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches.” **The second safeguard is the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement. Hamilton explained that “\[a\]s the concurrence of two-thirds of the senate will be requisite to a condemnation, the security to innocence, from this additional circumstance, will be as complete as itself can desire.” Ibid.**
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
>This is such a well-known thing that you shouldn't need a citation. You could start [here](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-2/ALDE_00000699/) if you really need it.
A few great quotes from this article of the U.S. Constitution annotated:
>Evidence of precisely what conduct the Framers and ratifiers of the Constitution considered to constitute high crimes and misdemeanors is relatively sparse.
and
>At the Virginia ratifying convention, a number of individuals claimed that impeachable offenses were not limited to indictable crimes.
and
>He claimed that impeachment was reserved to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments. He argued that, in the eyes of the Framers, impeachments did not come within the sphere of ordinary jurisprudence. They are founded on different principles; are governed by different maxims; and are directed to different objects.
and
>Such offenses were *Political*, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
I am astonished that you're citing a source that describes the definition of an impeachable offense as POLITICAL (in all caps!) and not comprehending that this has some implications for the application of the political question doctrine.
>No it doesn't, and no it isn't. The Constitution of Kentucky specifically only permits impeachments for misdemeanors in office. It explicitly defines that limit, and nowhere in the Constitution of Kentucky does it say that exceeding the statutory limits on impeachment power is unreviewable by the judiciary. You're making this whole thing up.
The article of the constitution that sets up the Supreme Court literally says that the impachment power shall remain inviolate despite the creation of the Kentucky Supreme Court. That's a bar to judicial review far more explicit than anything in the U.S. Constitution.
>Only if you completely ignore what I'm telling you. Felonies aren't a "lesser" class of offenses in the context of misdemeanors in office, they're a **different** class of offenses. A misdemeanor in office is official misconduct pertaining to the office itself and public trust. A felony is a separate and unrelated concept
The only source you cited for this is a Constitution Annotated excerpt that says what constitutes an impeachable offense is a political question. As the source I cited above demonstrates, a msdemeanor can be virtually anything. Insofar as there is a bespoe class of "misdemeanors in offie" that have no relation to atual misdemeanors or felonies, then that class is completely subject to the legislature.
>The United States Supreme Court has no say over the State of Kentucky's impeachment process.
The Kentucky Supreme Court, which was chartered on the condition that the legislature's power of impeachment remain inviolate, also has no say over the state legislature's impeachment process.
>The legislature isn't a judicial body, so that doesn't carry much weight. The fact that the legislature can force a constitutional crisis doesn't exactly come across as a persuasive argument for them acting within their constitutional authority.
The Kentucky Supreme Court just forced a constitutional crisis by ignoring the express limitations on its authority and declaring that its the Supreme branch of government. Impeachment has always been the exclusive province of legislatures. There's a reason why even the Kentucky Supreme Court tried to ground its analysis by looking at what past legislatures had impeached for.
>
And you conspicuously still haven't really accounted for the fact that your definition of "misdemeanor" as applied to the Constitution of Kentucky would allow the legislature to impeach any public official for criminal misdemeanors like fishing without a license or hunting out of season, but not for criminal felonies like public corruption, abuse of office, and soliciting bribes.
I did actually answer this, twice.
1. The Kentuclky Legislature can define misdemeanor however it wishes, which includes everything you describe.
2. The greater power to impeach for misdemeanors includes the lesser power to impeach for felonies (which are the greater crime).
0
jweaver03124 days ago
-11
Doubt that order to be legal, they’re interfering in another branch
-11
FriendlyDespot4 days ago
+2
How do you think that checks and balances work?
2
jweaver03124 days ago
-2
The process of impeachment is one of only the legislative branch as outlined by the constitution. Whether you like it or not, another branch cannot interfere in that process, even precedent goes that way to not intervene.
-2
FriendlyDespot4 days ago
+2
You should read the Constitution of Kentucky. It explicitly lists the circumstances under which the legislature may conduct impeachment proceedings, and it explicitly proscribes that the Judicial Conduct Commission is the sole arbiter of any other disciplinary matter within the judiciary.
There are plenty of powers that the Constitution of Kentucky vests solely in the legislature. The Constitution of Kentucky also vests oversight of those powers to the judiciary. That's a fundamental aspect of the checks between the legislative and judicial branches. If that check wasn't there then the legislative branch could simply claim that anything is permissible under any authority and do whatever it wants.
77 Comments