Eccentric Flower:200906/Unsackable de Botton Photos and Trolls
From Eccentric Flower
Unsackable, de Botton, Photos, and Trolls
On the letters page of last week's Economist, the following letter was printed (apologies to The Economist for quoting it in full due to its brevity):
Hey, Robert: Is this true? I had no idea Supreme Court judges could be impeached. Apparently neither did The Economist.
Also in that Economist was an item about an interview with Alain de Botton which was on their website, and may still be, which begins thusly:
(I cannot tell you how difficult it is for me to resist the urge to drop about four commas into various points of that paragraph. But I quote it as it appeared in print, impenetrable sentences and all.)
de Botton's theory is interesting, and I'd love to talk about why I think he is full of beans, but at the moment I am more interested in this article from the Ideas section of this past Sunday's Boston Globe, which contains this prose:
Either de Botton uses the same canned speech over and over, or someone at the Globe was cribbing from the Economist a wee trifle.
I am going to start putting the daily photo announcement on the main journal page along with the recent entry links, but here's one for the road.
And while we are on photos, this one is not mine, but I like it a lot.
Of course, there's always a danger in linking to Aet material. If it vanishes before you get to it, it's not my fault.
Finally, while I cannot abide Stephanie Meyer, her books, or her legions of rabid and undiscerning fans, I cannot abide trolls even more, and I think this XKCD is pretty brilliant.
Mel:
FYI - Aet's picture says I don't have permission to view it.
I knew some lower-court judges had been impeached, but I've never even heard anybody breathe a word about impeaching a Supreme, so it never occurred to me. (Just give it time, I'm sure. The same dorks that are now busily impeaching the intelligence of the nominee, never mind that she was second in her class at an Ivy League school, will undoubtedly keep on trying.)
-- 05:42, 2 June 2009 (BST)
The Economist and I are both expecting Sotomayor to get confirmed easily, actually.
-- 15:29, 2 June 2009 (BST)
P.S. Don't you remember the Impeach Earl Warren bumper stickers from the '60s? Also, Jerry Ford, while in Congress, led an effort to impeach William O. Douglas (that went nowhere, though Ford had the second-to-last laugh when he appointed Douglas's replacement -- the last laugh went to that replacement, John Paul Stevens). There was even a chance Abe Fortas would have impeached for real, had he not resigned, because of some financial improprieties.
-- 15:39, 2 June 2009 (BST)
PS @Mel: Aet nuked the photo. I sort of expected she would. You can't win. If no one notices her she takes it as a rejection but the instant it becomes obvious someone HAS seen her, she deletes the evidence.
-- 16:15, 2 June 2009 (BST)
ProfRobert:
Yes, Supreme Court justices are subject to impeachment and removal for high crimes and misdemeanors. Indeed, one of the pivotal moments of the new republic was when Jeffersonians in the House impeached Federalist Justice Samuel Chase whose crime was, um, being a Federalist. The Senate refused to convict, thus setting the precedent that the Court would remain independent of changes in the Executive and Legislative (i.e., the Supreme Court does not follow the "iliction returns," as Mr. Dooley would have).
Judges of the lower federal courts can also be impeached and on several occasions, convicted. I think most recently it was Alcee Hastings, removed from the bench for bribery. The Senate, however, did not bar him from further federal office, which is why he can now be found as a member of the House of Representatives.
-- 18:36, 1 June 2009 (BST)