He gave them easy sentences. Later, the lawyer for the drub dealers was charged with paying Judge Hastings a fat bribe for those lenient sentences. The lawyer was convicted; Hastings played the race card, and somehow beat the rap.
Then Congress decided that maybe Hastings shouldn't remain a judge. They started impeachment proceedings. Hastings objected in federal court, claiming double jeopardy. His case went to the Supreme Court, which decided against him, ruling that impeachment was a CIVIL process, not CRIMINAL.
A competent reporter, if there were one, would report that Blago's whole argument has already been presented and lost before the highest legal authority. Nut because we have no competent reporters, we get threads like this which take Blago's claims as possibly accurate.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Coming Soon to a TV Near You!"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.
You would be the Freeper authority on this, but I distinctly recall that Hillary, whilst working for the Watergate gang, made the argument that Richard Nixon was not entitled to the right of counsel at either hearing or an ultimate impeachment trial in the Senate.
Your response seems to imply that Hastings was not entitled to due process because the USSC ruled that impeachment is a civil proceeding. Is that correct?
As I understand the law, citizens have the right to due process in civil proceedings too, not just criminal proceedings. Is that incorrect?
It would seem that the USSC was ruling that Hastings couldn’t claim double jeopardy because the impeachment was a civil proceeding not that he wasn’t entitled to due process.
Good summary; except Hastings Senate conviction was overturned by a District Court but didn’t go the Supreme Court. The case was returned to the Senate to await the Supreme Court’s decision in US v. Walter Nixon (1993), another federal judge who was impeached. Nixon was challenging the fact his Senate trial was held before a panel of 12 Senators and not the full Senate. The question before the Court was whether the Senate rule allowing the panel could be reviewed by the courts.
The Court ruled 9-0 that the courts could not review the Senate procedures since the Constitution gave the Senate the sole power to conduct impeachment trials. Hastings was challenging his impeachment on the grounds he was acquitted of the charges.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/506/224/case.html
So basically whatever the State Senate’s procedures are, that’s what will govern Blago’s impeachment, no matter how unfair they may seem. And the decsion cannot be appealed to the courts.