Posted on 08/26/2017 1:07:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Still unhappy with Federalist power on the bench, the Democratic-Republicans impeached district court Judge John Pickering and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. Criticizing the impeachment proceedings as an attack on judicial independence, Federalist congressmen strongly opposed both impeachments. Pickering, who frequently presided over cases while drunk, was convicted by the Senate in 1804.
However, the impeachment proceedings of Chase proved more difficult. Chase had frequently expressed his skepticism of democracy, predicting that the nation would "sink into mobocracy," but he had not shown himself to be incompetent in the same way that Pickering had. Several Democratic-Republican Senators joined the Federalists in opposing Chase's removal, and Chase would remain on the court until his death in 1811. Though Federalists would never regain the political power they had held during the 1790s, the Marshall Court continued to reflect Federalist ideals until the 1830s.
This is info from the Thomas Jefferson administration. For context, Samuel Chase was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. The interesting point, for me, was that Aaron Burr, as Vice President, presided over these judiciary impeachment trials in the Senate.
Aaron Burr is fascinating.
Excellent response. Thank you!
You’re welcome. I found this stuff while in pursuit of whatever my library had about the fascinating Aaron Burr ;-).
:)
He was very cagey. There’s not a good, recent biography, or even a complete, old biography, that I can find.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/burr-slays-hamilton-in-duel
We really haven’t changed all that much.
Tweeted!
Unlike his recent predecessors, Trump didn’t get paid to issue this pardon. #MAGA #RuleOfLaw
I am not a fan of Joe. But it doesn’t bother me in the least to see him pardoned. I understand why he was.
The President can pardon whomever he wants.
>Don’t you think President Trump could do this out of kindness to an octogenarian, rather than for Trump’s personal benefit? It’s funny how people who “admire” Trump ascribe the basest self-interest to him ...
Something acts have multiple befits. It’s called a win win. Having Trump removed from office would make it open season on Conservatives. Antifa and BLM would attack us everywhere while the authorities did nothing. Trump not being impeached is in our best interests.
Slate Magazine-—a festival of the most unhinged of unhinged psychotic Rats.
“Say no more.”
They fired the district attorneys, not the judges. You can’t just fire a judge.
Pardon Nixon, pardon anyone.
I guess they haven’t figured out what a strong message Trump sent to ICE and Border Patrol folks about doing their jobs and knowing he has their backs....if they had figured it out they would be cutting themselves and pulling their hair out in bloody clumps.
Good point. The pardon was a strong message of support to the border patrol and to border state law enforcement.
IIRC, the only reason there was a case against Arpaio was because the courts ruled Arpaio couldn’t go against the potus’ power to execute the law, and obama didn’t want to enforce it at all.
Now Trump does want the law followed, so presumably, the police can go back to checking identities.
Gives some idea how stupid was the prosecution of Arpaio in the first place.
An awful lot of whining over someone being pardoned for a misdemeanor.
Don't criminals deserve the right to be prosecuted for their crimes? Can't understand how Slate can take that away from illegals. How can a gangsta get a reputation for being a bad guy if the police don't chase them, or if an illegal is allowed to openly and brazenly flaunt their identity theft?
I had no idea how bigoted Slate really is. Good thing I saw this excerpt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.