Replies

I agree.

But Scotus did not when it came to Rangel's predecessor, Adam Clayton Powell, another Harlem scumbag.

Adam Clayton Powell pecked at his fellow representatives from his unassailable perch in New York's Harlem. Powell had been embroiled in controversy inside and outside Washington. When Powell failed to heed civil proceedings against him in New York, a judge held him in criminal contempt. His problems were only beginning. He won reelection in 1966 but the House of Representatives voted to exclude him.

Powell v. McCormack/Opinion of the Court.

Conclusion.

To summarize, we have determined the following: (1) This case has not been mooted by Powell's seating in the 91st Congress. (2) Although this action should be dismissed against respondent Congressmen, it mayb e sustained against their agents. (3) The 90th Congress' denial of membership to Powell cannot be treated as an expulsion. (4) We have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this controversy. (5) The case is justiciable.

Further, analysis of the 'textual commitment' under Art. I, § 5 (see Part VI, B (1)), has demonstrated that in judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution. Respondents concede that Powell met these. Thus, there is no need to remand this case to determine whether he was entitled to be seated in the 90th Congress. Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack/Opinion_of_the_Court

Now, Rangel was censured and not booted from Congress like Powell, but Scotus got away with overturning a decision by three fourths of the House of Reps.

Boehner should ( he won't ) let the federal blackrobes know ahead of time that he doesn't give a rip what the d@mn courts have to say.