Purely Hypothetical Questions

Suppose that one became convinced that a member of the Supreme Court was a racist, or had a bias either in favor of a particular religion or against a particular religious view. Would any of these constitute grounds for impeachment and conviction?

Would your answer to this question turn on whether the views manifested in judicial opinions, or only in in-court colloquies, or only in out-of-court writing or speaking?

This entry was posted in Law: Constitutional Law, Law: The Supremes. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Purely Hypothetical Questions

  1. Mike H says:

    I wholeheartedly agree …. Sonya Sotomayor has got to go!

  2. Vic says:

    You know, as a lawyer and TEACHER of law, you should be one of the voices explaining to non-lawyers how such hearings work. How judges often take positions on a subject for the purpose of exploring the arguments for and against them. How third parties often write briefs meant to inform the Court, but which may represent the opinions of nobody actually involved in the litigation. Things like that. Things that might be useful to inform the uninformed.

    Instead, you hide behind a “hypothetical” clearly meant to accentuate and extend the nonsense.

Comments are closed.