3 ms·

>Surely in the previous 200 years, some Justice has done something of similar unbecoming-ness. If something is surely true, then you can surely point to an exa

by Kranar 4y ago

>Surely in the previous 200 years, some Justice has done something of similar unbecoming-ness. If something is surely true, then you can surely point to an example of it.

ziddoap 4y ago
Hah. I am nowhere near invested enough in this conversation to sift through 200+ years of uninteresting history because of a snarky request. If it makes you happy, I can edit the word "surely" to "moderately probable"?
- Kranar 4y ago
  If you need to sift through 200 years of history to find an example of something you are certain is true, then you should reconsider the standard by which you distinguish truths from pure speculation. You are welcome to speculate that one of the 115 Supreme Court Justices engaged in behavior that would compromise the trust of the institution they serve, but you should not be so certain of it without being able to present some kind of evidence. Furthermore your use of the term "successfully impeached" suggests that you don't understand the meaning of the term, which is fine since it's actually a commonly misunderstood legal term that most people confuse with conviction, but it's a further indication that your speculation on this matter is poorly informed. There is no such thing as a successful impeachment anymore than there is a successful trial, they are both processes rather than outcomes.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    "Successful trial" is a normal phrase and you're trying too hard to be dismissive.
    - Kranar 4y ago
      Yes it's a common term when discussing clinical/medical trials, for example when testing a new drug, but it's not a common term used to describe a legal trial and a simple Google search confirms this, feel free to conduct the search yourself. A party can be successful at trial, but note here that in any given trial at least one of the two parties will be successful so it makes no sense to use "successful trial" to describe the trial itself, it only makes sense to describe one of the two parties as being successful, which is not how OP used that term. The closest thing OP could mean by "successful impeachment" is that the judge would be convicted. I am dismissive of OP's use of this word because it's a common misunderstanding of what an impeachment is. An impeachment is not a conviction and I am not claiming that a conviction would be the outcome of an impeachment. That misunderstanding is materially important to the point being made as well as an indication that OP is likely misinformed on this subject (especially when combined with the fact that he has stated he has no evidence to support to his assertion and has no desire to seek any evidence). I don't think it's unreasonable to call someone out on a statement they are sure of when they have no evidence for that assertion and make mistakes of this kind.
- pmyteh 4y ago
  Potter Stewart leaked large amounts of inside knowledge to Bob Woodward for the book 'The Brethren' (which is excellent BTW) though it didn't come out until his death. Abe Fortas eventually resigned under a cloud of partisanship and questionable financial decisions, but was not impeached. I'm sure there are others. The honest truth is, though, that impeachment simply isn't going to happen. If a conservative leaked, essentially no Republican will vote to convict, and if a liberal essentially no Democrat. Impeachment is fundamentally a political process, the issue is partisan, and neither side has a sufficient supermajority. The facts are irrelevant, even if you think a leak is impeachable (which I don't, FWIW).

by Kranar 4y ago

>Surely in the previous 200 years, some Justice has done something of similar unbecoming-ness. If something is surely true, then you can surely point to an example of it.

ziddoap 4y ago

Hah. I am nowhere near invested enough in this conversation to sift through 200+ years of uninteresting history because of a snarky request. If it makes you happy, I can edit the word "surely" to "moderately probable"?

Kranar 4y ago
If you need to sift through 200 years of history to find an example of something you are certain is true, then you should reconsider the standard by which you distinguish truths from pure speculation. You are welcome to speculate that one of the 115 Supreme Court Justices engaged in behavior that would compromise the trust of the institution they serve, but you should not be so certain of it without being able to present some kind of evidence. Furthermore your use of the term "successfully impeached" suggests that you don't understand the meaning of the term, which is fine since it's actually a commonly misunderstood legal term that most people confuse with conviction, but it's a further indication that your speculation on this matter is poorly informed. There is no such thing as a successful impeachment anymore than there is a successful trial, they are both processes rather than outcomes.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  "Successful trial" is a normal phrase and you're trying too hard to be dismissive.
  - Kranar 4y ago
    Yes it's a common term when discussing clinical/medical trials, for example when testing a new drug, but it's not a common term used to describe a legal trial and a simple Google search confirms this, feel free to conduct the search yourself. A party can be successful at trial, but note here that in any given trial at least one of the two parties will be successful so it makes no sense to use "successful trial" to describe the trial itself, it only makes sense to describe one of the two parties as being successful, which is not how OP used that term. The closest thing OP could mean by "successful impeachment" is that the judge would be convicted. I am dismissive of OP's use of this word because it's a common misunderstanding of what an impeachment is. An impeachment is not a conviction and I am not claiming that a conviction would be the outcome of an impeachment. That misunderstanding is materially important to the point being made as well as an indication that OP is likely misinformed on this subject (especially when combined with the fact that he has stated he has no evidence to support to his assertion and has no desire to seek any evidence). I don't think it's unreasonable to call someone out on a statement they are sure of when they have no evidence for that assertion and make mistakes of this kind.
pmyteh 4y ago
Potter Stewart leaked large amounts of inside knowledge to Bob Woodward for the book 'The Brethren' (which is excellent BTW) though it didn't come out until his death. Abe Fortas eventually resigned under a cloud of partisanship and questionable financial decisions, but was not impeached. I'm sure there are others. The honest truth is, though, that impeachment simply isn't going to happen. If a conservative leaked, essentially no Republican will vote to convict, and if a liberal essentially no Democrat. Impeachment is fundamentally a political process, the issue is partisan, and neither side has a sufficient supermajority. The facts are irrelevant, even if you think a leak is impeachable (which I don't, FWIW).