Should New SCOTUS Appointees Be Impeached For Committing Perjury During Confirmation Hearings?

That's the argument. Now we'll meet those contestants:

1)  Neil Gorsuch.  

Research and documentation is available on Justice Gorsuch and basically what it boils down to is that in his opinion, during his confirmation hearings in the Senate, he agreed that Roe v. Wade was settled law and precedent as far as the Supreme Court was concerned.

The Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch being sworn in for Confirmation Hearing testimony.

2) Brett Kavanaugh.  

Senator Diane Feinstein, during his Confirmation Hearings,  asked Kavanaugh what he meant by “settled law” and whether he believed Roe v. Wade to be correct law. Kavanaugh said he believed it was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and should be “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis,” the notion that precedents should not be overturned without strong reason.

Kavanaugh did not answer Feinstein directly, instead pivoting to how he understood “how passionate and how deeply people feel about this issue.” He went on at length to talk about how Planned Parenthood v. Casey had reaffirmed Roe, making it “a precedent on precedent.” (Precedent ON precedent) That's important because he's saying it's settled, over and done with... twice.

The Honorable Brett Kavanaugh being sworn in for Confirmation Hearing testimony.

3) Amy Coney Barrett.  

During the second day of her confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett drew criticism for her use of the phrase "sexual preference" while facing questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In response to a question from Senator Dianne Feinstein, about whether the Constitution affords gay people the right to marry, Barrett, who dodged the question, said she has "never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference."

Several hours later, Senator Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, chastised Barrett for using the term, calling it "offensive and outdated."

"It's used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice.  It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity," Hirono said. "That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority's opinion in Obergefell."

The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett being sworn in for Confirmation Hearing testimony.

Pretty astonishing that in 2020, a 47 year old, White female in a position as a Circuit Court judge would use a term like "sexual preference" to refer to LGBTQ individuals, apparently naive or just stupid about such important things in the 21st century. (See separate blog post about Justice Barrett)

(Link: https://tomb2010.blogspot.com/2020/11/newly-confirmed-supreme-court-justice.html)

To be clear, NO, Justice Barrett's comments regarding LGBTQ individuals is not about abortion rights, however, IF SCOTUS is so flippant and trigger-ready to dismiss 50 years, one half century of legal, established precedent, imagine what else they'd be willing and eager to do.

So now, having all three committed perjury during their Confirmation Hearings, should they be impeached?  And can they be impeached?  

The short answers are "Yes", and "Maybe". 

The U.S. House of Representatives has the authority to impeach a federal judge by a simple majority vote under Article I of the Constitution. However, a justice cannot be removed from office without a trial in the Senate and only if two-thirds of senators vote to convict, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

So, like a regular impeachment trial, similar to those that the orange-obese-man-child-pretending-to-be-a-leader, the impeachment process would begin in the House and end in the Senate.

 

We can only hope this moves forward, since SCOTUS is taking us so far back in time.