Latest / Plausibly Live - The Dave Bowman Show Podcast / DDH - High Crimes or High Politics?

Transcript

DDH - High Crimes or High Politics? · Plausibly Live - The Dave Bowman Show Podcast

• 0:00
  History is strange, it's alien, and it won't give us what we
• 0:04
  would like to have. Thanks for joining us here on
• 0:11
  Bill Mick live. Dave Bowman with us as he has
• 0:14
  been all morning and in our 8:00 hour of Tuesdays, he brings us
• 0:17
  Dave Does History coming up. Since every federal District
• 0:23
  Court judge in the country who gets a chance, it seems, is
• 0:26
  taking a shot at administration policy and trying to overturn
• 0:29
  it. Dave thought he would hit us up
• 0:31
  with judicial impeachment in this edition of Dave Does
• 0:35
  History. What's happening with all this,
• 0:37
  Dave? What are you seeing here?
• 0:40
  Well, it's it's an interesting topic.
• 0:44
  I asked Bill the question before the show how many justices, how
• 0:47
  many judges have been impeached in the history of the United
• 0:51
  States? And your guess, as I recall, was
• 0:54
  5. Yeah.
• 0:56
  That was I figured it would be a low number.
• 0:58
  Which on a cosmic see, it is a low number.
• 1:00
  It's a little bit higher than that.
• 1:02
  It's actually 15 justices, they're judges, sorry, that have
• 1:05
  been impeached in the history of the United States, only one of
• 1:08
  which was a Supreme Court Justice, by the way, were lower
• 1:13
  Court justices. Of those 15 that were impeached,
• 1:17
  11 were either removed from office, removed from the bench,
• 1:23
  or elected to resign rather than face impeachment.
• 1:27
  So 15 times out of how many judges have we had in the
• 1:33
  history of the United States? You know, it's interesting.
• 1:35
  That nobody. Actually knows the answer to
• 1:37
  that. Today there are 890 federal
• 1:42
  judgeships. So if you just went on that #15
• 1:46
  out of that would be just a little over 1% of the judges
• 1:51
  have been impeached. It's not an accurate number
• 1:55
  because we've obviously had 250 years worth of judges, but you
• 1:58
  get the idea. It's not very many.
• 2:01
  It's a very. Unusual occurrence, yeah.
• 2:03
  It's a highly unusual occurrence, and yet it does
• 2:06
  happen. And so, as we heard last week,
• 2:11
  there are calls for impeaching judges.
• 2:14
  Now who are, what's the word for it?
• 2:17
  Oh yeah, interfering with Trump's agenda.
• 2:21
  Now, in fairness, I have not found where Trump actually said
• 2:25
  we need to impeach them. I have found where others have
• 2:27
  said so when we hear that. 1. Congressman has filed an act of
• 2:31
  impeachment. Whether it goes anywhere or not,
• 2:33
  who knows? And it.
• 2:34
  Won't it is. Not the tool for removing a
• 2:38
  rogue. Judge if if you're going to
• 2:41
  remove them, that's the. Tool to use.
• 2:43
  If you're going to, yes. But the problem is that
• 2:47
  impeachment is a political action, not a criminal
• 2:51
  proceedings. True.
• 2:53
  So and so is appointing them by the way.
• 2:56
  Right. So while some of these judges
• 2:58
  were impeached for what might be considered criminal acts, they
• 3:02
  were not charged with those criminal acts by Congress.
• 3:05
  They can only be removed from the judgeship.
• 3:07
  They could not be convicted of that particular act.
• 3:10
  I don't. Know that there's any criminal
• 3:11
  act alleged here other than extending the power beyond that
• 3:16
  that their particular district holds and trying to run the
• 3:20
  executive branch of government when they're not part of that.
• 3:24
  Well, there is that then. Keep in mind that impeachments
• 3:27
  could be, well, literally. I don't like the color of the
• 3:32
  robe he wears, which is kind of weird.
• 3:35
  Yeah. We think about impeachments.
• 3:36
  Most of us think of Presidents Sandra Johnson, Richard Nixon,
• 3:40
  Bill Clinton and, of course, Trump.
• 3:41
  But they do apply to other offices as well, particularly
• 3:47
  judges and an entire history. One Supreme Court Justice, one
• 3:52
  an associate justice, was impeached by the Congress of the
• 3:56
  United States. What do you think?
• 3:59
  If you had to just guess, I'll tell you that it was in 18 O 4.
• 4:03
  Anybody want to take a wild guess over what it was?
• 4:05
  Over we've talked. A lot about slavery.
• 4:08
  Slavery. No.
• 4:10
  This is over Marbury versus Madison.
• 4:13
  It's a fall out of that election of 1800 between Jefferson and
• 4:16
  Adams. You know, the most contentious
• 4:18
  election in our history Where? People.
• 4:22
  Got mad at each other and eventually Marbury versus
• 4:24
  Madison. The Supreme Court decided that
• 4:26
  it was the arbiter of what was constitutional.
• 4:30
  And believe me, the justice who's going to be impeached, he
• 4:34
  loves that ruling. He thinks that's the greatest
• 4:37
  ruling in the history of the nation.
• 4:38
  Of course, that point was only 17 years old, but he thinks this
• 4:42
  is fantastic. And by the way, his nickname is
• 4:46
  Old Bacon Face, and he is a federalist to the core.
• 4:52
  And of course, the new president and the new Congress are not.
• 4:58
  And we're back in 60 seconds, Dave.
• 5:00
  Does history on Bill Mick Live Back into the idea of judicial
• 5:04
  impeachment with Dave Bowman on Bill Mick Live.
• 5:06
  What are you thinking here, Dave?
• 5:08
  So impeachment exists because we needed a form of check and
• 5:13
  balance against particularly abuses by the executive branch.
• 5:18
  The the arguments over impeachment primarily focused on
• 5:21
  the presidential position. As as Franklin said, and I'm
• 5:26
  sure Steve would like this, how do you get rid of a bad
• 5:29
  president? Well, you can assassinate them.
• 5:33
  Or. You got to have some other
• 5:34
  mechanism. Well, that other mechanism they
• 5:36
  came up with was stolen straight out of England.
• 5:39
  And that, of course, was the idea of impeachment.
• 5:43
  Now, we limited impeachment compared to the English.
• 5:47
  The English were a little more broad in their way of it.
• 5:50
  But the problem is that when they wrote these things down.
• 5:57
  They wrote. Them in the language that they
• 5:59
  understood and to this day, if you were to say to somebody,
• 6:03
  what can you be impeached for? Well, high crimes and
• 6:06
  misdemeanors. OK, So what exactly is that?
• 6:15
  And you could have arguments for hours about that.
• 6:18
  In fact, if we opened up the phones early, we'd say, OK, what
• 6:20
  is a high crime and misdemeanor? What is to you might not be to
• 6:23
  someone else. By way of example, Bill, some of
• 6:26
  these high crimes and misdemeanors that were used
• 6:28
  against justices or judges. You ready?
• 6:31
  Mental instability. Intoxication on the bench.
• 6:37
  OK. Abuse of the contempt power.
• 6:41
  Is. Considered a high crime and
• 6:43
  misdemeanor. Here's one that actually is.
• 6:45
  You're ready. Waging war against the United
• 6:47
  States government. This guy joined the Confederacy.
• 6:50
  So yeah, that one. They removed the bench.
• 6:53
  Let's see. Intoxication on the bench.
• 6:57
  Contempt of power, Improper business relationships with
• 7:01
  litigants, abuse of power. You know, it's, it's very
• 7:06
  ambiguous as to what exactly this high crimes and
• 7:09
  misdemeanors. Offering around ethical
• 7:11
  concerns, though, right? Which would seem to be a
• 7:13
  reasonable thing to consider if you think somebody's unfit to be
• 7:17
  on the bench any longer. But again, these are just the
• 7:22
  charges. Are they necessarily?
• 7:26
  True. I mean, what exactly is, you
• 7:28
  know, abuse of the contempt of power?
• 7:31
  The one we're really going to look at today is charges of
• 7:34
  arbitrary and oppressive conduct, conduct of trials.
• 7:39
  What does that mean? Is that a high crime and
• 7:41
  misdemeanor? The framers debated this
• 7:44
  intensely. Madison and Hamilton both agreed
• 7:47
  it. Both discussed it in The
• 7:50
  Federalist Papers. But in the end, the framers
• 7:54
  would settle on a really delicate balance.
• 7:56
  Impeachment is available for. Treason, Bribery.
• 7:59
  Other hive. Crimes and misdemeanors, which
• 8:01
  makes sense. The House of Representatives
• 8:03
  would have the power to accuse and to impeach, to actually pass
• 8:08
  the articles of impeachment. But it would require the Senate
• 8:12
  to act as the judge and the jury.
• 8:16
  And it would require a 2/3 majority to convict, which is
• 8:20
  it's a very high standard. And this is what it's saying
• 8:23
  about impeaching this, these articles this week, you don't
• 8:27
  have 60 votes to convict anybody.
• 8:29
  So what exactly are you doing when you get right down to it
• 8:34
  and you know that you don't. The problem is, as Hamilton
• 8:37
  talked about in Federalist Papers 65, was that impeachment
• 8:41
  proceedings could be used to agitate the passions of the
• 8:44
  entire community. And in a way, that's what we're
• 8:47
  seeing. What's happening here.
• 8:48
  We're seeing this guy calling for impeachment, this
• 8:50
  congressman filing, he has no chance of actually getting this
• 8:55
  impeachment. So what is he actually doing
• 8:58
  other than agitating? Passions.
• 9:00
  What's that? It's a show trial to agitate
• 9:03
  folks. Yeah, absolutely.
• 9:04
  So is that really? What we want to be have
• 9:07
  happening Well, Once Upon a time, as all good stories start,
• 9:13
  the this this sort of took place 17 years after the founding of
• 9:17
  the country. We had a justice by the name of
• 9:18
  Samuel Chase, his associate justice.
• 9:21
  He was a Patriot Bill. He signed the Declaration of
• 9:24
  Independence. He had been.
• 9:27
  Part of the. The process of becoming a nation
• 9:30
  and he found himself as an associate justice on the bench,
• 9:34
  particularly when the ruling Marbury versus Madison, with
• 9:37
  which he agreed was mad. He thought this this ruling was
• 9:41
  fantastic. It gave the judiciary more
• 9:44
  power. It gave them more functionality
• 9:46
  as far as he was concerned. And because he was a Federalist
• 9:53
  in an era before there was this decorum that we think justices
• 9:58
  are supposed to have, he flaunted this ruling and he
• 10:03
  flaunted the fact that he was a Federalist and opposed to the
• 10:05
  Jefferson administration. And he made a point of pointing
• 10:08
  his fingers and going, you're wrong, Jefferson.
• 10:11
  You're wrong, Jefferson administration, and I'm going to
• 10:13
  oppose you at every opportunity that I can from the bench.
• 10:19
  And of course, Jefferson didn't like that.
• 10:22
  And so Congress impeached him upon charges of, as I said,
• 10:27
  arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials.
• 10:33
  Well, if you tell a potential litigant in front of you, I'm
• 10:36
  going to do everything I can to you, you need to very least be
• 10:40
  knocked out of handling those cases.
• 10:42
  We're back with more. Stay with us.
• 10:43
  It's a take on history you won't find anywhere.
• 10:46
  Else. Dave does history on Bill Nick
• 10:49
  Live renewal by Anderson. Bringing you this hour with Dave
• 10:54
  Doug's history as we take a look at the idea of judicial
• 10:57
  impeachment, a pretty rare animal in the world of American
• 11:01
  politics. And Dave, we're talking about
• 11:03
  Samuel Chase, an associate justice of the Supreme Court who
• 11:06
  faced this thing. Let's get back into it.
• 11:08
  So in the early years of the Republic, keep in mind that
• 11:14
  judges were seen because they had this lifetime appointments.
• 11:18
  There was no direct electoral accountability.
• 11:22
  And so really for the first all more almost 100 years of our
• 11:27
  Republic, the only impeachment supplied were to judges because
• 11:33
  there was really no other way to deal with them.
• 11:35
  And so that it was actually believed for the longest time
• 11:38
  until Andrew Johnson's adventures, which perhaps we'll
• 11:42
  get into another day, that impeachment.
• 11:44
  Really only. Applied to judges, I mean, who
• 11:48
  else are you going to use it on the problem?
• 11:50
  With Samuel Chase of. Course is that.
• 11:54
  He is a federalist. He has federalist views that he
• 11:57
  is very outspoken about. He has federalist beliefs, not
• 12:02
  unlike some judges today who sit on benches and say, I have an
• 12:07
  opinion that this rule should be harsher, that these punishments
• 12:10
  should be more. Now the question you got to ask
• 12:13
  yourself, Bill, is does the judge have a First Amendment
• 12:15
  right? Can a judge have a political
• 12:18
  opinion? Absolutely.
• 12:20
  Is that a? Crime to share it.
• 12:23
  Is that a is that a crime? No.
• 12:27
  So when Chase starts doing these things, when he starts running
• 12:32
  his mouth and kind of getting into it with the Jefferson
• 12:37
  administration, sound familiar at all?
• 12:41
  And the, the reality is that the Jefferson administration is
• 12:45
  furious. But what do you do?
• 12:49
  I mean, the entire judiciary at that point, every judge on the
• 12:54
  judiciary from the Supreme Court all the way down was the
• 12:57
  federalist appointed by John Adams.
• 12:59
  He stacked the courts on his way out.
• 13:02
  So Jeffrey, then they just ruled the law unconstitutional in
• 13:07
  Marbury versus Madison Jefferson.
• 13:10
  Is that a really, I don't know, kind of a what do I do?
• 13:15
  How do I get rid of this guy? How do I stop this guy from
• 13:18
  doing these kinds of things? And of course, that's smacks.
• 13:23
  And we don't like to think of Thomas Jefferson this way, but
• 13:26
  it's smacks of politics rather than any actual crime.
• 13:33
  Is that kosher? I mean, is that the kind of
• 13:36
  thing that the president of the United States, who wrote the
• 13:38
  Declaration of Independence should be, Should be doing it?
• 13:42
  He views the court. I'm going to defend him and say
• 13:47
  yes, because you're talking about proper judicial conduct,
• 13:52
  you're not talking about criminal behaviour.
• 13:53
  Is it proper for a judge to do this?
• 13:55
  And if it's improper and he continues to do it, time to get
• 13:59
  him off. The tool we have to get him off
• 14:00
  the bench is impeachment. But you're basing that on your
• 14:05
  experience as the 20th and 21st century person.
• 14:10
  Did people feel the same way in in 18 O 5 about judges
• 14:15
  expressing political opinions? I'll.
• 14:17
  Do that they. Did not.
• 14:19
  Yet they did not. The problem Jefferson has with
• 14:23
  Marbury versus Madison is he doesn't see this as just a court
• 14:26
  ruler. He sees Marbury versus Madison
• 14:30
  as an absolute judicial coup. Those words sound familiar.
• 14:38
  Yeah, of. Course, it's Samuel Chase.
• 14:41
  Who really pushes this? Who really continues to openly
• 14:47
  criticize the administration? He attacks the repeal of the
• 14:51
  Judiciary Act of 1801. He presides over sedition trials
• 14:55
  in which he kind of acts more like prosecutor than jurist.
• 15:00
  In 1804, the Jefferson dominated House of Representatives draws
• 15:03
  up eight articles of impeachment accusing him of judicial
• 15:06
  misconduct, partisanship, bias and political trials,
• 15:11
  particularly those involving. The Alien and Sedition.
• 15:15
  Acts that sound familiar to anybody?
• 15:19
  These articles are going to go on trial in 1805, which will be
• 15:25
  overseen by the vice president. Anybody remember who that is,
• 15:29
  Aaron? Burr that was going Yeah.
• 15:33
  So Aaron Burr is on the prosecution side of this thing.
• 15:38
  And no, he's, he's right. He's.
• 15:42
  Presiding as the president of the Senate and the judge
• 15:44
  overseeing all the, of course, is the Chief Justice of the
• 15:48
  Supreme Court, who is John Marshall, the man who was the
• 15:53
  genius behind Marshall, You know, the Madison versus Marbury
• 15:58
  ruling. He's the guy that really legally
• 16:02
  noodled through all this stuff to decide that this was the
• 16:05
  case. The problem you have here, Bill,
• 16:09
  is you have a very fiery house which has just screamed about
• 16:14
  this judicial activism, this judicial interference, this
• 16:17
  judicial coup. And the house, as George
• 16:20
  Washington described it, was designed to be very heated, very
• 16:25
  hot, very rambunctious, whereas the.
• 16:30
  Senate is as. George Washington put it, It's
• 16:33
  the saucer for the cup of of tea or coffee.
• 16:37
  Now, this is an analogy that we don't really understand today.
• 16:41
  But in those days, you use the saucer to cool the coffee or the
• 16:47
  tea before you could drink it because it's too hot to drink
• 16:51
  like like at Starbucks or whatever.
• 16:54
  And so you let it cool in deliberation before you, before
• 16:59
  you consume it. And so while the House is gung
• 17:02
  ho on this, they want this guy impeached.
• 17:04
  They want this guy, you know, if they had their way, they would
• 17:07
  Steve him. But, you know, that may just not
• 17:11
  be, that may be just going too far.
• 17:15
  The Senate, however, has to consider all the elements of
• 17:18
  this. And the chief question you have
• 17:22
  here is, OK, this guy disagrees with the administration.
• 17:28
  There's no law that says he can't say that.
• 17:31
  There's no law that says how he's supposed to keep that out
• 17:36
  of his keep, you know, keep keep those words out of his mouth.
• 17:40
  And so are we putting this guy on trial because he's actually
• 17:44
  done something wrong, or are we putting this guy on trial
• 17:48
  because we politically disagree? If the Jefferson administration,
• 17:56
  which, you know, ran on the idea of getting rid of the Alien
• 17:59
  Sedition Act because he supposedly violated the First
• 18:02
  Amendment, if we really believe in what we say we ran on, how
• 18:08
  does that affect and impact this trial?
• 18:10
  Yes, the president's mad. We get it.
• 18:13
  But does the president being mad enough to say you got to get rid
• 18:16
  of that guy, justify getting rid of a justice?
• 18:23
  There's the these are the questions that are that are
• 18:26
  boiling around all this thing. And and you know.
• 18:28
  Chase isn't helping this thing because he's kind of, he's kind
• 18:32
  of rambunctious himself. As I said, he's very vocal, he's
• 18:35
  very obnoxious. He's very bacon based about the
• 18:40
  whole thing. That's a great nickname, by the
• 18:42
  way. It's got it.
• 18:44
  It conjures up some images in your head that that just, and at
• 18:49
  the end of the day, you've got to answer that question, do we
• 18:53
  really believe what we stably believe or are we just
• 18:56
  politically persecuting this guy because we disagree with him?
• 19:00
  Just because we disagree with someone?
• 19:03
  Is that a reason to get rid of them if they've committed, you
• 19:08
  know, there? Has to be no?
• 19:11
  Well, let's have a trial and see what the answer is.
• 19:14
  How's that? And we'll find out when we
• 19:17
  continue in moments right here with Dave does history on bill
• 19:20
  Mick live let's you in with calls on our next segment,
• 19:23
  321-768-1240 and follow WMMB on Instagram at WMMB Radio
• 19:31
  renewable by Henderson brings you this hour of the show.
• 19:33
  And don't forget the Florida round table this weekend.
• 19:36
  We're going to talk Florida homeowners insurance crisis and
• 19:40
  the legislative look at it from 2 state representatives, Monique
• 19:44
  Miller and Hilary Cassell and both very informed and engaged
• 19:50
  in that discussion that happened this weekend on the Florida
• 19:53
  round table. Make sure you're here for that
• 19:55
  talking the idea of judicial impeachment with Dave Bowman,
• 19:58
  and Dave does. History so we.
• 20:00
  Had Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase with impeachment underway,
• 20:04
  Dave, and how did it play out? In 18 O five, they begin the
• 20:09
  trial and again, he's charged with eight articles, including
• 20:16
  judicial misconduct, partisanship, bias in political
• 20:20
  trials, and all of this is under his enforcement of the Alien and
• 20:26
  Sedition Act. Now, this goes to this speaks to
• 20:30
  something that we don't like to talk about though, which is that
• 20:33
  if you really believe what you say you believe, if you really
• 20:36
  believe that Tesla electric cars are going to save the world, why
• 20:39
  are you attacking them? If you really believe that the
• 20:42
  Alien and Sedition Act is unconstitutional, which you ran
• 20:46
  your whole campaign on, why didn't you repeal it, which the
• 20:52
  Jefferson administration did not do?
• 20:54
  They never repealed what they ran on, saying they were going
• 20:58
  to repeal it. And now you've got this judge
• 21:01
  who's conducting trials under this with people arrested and
• 21:04
  charged under this act. And instead of repealing the act
• 21:08
  and making it no longer a crime, they go after the judge to
• 21:12
  impeach him. It's certainly smacks of
• 21:16
  politics. I mean, it really does.
• 21:18
  And when you get to the trial in the Senate, as I said, the
• 21:23
  Senate has to consider some things number.
• 21:25
  One they consider. What real high crimes and
• 21:29
  misdemeanor are there? There's no treason here.
• 21:32
  There's no bribery. So what actual crime is there
• 21:36
  here that we can remove him from the bench for?
• 21:39
  He wasn't accused of crime. That they have to to use is is
• 21:43
  there a crime? Yeah, he was accused of being
• 21:46
  partisan, rude and overzealous. OK, bad judicial behavior.
• 21:51
  But is that, is that impeachable?
• 21:55
  The second problem is that if you remove him, what are you
• 22:00
  doing with the Supreme Court and the court system in general?
• 22:03
  You're basically telling them you are.
• 22:05
  You rule the way we want you to rule or we'll pull you off of
• 22:09
  there. You'll lose your job.
• 22:13
  And that creates a very slippery slope, doesn't it?
• 22:16
  Fantastic. If you if if the judiciary is
• 22:20
  under the impression that if we don't do exactly what the
• 22:23
  president and the executive wants us to do, that creates
• 22:28
  some major problems. The verdict in the trial?
• 22:32
  Even the separation of powers and that there are checks and
• 22:34
  balances to be had. There is that, but keep in mind
• 22:38
  that this separation of powers, this this belief, mistaken
• 22:43
  though it may be, that the Supreme Court is equal and Co
• 22:46
  equal in power and glory to the other.
• 22:48
  This is relatively new. This just came out of Marbury
• 22:50
  and Madison that the Supreme Court has the final say on
• 22:53
  whether something is constitutional or not.
• 22:56
  And that's the other problem Jefferson has if he tries to
• 22:59
  challenge the the constitutionality of the.
• 23:01
  Alien and Sedition Act. They're going to rule against
• 23:03
  him because they're all federalists and they're all in
• 23:05
  favor of it, right? It's it's a mess.
• 23:07
  So instead of just repealing it like they should have done, they
• 23:11
  go this route. But it's it's starting to really
• 23:14
  smack of politics. It's basically the Jefferson
• 23:18
  administration. And again, we don't like to
• 23:19
  think of Thomas Jefferson as well, but it's the Jefferson
• 23:22
  administration saying do what we want or else we'll find a.
• 23:27
  Way to? To get back at you, which again,
• 23:34
  you read the headlines today, what do you get?
• 23:39
  Chase is ultimately acquitted and it's not even close.
• 23:43
  It doesn't. There's only one article of the
• 23:47
  of the eight articles that actually gets even half the
• 23:50
  votes, it's none of them. None of them actually passed.
• 23:54
  They Chase is completely vindicated, completely acquitted
• 24:00
  and goes back to the bench for the rest of his term.
• 24:05
  The questions that it leaves us with, though, are are many Do we
• 24:12
  really want to be removing judges and justices for
• 24:15
  political reasons if this had succeeded?
• 24:19
  If they had. Convicted Samuel Chase.
• 24:23
  The general assumption is that John Marshall would have been
• 24:27
  next. They would have gone immediately
• 24:29
  into A to a impeachment of John Marshall, in which case the
• 24:35
  court system would have been essentially eviscerated and
• 24:39
  eventually just almost an afterthought, constitutional
• 24:44
  instead of what we know today. Would that have been better?
• 24:48
  Would that have been worse? Well, those are questions we'll
• 24:52
  be debating all the way to the end of time.
• 24:55
  You pick it up, take your call to 321-768-1240 when we
• 25:00
  continue. Dave does History in one minute
• 25:02
  on WMMB. Do us a favour.
• 25:04
  Take your presets on the top of the iHeartRadio app, set them to
• 25:07
  WMNB, Bill Mclive, and we've got links for you to Dave's work.
• 25:11
  There on the show page at Bill Mccom entitled Surrounded by
• 25:14
  Idiots, you'll see links to all of Dave's stuff.
• 25:16
  You can have those top of the page there on your iHeartRadio
• 25:19
  app and keep us right there where you're ready and know
• 25:22
  where we are anytime you're ready.
• 25:24
  So Dave, this impeachment does not go the way the Jefferson
• 25:27
  White House wanted it to go. And what are we left with at
• 25:31
  this point then? Well, in a way, Jefferson wins
• 25:34
  the battle kind or loses the battle, Sorry, but he preserves
• 25:40
  the war I guess. Chase remains on the bench until
• 25:43
  he dies in 1811, but his trial kind of ensured that future
• 25:48
  justices would tread more carefully when blending politics
• 25:53
  with their judgments. At least until modern times, I
• 25:57
  guess he remains a cautionary tale.
• 26:00
  Impeachment is a very serious tool, but it's not a tool that
• 26:05
  should be used in politics. And unfortunately, I think every
• 26:11
  impeachment with the with the possible exception of Nixon, who
• 26:13
  was technically not impeached, although the articles passed the
• 26:16
  House, some of them did the House Judiciary.
• 26:21
  Most impeachments are political. Most impeachments are they're
• 26:27
  not for being drunk on the bench.
• 26:28
  They're not for taking bribes. They're not for, you know, being
• 26:32
  involved with Duis and tax evasion and that sort of thing
• 26:37
  most of you believe. What do you believe the recourse
• 26:40
  is if you have a judge who is conduct or justice or judge who
• 26:46
  is conducting himself inappropriately versus
• 26:49
  political? How about procedural?
• 26:51
  He's violating the rules of the court.
• 26:53
  He's violating judicial procedure.
• 26:55
  He is. It's overextending the authority
• 26:59
  of his office into areas where he should not be acting.
• 27:04
  The ultimate answer, Bill, is the 11th Amendment.
• 27:07
  The ultimate answer is Congress decides what the jurisdiction of
• 27:10
  the court is. And as we're going to see today
• 27:14
  with the, the court, with the Congress debating this, this act
• 27:19
  that they're, that they're talking about, which we we were
• 27:22
  talking about during the break, which is a complete word salad.
• 27:25
  But in essence, what it does is it limits what the court can do
• 27:29
  as far as injunctions go. The courts can no longer make
• 27:31
  national injunctions. They can only make an injunction
• 27:34
  that affects the actual person filing the case.
• 27:38
  The Congress has the right and the authority to limit that
• 27:42
  jurisdiction rather than going through this impeachment stuff,
• 27:46
  rather than going an impeachment, by the way, cannot
• 27:50
  pass. You do not have the votes to
• 27:52
  make it that you don't have 67 votes.
• 27:54
  It's it's not going to happen. So rather than doing all that,
• 27:59
  why not simply change the jurisdiction?
• 28:01
  Now they're going to run into problems with that too, as well
• 28:03
  with cloture and other things. But it certainly seems to me
• 28:10
  rather than feeding the fire of your persecuting judges for
• 28:13
  politics if they they disagreed with my political decision, you
• 28:19
  take the proper approach rather than simply trying to impeach
• 28:22
  someone because you don't like the ruling that they met.
• 28:28
  I can appreciate the stance. I still see impeachment as a
• 28:33
  tool, even though it would never pass it with Congress as it
• 28:37
  exists today. When you have these judges and,
• 28:42
  and they're actually Glenn Beck's going to talk about this
• 28:45
  in his program, which comes up after mine right here on WMNP
• 28:49
  about Congress looking to take act to restrict these District
• 28:53
  Court judges in issuing national or international as the case may
• 28:59
  be, injunctions that go beyond the jurisdiction of their court,
• 29:03
  that they, you know, those court districts are set up for those
• 29:07
  reasons and for those regions where they are.
• 29:09
  Well, that that's what I'm saying.
• 29:11
  That is the proper approach. The improper approach is to
• 29:15
  impeach because you don't like the rule.
• 29:18
  Congress has the authority and the ability to limit the court's
• 29:21
  jurisdiction. Take that approach now.
• 29:22
  You're going to have a political fight with that, but that fight
• 29:25
  will be in the Senate. And that's, that's the fight to
• 29:27
  be had. I I get that you're saying it,
• 29:29
  but if you have a judge that is constantly violating rules of
• 29:36
  procedure, rules of evidence, whatever it may be.
• 29:38
  Are they create? Contact from the bench, what
• 29:42
  impeachment exists for, for the judiciary if it's not that
• 29:45
  thing, right, but. You're assuming that they have
• 29:48
  done those things rather than showing me what happened.
• 29:52
  Over the last month and a. Half well, again, as I said the
• 29:55
  other day, are we absolutely certain that what these
• 29:59
  injunctions have said is wrong? How many of us have actually
• 30:04
  read them? I, I I am sure they're wrong,
• 30:07
  yes. On the basis of.
• 30:10
  My understanding of them. OK, but your understanding might
• 30:13
  not be. Wrong.
• 30:15
  Give me an idea what this is all about.
• 30:19
  I'm sorry I missed. That.
• 30:21
  From Asking Rock give me an idea what this is all about.
• 30:24
  About the trot, About the impeachment or the.
• 30:27
  No about the the the injunction. Well, the injunctions are issued
• 30:32
  nationwide, which has been again, of course, they've been
• 30:35
  doing that for a long. Time now we're.
• 30:37
  Saying that they shouldn't be done that way because they're
• 30:40
  interfering with the president's policy.
• 30:41
  It's also. Historically been done
• 30:43
  regionally, multiple courts or a Supreme Court has affirmed.
• 30:48
  Those things, but is But do we know that that can't be done?
• 30:53
  That's the. Question.
• 30:54
  And that's a. Question for the Supreme Court,
• 30:56
  which is the way we should be going?
• 31:00
  I'm not arguing that, but I'm saying there needs to be a
• 31:04
  mechanism for judicial malfeasance.
• 31:12
  Maybe. Maybe that's a good word.
• 31:14
  But those are political things, and they're not high crimes and
• 31:16
  misdemeanors. And ultimately, Bill, you don't
• 31:19
  have. The standard for removing a
• 31:21
  judge is the question does it have to be a high crime or
• 31:24
  misdemeanor? Is that what's stated there?
• 31:26
  That's what the Senate decided in 1805.
• 31:29
  That's what the Constitution says.
• 31:30
  Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.
• 31:33
  And that's for judges as well As for the other office.
• 31:38
  In that case, there is a bit of a problem.
• 31:40
  Yeah, I got you. Yep, and you don't have the
• 31:43
  votes. That would be so.
• 31:45
  What's it? What's it mean down the road
• 31:47
  here? I, I, I think it's going to be
• 31:51
  very interesting. It's going to come to the
• 31:52
  Supreme Court of the United States to decide whether that
• 31:55
  can be done or not. And the problem is you've got
• 31:58
  Amy Coma Barrett and John Roberts.
• 32:01
  So I wouldn't put your rigs in that basket, conservative.
• 32:04
  Yeah, I'm, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't do that either.
• 32:06
  That's going to do it for this edition of Bill Mclaw Renewal by
• 32:09
  Anderson brought you this hour. Dave Bowman brought you Dave.
• 32:13
  Does history link up to him on the show page today at
• 32:16
  billmick.com and tomorrow a wide open Wednesday.
• 32:20
  Where you going to take this? Wherever you like is what the
• 32:22
  day is about. And if you're not taking it
• 32:25
  somewhere, I may just sit here and be quiet for three hours to
• 32:27
  see what you guys have to say. I don't know.
• 32:29
  Dave Bowman, thank you. We'll see you next Tuesday, you
• 32:32
  know. Check out more stories from
• 32:37
  history@davedoeshistory.org.