This may not be directly relevant to the criminal versus non-criminal distinction, but I think the general question was debated in Congress during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, with President Clinton's defenders arguing that the standard for impeaching the President (at least) should be more restrictive than the standard for impeaching judges. On this basis, Clinton's defenders argued that even if the Senate concluded that Clinton had indeed committed the offenses with which he was charged in the impeachment, the Senate could/should probably vote to acquit him despite the Senate's own "precedent" in its earlier conviction of Judge Walter Nixon (in the impeachment case that reached the S. Ct. in 1993). The charges against Judge Nixon arguably were similar in some respects to those advanced against President Clinton.
Dan Conkle -----Original Message----- From: Eastman, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court I love the collaberations made possible by this list. I now have to expand my "acknowledgement" footnote significantly. Many thanks to all who responded. I have one more that might be equally interesting. Judges serve for good behaviour. Impeachment requires high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe we have not taken seriously the possibility of impeachment of judges for non-criminal conduct for a very long time (since Justice Chase?), but has there ever been a firm decision that the standard for impeaching judges is the same as for other officials, despite the looser standard suggested in Article III? Is there a law review article (or articles) generally regarded as definitive on this question? Many thanks, John Eastman -----Original Message----- From: Keith E. Whittington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 10/1/2003 2:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: Presidents and the Court That would be Andrew Jackson in response to Worcester v. Georgia, and it is generally regarded as apocryphal (though somewhat consistent with other things that he did say, predicting that such a decision would be unenforceable). He did write in a letter, "the decision of the supreme court has fell still born and they find it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." For discussion, see Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, and Richard Longaker, "Andrew Jackson and the Judiciary," Political Science Quarterly (1956). Keith Whittington -----Original Message----- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Eastman, John Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Presidents and the Court I seem to recall a colorful claim by some president or other, opposed to a particular court ruling, along the lines of: "The Court has issued its ruling, now let it enforce it." Can anyone point me to the specific President, case, and citation for this? Perhaps Truman, in response to the Steel Seizure decision? Many thanks, John Eastman
