Does confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as Supreme Court Justice, affect Donald Trump’s possible impeachment?
Yes, confirmation of Kavanaugh could have an affect on Trump’s possible impeachment.While the Supreme Court is not involved in the impeachment process itself, pushing through the confirmation of Kavanaugh before the election could play a role in whether the Senate remains in the control of Republicans or Democrats.If Republicans were to remain in control in the Senate, it becomes less likely that Trump would be impeached by the House as the Senate would refuse to find him guilty of any high crimes the House would allege.So, control of the Senate is likely the only thing that could prevent the House from Impeaching the POTUS if they believe he is guilty of High Crimes.The confirmation of Kavanaugh is now a critical issue in the Senate races.Evangelical leaders have threatened that if they do not get a confirmation of Kavanaugh they will encourage their members to sit out the November election. If they confirm him, they will encourage their members to get out and vote.Evangelical Leaders Are Frustrated at G.O.P. Caution on Kavanaugh AllegationThe GOP Could Be Damned if Kavanaugh Is Confirmed—and Damned if He’s NotThe question will be whether it is believed that this will enough to offset record numbers of Democrats voting in this mid-term election. Democrats do not typically turn out in the same numbers as Republicans during mid-term elections. This year, we already see many races where more Democrats are voting than previous mid-terms. This confirmation could bring out even more.If evangelical voters stay home… is it enough to give Democrats that boost needed to pick up enough seats to take control of the Senate?If Democrats are angry enough to vote because of Kavanaugh’s confirmation, would it be enough to take control of the Senate?We won’t know until November.However, Kavanaugh’s confirmation does not actually mean he’s safe. Supreme Court Justice’s can be impeached. Kavanaugh has perjured himself during the hearings. At some point Democrats will take control again of the Senate. Whether this election or not… and Kavanaugh should be nervous as they may not forget that perjury.Kavanaugh’s confirmation possibly plays a role in control of the Senate which could make it easier for the House to decide on whether to Impeach or not if it comes to that point.
Has Justice Ginsburg stated that the age of consent should be 12?
Yes, in the book ‘Sex Bias in the US Code’ which is available online athttps://www.law.umaryland.edu/ma...(page 102 in the text, 110 in the pdf)“Recommendations …..18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old102I suppose it could have been worse, as Ginsburg is Jewish and Judaism has this to say about extramarital sexual relations between a Jewish man and a gentile woman or girl above the age of 3 …https://www.chabad.org/library/a...(Mishah Torah - Sefer Kedushah - Issurei Biah - Chapter Twelve)10If, by contrast, a Jewish male enters into relations with a gentile woman, when he does so intentionally, she should be executed.23 She is executed because she caused a Jew to be involved in an unseemly transgression, as [is the law with regard to] an animal.24 [This applies regardless of] whether the gentile women was a minor of three years of age,25 or an adult, whether she was single or married. And it applies even if [the Jew] was a minor of nine years old, [she is executed].26This [punishment] is explicitly mentioned in the Torah, as [Numbers 31:16-17] states: Behold they were [involved] with the children of Israel according to the advice of Balaamו.27 Execute any woman fit to know a man through lying with a male.At this point one might object that in Israel the Jews do not execute gentile women and girls above 3 y.o. who have been violated by Jewish men, but, there is an explanation - which you can hear in this 10 minute video by Israeli ex-yeshiva student Yossi Gurvitz (google him) …
Should the US Constitution be amended to redefine treason?
I don’t think it needs redefinition. I think it draws a line well beyond political disagreement and requires actual violation of one’s allegiance to the country under circumstances of conflict.What I wouldn’t mind seeing, though, is to break it down into levels. Theoretically, if you commit “light treason” to use an Arrested Development phrase, you are subject to the death penalty. Probably that would be overturned as cruel and unusual on appeal if we are talking about giving aid and comfort to an enemy by sending a fruit basket to your jihadist brother in Syria, but I don’t think we ought to rely on the Court’s system to make our laws for us when we are perfectly capable.I wouldn’t mind clarifying that levying war or other direct treasonous activity involving violence against the US or its citizens/military be within the capital realm.Overt acts providing significant material support for violent enemies should probably carry potential prison terms to be measured in decades, at least, as should speech with intent to incite people to war or violent treason with the country.Aid and comfort by things such as traitorous speech falling short of incitement should maybe top out at 5 years. That would be Jane Fonda in North Vietnam, as an example. Maybe sending a fruit basket to an enemy as an expression of support would land in this category, as well.And of course any of the above should at least potentially lead to loss of citizenship if convicted.That’s just my opinion.
Can Chief Justice of the SCOTUS Be Demoted to Justice?
I'm always amazed at people who express curiosity about things that the Constitution clearly answers, but apparently are not curious enough to read the document for themselves. As other answers point out, they are appointed for Life, but what everyone ignores is that this Life Tenure is qualified by "on good behavior." I realize that we don't have a lot of definition of what that means, but it very clearly indicates that they COULD be Impeached. But the President doesn't have Impeachment Power, and I doubt that more than a dozen current Members of Congress have even read the Constitution, so it'll never happen.
Can members of Congress who announce they will block any SCOTUS nominee of President Obama's be tried for treason? In the military, wouldn’t a refusal to accept requests of the Commander-in-Chief, because they were his, merit a court-martial?
No!Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government. It is not answerable to the president. The relationship between members of Congress and the presidency is nothing even remotely comparable to members of the armed forces and the.presidency. There is not even the slightest, vaguest HINT of a valid comparison there. And generally speaking, we do not want members of Congress arrested because they do not fulfill their duties the way the president thinks they should.Furthermore, this question is wrong about the U.S. military. A service member who refused an order from the commander-in-chief would be courtmartialled and imprisoned or discharged, depending on the nature of the order and the consequences of disobeying it, but outside of wartime the U.S. miltary hardly ever executes anyone. It is extremely rare even in wartime. And again, there is no point of comparison here; the president can issue orders to members of the military, but has NO POWER AT ALL to order members of Congress to do anything they do not want to do. NONE AT ALL. For that matter, the president has no authority to ORDER private citizens of any kind to do anything against their will. The commander-in-chief power applies ONLY to the military.Finally, this question misunderstands the definition of treason, the only crime defined by the constitution itself. Treason consists of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States or taking up arms against it. Refusing to act on a judicial nomination does not remotely meet this definition.Virtually every assumption this question makes is totally, utterly wrong.