Archive for the 'Impeachment' Category
A broadened lawsuit that could lead to Ohio recognizing all same-sex marriages from other states will be allowed to continue.
According to the Daily Journal, “Judge Timothy Black rejected a request from state attorneys asking to have a funeral director removed from the lawsuit, a move that essentially would have squelched it.”
A ruling by Judge Black in the original case (see Gavel Grab) led to those who disagreed with his ruling to call for his impeachment.
That lawsuit would have applied only to two gay Cincinnati couples who married over the summer in other states, according to the Daily Journal.
Attorneys asked the judge for a broader ruling to require Ohio’s health department director to order all funeral directors and coroners to list gay clients as married if they were legally wed in other states.
In refusing to dismiss the case, the judge said that one reason the funeral director plaintiff could remain on the case is because of the possibility of that he could face prosecution.
A decision by the judge is expected in December.
A federal judge in Ohio, the target of a state legislator’s impeachment call over a controversial marriage decision, is getting support from defenders who describe him as an impartial and thoughtful jurist.
U.S. District Judge Timothy S. Black (photo) “is not a person that shoots from the hip,” lawyer Kelly Johnson of Cincinnati, who has appeared before the judge, told the Associated Press. “He works very hard and he is thoughtful in his decisions.”
“With respect to his decision, I believe he’s probably looked at it thoroughly and dispassionately,” said Jean Geoppinger McCoy, president of the Cincinnati Bar Association, who worked with Black in private practice. “He’s not one who, in my experience, will take up causes without a fundamental basis for his opinion.”
Republican state Rep. John Becker recently urged the start of impeachment proceedings against Judge Black for alleged “malfeasance and abuse of power.” While Ohio’s constitution bans marriage of same-sex couples, Judge Black recently recognized the marriage of a same-sex Ohio couple that wed out-of-state, and Becker was unhappy with the decision (see Gavel Grab). Read more
“Impeaching judges for making unpopular decisions would subject the nation’s judiciary to a political circus,” a Toledo (Ohio) Blade editorial said, echoing concerns raised by Justice at Stake about an impeachment threat against a federal judge.
The editorial criticized state Rep. John Becker’s (photo) recent call on Congress to start impeachment proceedings against U.S. District Judge Timothy Black over a controversial decision that involved marriage for a same-sex couple.
Last week, JAS Executive Director Bert Brandenburg said in a statement (see Gavel Grab), “If you got to a situation where every time a decision might be unpopular to somebody, and you threatened to impeach them, you would create a political circus around the judiciary.”
The Ohio editorial quoted Brandenburg to provide historical context for the impeachment call. To date, “no state or federal judge has been impeached for an opinion issued from the bench,” he wrote in a 2011 op-ed.
The editorial concluded, “The prudent, traditional, conservative way to deal with this case is to let it work its way through the courts. Gay couples should be accorded the equality they deserve. And Representative Becker should find better ways to spend his publicly subsidized time.”
Becker made the call after Judge Black recognized the marriage of a same-sex couple from Ohio that was wed legally out of state.
In the wake of an Ohio legislator’s call for impeachment of a federal judge, Justice at Stake criticized such threats on Friday as “way out of the American mainstream” and urged citizens to be vigilant about attacks on impartial courts.
“Impeaching a judge over an individual decision is way out of the American mainstream. The Constitution did not provide for it, and in fact, the framers of the Constitution who were in Congress shortly after the Constitution was passed, debated and rejected this very idea,” said Bert Brandenburg, JAS executive director, in a statement. He continued:
“If you got to a situation where every time a decision might be unpopular to somebody, and you threatened to impeach them, you would create a political circus around the judiciary. You would have the courts in permanent turmoil, with judges constantly looking over their shoulder at whoever was the loudest that day.”
“Vigilance is needed. Every American needs to worry about the growing tide of pressure around our courts. These attacks often go under the radar, and when Americans find out about them, they typically reject them. But if Americans don’t stand up, then their political leaders won’t stand up for them.”
To see video of Brandenburg discussing impeachment of judges, click here or on the above image. Ohio state Rep. John Becker sounded the impeachment call when he disagreed with a decision by Federal District Judge Timothy S. Black recognizing the marriage of a same-sex couple from Ohio that was wed legally out of state. You can learn more background from this Gavel Grab post or click here to learn about a critical Ohio newspaper editorial.
An Ohio state lawmaker’s call to begin impeachment proceedings of a federal judge over a ruling in a marriage case (see Gavel Grab) has triggered critical editorial opinion.
Republican state Rep. John Becker recently urged the start of impeachment proceedings against U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S. Black (photo) for alleged “malfeasance and abuse of power.” While Ohio’s constitution bans marriage of same-sex couples, Judge Black recently recognized the marriage of a same-sex Ohio couple that wed out-of-state, and Becker was unhappy with the decision.
A Cincinnati Enquirer editorial said that at a time when “something as basic as the right to marry means different things in different states,” Judge Black “is doing exactly what we ask judges to do” by interpreting conflicting laws and providing a ruling. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June on marriages for same-sex couples has “created a confusing landscape,” it said.
The editorial scolded Becker:
“It’s a period in our history that calls for patience, as citizens, legislatures and the courts work through the conflicts. It also requires judges and lawmakers to have a basic grasp of how our laws work.
“Unfortunately Ohio Rep. John Becker displayed neither patience nor a grasp of the law when he asked last week for the impeachment of U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black.” Read more
Ohio’s constitution bans marriage of same-sex couples, but a federal judge recently recognized the marriage of a same-sex Ohio couple who wed out-of-state. Now Republican state Rep. John Becker (photo) has urged the start of impeachment proceedings against the judge for “malfeasance and abuse of power.”
Becker urged U.S. Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, to launch impeachment proceedings against Federal District Judge Timothy S. Black, according to a Cincinnati.com article. Here is Wenstrup’s reply:
“While Judge Black’s ruling violated the Ohio Constitution and the will of Ohio voters, the question of whether this decision also violated the U.S. Constitution remains before a higher court. I will watch those appellate proceedings closely to see if Judge Black’s decision is upheld and I have full confidence in the Ohio’s office of the Attorney General during the appeals process.”
When Judge Black recognized earlier this year the marriage of James Obergefell and John Arthur, who were wed in Maryland, he wrote, “This is not a complicated case.” He went on, according to the Washington Post, ”The issue is whether the State of Ohio can discriminate against same sex marriages lawfully solemnized out of state, when Ohio law has historically and unambiguously provided that the validity of a marriage is determined by whether it complies with the law of the jurisdiction where it was celebrated.” Read more
An activist belonging to the birther movement has trained his sights on Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., suggesting the judge would be subject to impeachment if he swears in President Barack Obama for a second term.
A Huffington Post article reported that Craige McMillan, a commentator for WND.com, wrote last week by way of addressing the chief justice, “If you now administer the oath of office for the presidency to a man who by his own admission fails to meet the natural born citizen requirement imposed by that Constitution, you have violated your own oath of office and are rightly subject to impeachment by any House of Representatives, at any time, now or in the future.”
At a blog of the Rockford (Illinois) Register Star, Pat Cunningham remarked about McMillan’s assertion, “Just when you thought these people had crawled back beneath their rock, they come up with something like THIS.”
Once again, we are asked to consider impeaching a judge with whom a critic disagrees. It’s a bad idea, it has dangerous consequences for our justice system, and it ignores the Constitution’s requirement that impeachment be reserved for serious misconduct.
David R. Dow of the University of Houston Law Center calls in a Daily Beast commentary for impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he finds guilty of conduct “boorish and intemperate;” of views “anachronistic and absurd;” and of moral authority that is “zilch.”
At Princeton this week, Justice Scalia explained to a student questioner why he why equates laws against sodomy, with laws against bestiality and murder (see Gavel Grab). In Dow’s view, Justice Scalia “said homosexuality is immoral in the same way that murder is immoral.” Dow concludes, “[I]t is high time for Congress to do the right thing, protect the legacy and the future of the Supreme Court, and immediately impeach Justice Scalia.”
Does Dow forget the demanding standards set by the Constitution for impeachment? It states that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Disagreement with a Supreme Court justice’s views, no matter how fervently, doesn’t qualify.
Once again, state legislators in New Hampshire have raised the specter of impeaching judges. A grievance committee voted 8-2 this week to investigate impeachment proceedings against three judges after a state Senate candidate complained about their handling of a custody dispute with his former wife, the Concord Monitor reported.
Bill Raftery of the National Center for State Courts, a JAS partner group, spotlighted the impeachment bid in the Gavel to Gavel blog that he writes. His post was headlined, “NH House committee advances plans to impeach judges for their decisions in domestic relations cases; 4th time in 5 years NH judges threatened with removal from office over custody or divorce case decisions.”
The latest action was taken by the House Redress of Grievances Committee, after receiving a petition from Republican candidate Joshua Youssef. The Concord Monitor article was entitled, “Senate candidate refights custody case in House.”
Last year in New Hampshire, a controversy over whether to impeach a family-law judicial officer was parlayed by legislators into a blank check to investigate all state trial judges.
“Almost every American, liberal and conservative, has been angered by particular legal rulings, but that’s because we ask courts to settle tough legal disputes. It is reckless to threaten judges with ouster simply because we don’t like a particular decision,” JAS Executive Director Bert Brandenburg cautioned in 2010, in a statement quoted by The Washington Post (see Gavel Grab).
Threats to impeach judges are alive and well in Iowa.
A proposed new Iowa GOP platform states a “demand” that state legislators act to impeach Iowa judges who have ruled to permit same-sex marriages and also that U.S. lawmakers impeach “activist” judges on the federal bench. It calls for appointment of judges who “respect the sanctity of life” and confirmation of only “strict constructionist” judges.
The document highlighted divisions within the state GOP. Last year, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican, said impeaching four state Supreme Court justices would not be an “appropriate” fix to correct the court’s controversial ruling that permitted same-sex marriages. Key Iowa House GOP leaders did not support the impeachment effort. Neither did U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, approve. In a poll, Iowa Republicans were divided over the impeachment proposal.
This week, Branstad downplayed the proposed platform in remarks to the the Des Moines Register, which posted the document online. ”At the end of the day, the platform is a grassroots document as developed by the delegates,” he said. “But what’s more important, in my mind, is the candidates that really articulate their stand on the issues. That’s really the important thing and that’s what goes to the voters.”
“Most people don’t read the party platforms,” he added, “and you can take either party platform and you find that parties tend to be controlled by the more ardent left or right and that doesn’t really reflect where the candidates are going to come down.”
In 2010, voters swept three state Supreme Court justices off the bench in retention (up-or-down) elections. The three were part of a unanimous court opinion that allowed same-sex marriage in Iowa, and their ouster followed a campaign funded heavily by out-of-state groups. Subsequent efforts in the legislature to impeach the remaining justices faltered.