Movement to Impeach Supreme Court Justices On Hold, Sponsors Still Hopeful

State Rep. Cris Dush (R-Jefferson) is hopeful his bill to impeach four Democratic Supreme Court Justices will move forward in the coming weeks.

“I haven’t had anybody that has said we don’t have the constitutional standing for this, or they can actually point me to where the judiciary had the ability to do what it did,” Dush told the Associated Press.

According to the Associated Press Dush is hoping to address the Republican caucus in closed door session during the week of April 30th.  

Dush introduced the impeachment proceedings following the state Supreme Court’s decision to throw out to old Congressional maps, and after the legislature and Governor Tom Wolf could not agree on a new map the court redrew the state’s maps.  The impeachment resolutions have 12 cosponsors.

State House Speaker Mike Turzai’s spokesman Neal Lesher said Turzai has “reservations with the broad nature of the resolutions.”  

State House Democratic spokesman Bill Patton said his caucus has “zero support” for impeachment.

19 Responses

  1. Retired prison guard Dush says, along with several high school civics class “scholars” who have commented here, that no one can tell them that the Supreme Court had the authority to do what they did. Well, that’s crap. How about Antonin Scalia? Many precedents demonstrate that courts do have the authority to draw a redistricting map. Growe v. Emison, 507 US 25 (1993); Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438(1964); Scranton v. Drew, 379 US 40 (1964). Scalia was the author of the Growe opinion. Do you civics scholars know more about the Constitution than conservative icon Scalia?

  2. The single biggest gift Mike Turzai could give Tom Wolf and Bob Casey is to move forward on an impeachment of not one, not two, not three but, YES!, four Democratic Supreme Court Justices. This would drive numbers up so high in the Fall in the Dem areas that the top tier races would be absolute disasters for R’s. Because the fact is that the Turzai/Republican maneuver would be seen rightly as a nullification of Supreme Court Justices that certain conservative Republicans don’t like. Things don’t always go your way in life, politics and sports. You win some and you lose some. So, after a pretty outrageous redistricting process you lost in the Pa. Supreme Court 8 years after the unfair redistricting took place. Move on.

      1. One of the Democrats did not side with the four that voted on the new redistricting maps, but one Republican sided with the four Democrats. So are you suggesting impeaching the sole Democrat who sided with the Republicans and keeping the Republican who sided with the majority of Democrats? That sounds extremely partisan to me.

  3. Nothing will happen on impeachment in an election year, possibly never. But there’s a quiet rumor afoot about criminal referrals for some of the actors in the Democratic administration’s/court’s unconstitutional scheme. Something about “collusion,” I believe.

    Where are the all the dogged investigative reporters when you need them?

    1. It’s a riot watching know-nothings presume to constitutional scholarship. Many precedents, including one notably authored by conservative icon Antonin Scalia, demonstrate that courts do have the authority to draw a redistricting map. Growe v. Emison, 507 US 25 (1993); Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438(1964); Scranton v. Drew, 379 US 40 (1964).

  4. The two are not mutually exclusive. Yes, the state Supreme Court had the power, under judicial review, to find the congressional districts drawn by the state legislature unconstitutional, although their seeming inability to actually present a timely majority opinion underpinning that finding certainly raises some questions. That said, the court does not necessarily have the constitutional authority to then take it upon itself to draw new districts. Did the state Republican legislative leadership flub this by delaying and then presenting a map without taking a vote by the whole legislative body, yes. Although, it probably didn’t matter if they crossed every t and dotted every eye, the governor was never going to sign off on anything presented by a Republican controlled General Assembly. Making sure that the Democratic controlled state Supreme Court drew the map was the only way to ensure that it maximized the possibilities for Democratic candidates in a year that already greatly favored them. The executive and judiciary branches each understood their respective roles in what was essentially a Kabuki dance. To the original point, however, after having thrown out the old districts, the proper outcome was to allow the General Assembly and the Governor more time to work out a new map. In any event, one thing that no one can reasonably dispute is that the whole process has indeed thrown a monkey wrench into congressional elections this year.

      1. Learn something about constitutional law before you presume to speak about it. Many precedents, including one notably authored by conservative icon Antonin Scalia, demonstrate that courts do have the authority to draw a redistricting map. Growe v. Emison, 507 US 25 (1993); Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438(1964); Scranton v. Drew, 379 US 40 (1964).

    1. Wrong, Plubius. Many precedents, including one notably authored by conservative icon Antonin Scalia, demonstrate that courts do have the authority to draw a redistricting map. Growe v. Emison, 507 US 25 (1993); Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438(1964); Scranton v. Drew, 379 US 40 (1964).
      As to the timing of the order, the Court could not rule on the map until the issue was properly brought before it by a case or controversy. When it came up, the Court did everything it could to move it along. If you had followed the progress of the case, you’d know that the Republicans did everything they could to stall. And to hide.
      You would also know that the Republican legislators were abetted in their efforts to hide by a ruling by Republican Commonwealth Court judge Brobson, who extended the legislative privilege beyond any precedent extant in any US court. His ruling conveniently prevented the plaintiffs from obtaining discovery of the intent of the legislators when they drew the map. But now those same legislators attack the motives of the justices? That’s rich!

  5. Frame it however you wish, the actions of these justices, together with Tom Wolf are a plain and true overstep of their constitutional bounds. The ability to redraw the map is held strictly by the legislature. If you took a 2nd grade social studies class you know that doesn’t include these Justices or Little Tommy Wolf. The correct constitutional move would have been to have a stay for 2018, with major changes coming to the districts for 2019 and 2020 (as every other state ruled). By rushing these actions, they’ve caused a voting crisis in the state where 85% of the voters have no idea what district they belong in. It’s simple. This is a power grab and in some spots, a Democratic Gerrymander.

    While the old map needed to be fixed for sure, the democrats and they’re Obama MegaDonor Map Specialist from Stanford have turned the 2018 cycle into a mess and have tilted the table in their favor. IF, the Republicans hold strong and keep the house, this is a major, major embarrassment for Democrats in the state of PA. To basically cheat and still lose would be nothing short of pathetic.

        1. The truth is not bias but the refusal to accept both long standing Court decisions as well as new decisions is simply denial of the truth. Enough said.

      1. For far too many, the constitutions, much like the Bible, say whatever they imagine they say. Trifles like 230 years of case law are of no concern to these modern-day spiritualists who can channel and speak for the Founding Fathers.

    1. What mail order law school did you graduate from? You know nothing about “correct constitutional moves.” Many precedents, including one notably authored by conservative icon Antonin Scalia, demonstrate that courts do have the authority to draw a redistricting map. Growe v. Emison, 507 US 25 (1993); Butcher v. Bloom, 415 Pa. 438(1964); Scranton v. Drew, 379 US 40 (1964).
      As to the timing of the order, the Court could not rule on the map until the issue was properly brought before it by a case or controversy. When it came up, the Court did everything it could to move it along. If you had followed the progress of the case, you’d know that the Republicans did everything they could to stall. And to hide.
      You would also know that the Republican legislators were abetted in their efforts to hide by a ruling by Republican Commonwealth Court judge Brobson, who extended the legislative privilege beyond any precedent extant in any US court. His ruling conveniently prevented the plaintiffs from obtaining discovery of the intent of the legislators when they drew the map. But now those same legislators attack the motives of the justices? That’s rich!

Comments are closed.

Email:
  • Reader Poll: Have You Requested a Mail-In Ballot?


    • Yes. I enjoy mail-in voting. (50%)
    • No. I am going to the poll. (50%)

    Total Voters: 121

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen