Question. Can a supreme court judge

[bluestarone]

Be subpoenaed by congress? I mean when WE get full control of BOTH houses after November.

[unblock]

1. i can't imagine why not. then again, i can see this supreme court finding a reason....

[bluestarone]

3. Yes i can see this court having trouble with it BUT how could they stop it? Also how about Judge Cannon?

While we're on that subject. I'm thinking at the very least our three judges would coo-operate and could force the assholes to answer their Subpoena's as well.

[yagotme]

2. Separation of powers?

Have to have one really outstanding reason to do so, I'm betting. And, when we get back in power, and do this thing, what if the Rethug's gain control again??? Precedent, after all...

[unblock]

4. congress can impeach and remove justices

so a subpoena certainly seems reasonable.

[yagotme]

6. Impeachment of a SC judge would be a very high bar, with a highly provable crime.

Just having a subpoena, to "harass" (what the OTHER party will claim), will appear to be, well, harassment, unless it applies to the above impeachment.

[unblock]

9. Whether it's harassment depends mostly on whether it's harassment.

Any subpoena could be more harassment than legitimate pursuit of justice, there has to be some reason to think justices receiving subpoenas is inherently more harassment than legitimate.

Cabinet members and other government officials get subpoenaed all the time. And sometimes it's harassment, as the Clintons.

As a practical matter, a justice might refuse, leaving Congress with only the threat of impeachment to enforce it.

[yagotme]

11. Yes, cabinet members and other government officials get subpoenaed all the time.

But they are not at the level of a SC judge. SC judges are at the top of the judicial wing. The President is at the top of the Executive wing. House speaker and Senate Majority Leader are the heads of the Legislative wing.

[unblock]

12. And? That's no reason for them to be above the law or exempt from normal procedures.

[yagotme]

13. Going back to my earlier posts, if you're going to go at the top level,

you're going to need a REALLY good reason. 'Harassment" type subpoenas will set a precedent for BOTH sides to start using them, resulting in a slowdown of an already snail-like process.

[unblock]

14. I agree there should be a high bar and it should clearly be substantive

But then, I think that should apply for everyone, not just those in the most powerful offices.

In any event, I think you have to look at the merits of an actual subpoena. No automatic pass based on office alone.

[bluestarone]

15. Ok, let's go a little further her, if you would

What would, could be basis to issue a subpoena? I mean would a meetings with the president then decisions for the president be a reason? Would LARGE GIFTS from people that a judge is deciding their case be one? Would judges requiring NDA's from all their staff be something? If none of these, could you maybe site one that COULD be a reason?

[unblock]

16. Large gifts would certainly be a worthy topic for congressional inquiry and subpoenas

Bribery and impeachment potential aside, Congress could legitimately limit such gifts by law, so it's perfectly reasonable for them to investigate.

I have no problem with NDAs, it's reasonable for any court to not want preliminary drafts or discussions leaked prior to the actual decision being handed down as this could cause various problem not in the interest of justice. That said, it would be reasonable for Congress to require that such confidentiality expire at that point, or some fixed time after the decision. At some point, I don't think eternal secrecy of the courts is in the interest of justice.

Meetings with a president aren't necessarily a problem per se, though they could be a problem given other evidence of undue influence or something.

[bluestarone]

17. TYVM!

[Torchlight]

5. Technically, yes.

There’s no constitutional rule that puts Supreme Court justices beyond Congress’s subpoena power. In this regard, a justice is a citizen and can receive a subpoena like anyone else.

However, they cannot be compelled to testify about their judicial reasoning, internal deliberations, how or why they voted in cases, pending or future cases, etc. Five years ago, I would have emphatically said, "it will trigger a major constitutional clash" However, in the here and now, I think we're already living one constitutional crisis after another so I doubt it would be as triggering as it might once have been.

Could be a leading indicator why the wight-wing judges are circling the wagons with NDAs.

[bluestarone]

7. Agree.

Hell, if they can be impeached, they should be able to answer to congress. I know it takes 2/3rd vote to remove, so if THAT is even possible then it should be possible to answer subpoena's. That's how i see it.

[Ol Janx Spirit]

8. The short answer is yes...

...but it's complicated--of course.

It's only happened one other time: in the 1950s the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed Justice Thomas Clark. He refused to testify and lawmakers didn’t pursue the matter any further.

Courts are the ones to enforce the subpoenas, so it would come up for an awkward vote in the SCOUTUS eventually. And even if that passed, if they still refused to testify then congress only has a few options--like to hold them in contempt or withhold funding from the SCOTUS.

Holding them in contempt would require the DOJ to act on locking them up. That would never happen with THIS DOJ--or possibly any DOJ since it would be a firestorm I'm sure.

The SCOTUS is part of a constitutional branch of government, and as such does rightly enjoy a claim to separation of powers--so yeah, it would be complicated....

[justaprogressive]

10. History

Congressional subpoenas directed at Supreme Court Justices are exceedingly rare, underscoring respect for the separation of powers. One notable event involved Associate Justice Thomas C. Clark in 1953, when the House Un-American Activities Committee issued a subpoena for his testimony. This subpoena sought information related to his actions as Attorney General before his Supreme Court appointment, not his judicial conduct. Justice Clark voluntarily appeared, but the subpoena’s enforceability regarding a sitting Justice’s judicial duties was not definitively tested.

The only Supreme Court Justice to be impeached was Samuel Chase in 1804, though he was acquitted by the Senate. While impeachment is a congressional check on the judiciary, it differs from a subpoena for testimony or documents. The rarity of such direct confrontations reflects a historical understanding that compelling a Justice’s testimony could infringe upon judicial independence.

https://legalclarity.org/can-congress-subpoena-a-supreme-court-justice/]

[c-rational]

18. How about we just impeach and remove.

[bluestarone]

19. Oh, how i wish.