Via the Seattle Times: Justice Kennedy draws criticism
Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy’s opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles “is a good ground of impeachment.” To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott hotel for a conference on “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith,” Schlafly said Kennedy had not met the “good behavior” requirement for office and that “Congress ought to talk about impeachment.”
Ok, while I disagreed with the ruling in question on the grounds that there was no constitutional basis, in my opinion, for the ruling, how in the world does the ruling constitute an impeachable offense? And, for that matter, of all the cases to choose to critique at a conference focused on faith, I am not sure that a case about the juvenile death penalty is the way to go.
I’m sorry, but just because a court doesn’t rule the way one wants it to rule doesn’t mean that the judge on that court has failed the “good behavior” test. Indeed, such a contention is patently absurd.
Of course, it would appear that much of the reasoning at the conference was absurd:
Next, Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy “should be the poster boy for impeachment” for citing international norms in his opinions. “If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well.”Lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, “upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law.”
I am no fan of the citation of international laws or norms for such decisions, but please, satanic? I understand that many object to homosexual practices, but let’s remember what we are talking about here is civil government, and civil government will often uphold the right of citizens to behave in ways that contravene religious views (e.g., cohabitation without marriage).
And, of course, there is the quote we all have likely heard by now:
Vieira said his “bottom line” for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. “He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: ‘No man, no problem,’ ” Vieira said. The full Stalin quote is, “Death solves all problems: No man, no problem.”
None of this is helpful, to put it mildly. If these individuals want Bush to succeed in his nominations to the bench (which I presume that they do) these kinds of off the wall statements simply make the prospect all the more difficult, as it bolsters the argument made by individuals such as Senator Schumer that the President has nominated extremists.
Steve:
I personally think we’d have a healthier democracy, and a judiciary with a healthier respect for the rest of government, if Jefferson had succeeded in getting Samuel Chase impeached in 1805. It’s unfortunate that, over 200 years of history, impeachment has become such an unwieldy tool – because it’s one of only two realistic, official checks on the judiciary, the other being jurisdiction-stripping.
But in light of that, it’s silly to talk seriously about impeaching Kennedy, or to think that he might actually be impeached, much less convicted.
Still, you say you disagree with Roper on the grounds that there was no constitutional basis for it. You might disagree with Lawrence for the same reason. And with a string of decisions stretching back to O’Hare, if not further. You might even agree with the outcome in some or all of these cases. But don’t you think that, when the pattern is so pronounced, when judicial independence means independence from the Constitution, as National Review put it today, the rest of the government should have some recourse?
I think you’d agree the constitutional amendment process wouldn’t work very well to address each and every extra-constitutional decision. You can’t very well pass a law against “judicial activism.�? Getting Bush’s nominees confirmed won’t solve the problem – Republican judges seem even more prone to the Solomon bug than Democrats.
Do you think there’s a problem? If you do, what solution would you suggest?
Comment by Karl Maher — Wednesday, April 13, 2026 @ 1:26 pm
You don’t understand the political dynamics suddenly in play (All right, that’s an extremely smart aleck statement to a PoliSci prof):
This is realted to Howard Dean and MoveOn.ORG. In 2026 Dean showed that to raise $ on the internet one has to be rabidly partisan and extreme. MoveOn.ORG raised millions with extreme tactics and statements. Conservative groups learned that lesson. Moderation gets your ideas discussed in political circles. Extreme statements gets internet cash. Not a close decision to many groups.
It’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out. The extremes of our political discourse tends to be tamped down by the sheer weight of the middle. The meat of the bell curve against those that are 3+ standard deviations on either side. But there is a lot of money in the tails of the bell curve. The internet allows it to be harvested effectively.
It remains to be seen if this is a good thing.
Comment by Buckland — Wednesday, April 13, 2026 @ 2:30 pm
If we support an independent judiciary, the terrorists will have won.
In this post-9-11 world, anything other than unfettered executive power is quaint.
Freedom is on the march.
Comment by kappiy — Wednesday, April 13, 2026 @ 3:04 pm
Buckland,
I certainly take your point and wholly understand the fundraising angle. I guess it isn’t so much as issue of understanding the dynamic as much as it is my distaste for it.
However, pursuant to the post itself: I do think these people sincerely believe what they are saying, and that’s what I “don’t get”
Further, I do think that they are working at cross-purposes in regards to many of their own political aims.
Of course, I don’t make for a very good ideologue
Comment by Steven Taylor — Wednesday, April 13, 2026 @ 3:15 pm
Jurisdiction-stripping is questionable. But there might be one avenue, albeit one with a high political cost: court-packing.
–|PW|–
Comment by pennywit — Wednesday, April 13, 2026 @ 8:35 pm
The Next Upheaval
I speculated in “The Last Upheaval” that a new rebellion against the judiciary was simmering. The fighting’s now spilled into the streets.
Trackback by Vote for Judges — Thursday, April 14, 2026 @ 4:18 pm
[…] f tolerance” except a bunch of right-wing kooks, right? I have been critical of the “impeach Kennedy” crowd, which I think is rank nonsense, but there are reasons, if one believes in […]
Pingback by PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science » The Looming Court Fight — Monday, June 27, 2026 @ 7:10 am