What Trump Should Learn From the Impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase
The first federal official of any kind to be impeached and removed from office was a federal judge from New Hampshire named John Pickering. He was an appointee of President George Washington and was generally aligned politically with the Federalists. After Thomas Jefferson was elected president in 1800, the Jeffersonians went on the attack against what they saw as untoward Federalist influence over the federal courts.
Pickering was vulnerable. He had faced credible past accusations of both mental instability and drunkenness. Did they count as "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," which is what Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution requires for a judge to be "removed from Office"? Or perhaps he had run afoul of Article III, Section 1, which states that "the Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." Either way, a majority of Congress wanted him out and the requisite two-thirds majority was present in the Senate to do it. Pickering got the boot in 1803.
That set the stage for the real showdown over the power to impeach judges. Emboldened by the successful removal of Pickering, the Jeffersonians turned their glare on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. An outspoken Federalist, Chase especially drew the ire of the Jeffersonians because of his role as the presiding trial judge in several Sedition Act prosecutions carried out by the Federalist administration of President John Adams.
Among those prosecutions was the 1800 trial of a bombastic political writer named James Callender. An ally of the Jeffersonians (in fact, Callender was partially bankrolled by Jefferson himself), Callender had published a scathing attack on both the Federalists in general and Adams in particular, describing Adams as "mentally deranged" and a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." That bit of election-year mudslinging landed Callender behind bars under the censorial terms of the Sedition Act, which the Adams administration happily enforced against him. Later, after Jefferson had defeated Adams to become president, Callender was pardoned by Jefferson.
The articles of impeachment filed against Chase in 1804 mixed legal complaints with political ones. One of them described Chase's conduct as the presiding judge in Callender's trial as being motivated by a "spirit of persecution and injustice," as well as an "intent to oppress, and procure the conviction of, the said Callender." Another article of impeachment charged Chase with conduct "highly indecent, extra-judicial, and tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan."
But two-thirds of the Senate did not buy it. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that enough senators, including a sufficient number of Jeffersonians, recognized the dangerous precedent that they would be setting if they removed a sitting member of the Supreme Court over what appeared to be mostly political disagreements. So Chase kept his job. He has remained the only Supreme Court justice ever to be impeached.
The Chase affair offers certain lessons for our own politically fraught times. Much like Jefferson, for example, President Donald Trump clearly likes the idea of purging the federal bench of judges who disagree with him. But Trump may find out, just as Jefferson did, that even some of his own allies lack the stomach for waging such an unsavory attack on the independence of the judiciary. After all, if the Republicans under Trump actually succeeded in impeaching and removing a federal judge for political reasons, the Democrats will undoubtedly repay them in kind at the first opportunity. It will be a race to the bottom that does lasting—and perhaps even irreparable—damage to the judicial branch.
In a way, this is all quite similar to the fate of Franklin Roosevelt's notorious court-packing plan of 1937. Roosevelt's scheme for undermining the independence of the judiciary failed in large part because members of Roosevelt's own party worked against it. Will any members of Trump's party do the same if the impeachment threats ever go beyond the talking point stage?
Currently, that question is moot because the Republicans lack the requisite two-thirds majority of votes in the Senate needed to remove anybody via impeachment. Time will tell if that unforgiving math alone is enough to prevent Trump from following any further in Jefferson's missteps.
The post What Trump Should Learn From the Impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Here's what's in the Senate GOP's version of Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
The Senate Finance Committee on Monday unveiled its portion of President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' containing provisions on Medicaid, taxes and green energy tax credits. The committee's text is the final piece of the upper chamber's version of the bill to be released, and was the most highly anticipated. It contains some of the thorniest provisions that Senate GOP holdouts have expressed concerns about, and the issues that could set the upper chamber on a collision course with the House. The House narrowly passed its version of the legislation last month. Here's what's in the Senate's bill. The bill makes many of the core elements of their 2017 tax cuts permanent but scales back additional cuts from what the House passed. The Senate bill locks in existing federal tax brackets, boosts the standard deduction and maintains the termination of personal exemptions — all without sunsets. In contrast with the House version, the bill sets a lower increase for the child tax credit, raising it to $2,200 per child as opposed to the House's $2,500. The bill creates new deductions for taxes on tips, overtime pay and car loan interest — a priority of Trump's that he campaigned on — but doesn't make them fully deductible. Tips are deductible up to $25,000 through 2028. Overtime pay is deductible up to $12,500, or $25,000 for joint filers, through 2028. Auto loan interest is deductible up to $10,000, also through 2028. Senate Republicans are taking a bigger swing at Medicaid in their version of the bill. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Non-expansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. Limiting provider taxes is a long-held conservative goal, as they argue states are gaming the current system and driving up federal Medicaid spending. The policies are designed to inflate Medicaid spending on paper to allow states to receive more federal reimbursement dollars. The Senate bill also cuts certain existing state-directed payments to hospitals, which would be a significant hit to the hospitals' bottom line. The House version in contrast limited future payments but grandfathered existing arrangements. The change in the Senate bill is sure to anger Republicans who were already expressing concerns about the impact of the freeze in the House-passed version, including key holdouts like Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). Provider taxes have become an important lifeline for hospitals, and rural hospitals would be hit hardest by the cuts. Hawley on Monday night signaled dissatisfaction with the newly unveiled text. Like the House bill, the Senate legislation imposes work requirements on Medicaid beneficiaries beginning at 19 years old. But the Senate version says adults with dependent children older than 14 will also have to prove they work, attend school or perform community service for 80 hours a month, while the House-passed version would exempt all adults with dependent children. The bill includes changes to green energy tax credits that are more flexible than those passed by the House — but would still be a significant rollback. The Senate text appears to eliminate the most stringent provision in the House bill, deleting a measure that would have required climate-friendly energy sources to start construction within 60 days of the bill's enactment to qualify for the credits at all. Instead, things such as solar panels and wind farms would need to begin construction this year in order to receive the full credit amount. Projects that begin construction in 2026 would get 60 percent of the credit, while projects that begin construction in 2027 would receive 20 percent. Projects constructed in 2028 or later would not be eligible for the credit. This, too, appears to be more flexible than the House text, which required projects to not just start construction but actually be producing electricity by the end of 2028 to qualify for the credit. Nevertheless, the Senate provisions are still a major rollback of the tax credits passed by Democrats in their 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Under that law, the credits would have lasted until either 2032 or when U.S. emissions from the electric sector are 25 percent lower than their 2022 levels, whichever came later. The Senate text also adds carve-outs for hydro, nuclear and geothermal power, allowing them to receive the full credit if they begin construction before 2034. The Senate bill as drafted would keep the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions at $10,000 a year, rolling back the deal that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) painstakingly cut with blue state Republicans to raise the limit on SALT deductions to $40,000 a year for households earning less than $500,000 annually. It would permanently extend the $10,000 cap, which is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters Monday afternoon that the $10,000 deduction cap is a 'marker' for talks with House Republicans, and that they will find a number in the middle that satisfies both camps. But the House's SALT Caucus Republicans are insisting on the $40,000 number. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), a key member of the group, wrote on the social platform X that the proposal was 'DEAD ON ARRIVAL' and warned in a statement that a $40,000 deduction cap 'is the deal and I will not accept a penny less.' The bill would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, instead of the $4 trillion increase adopted by House Republicans. The debt-ceiling language is a major problem for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has told his leadership he won't support the bill if it includes such a large extension of federal borrowing authority. Mychael Schnell and Al Weaver contributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US Senate budget bill proposal keeps cuts to solar, wind incentives
By Valerie Volcovici and Nichola Groom WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A U.S. Senate panel proposed a full phase-out of solar and wind energy tax credits by 2028 but extended the incentive to 2036 for hydropower, nuclear and geothermal energy, which are favored by President Donald Trump's administration, according to a draft bill circulated on Monday. The draft bill, part of a sprawling Republican budget package, made several changes that clean energy advocates pressed for to a bill passed in the House last month. But industry representatives said the text did not go far enough to preserve their sector's key incentives. The language released by the committee chair, Republican Senator Mike Crapo, envisages phasing out subsidies enshrined by the Biden-era 2022 Inflation Reduction Act for solar and wind in 2026 by reducing the incentive to 60% of its value and ending it by 2028. Under current law, the tax credits would not start phasing out until 2032. In a change from the House bill, the Senate would grant 100% of the credit to hydropower, nuclear and geothermal facilities until 2033, then phase it out to zero by 2036, according to the draft. Malcolm Woolf, CEO of the National Hydropower Association, praised the extended timeline for new hydro facilities but said the Senate had failed to extend the tax credit to upgrades of existing facilities, many of which are in need of relicensing. "We hope that this measure will be adopted later this Congress to ensure that these multi-purpose facilities continue to provide clean, reliable energy for generations to come," Woolf said in a statement. A summary of the bill text released by Crapo said it would eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars of clean energy subsidies, which it described as unnecessary, and would support consistent energy sources over intermittent renewable energy. Shares of U.S. solar energy companies tumbled in extended trade on Monday after the changes were unveiled. "Despite modest improvements on several provisions, this legislation does not go far enough to remove the threat to one of the greatest economic success stories in American history," Abigail Ross Hopper, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said in a statement. The Senate language gives more time for clean energy projects to use the tax credits than the House version, which required that a project must start construction within 60 days of the bill's enactment and be placed in service by Dec. 31, 2028 to qualify for the tax credits. The Senate language changes it so that facilities need to begin construction in a certain year to claim the credit rather than be placed in service. Since the House narrowly passed its version of Trump's budget known as the "One Big, Beautiful Bill Act" last month, some electric utility executives, lawmakers and clean energy industry groups have pressed Senate Republicans to make the provisions related to IRA clean energy tax credits less drastic. Senate Republican moderates, including Alaska's Lisa Murkowski and Utah's John Curtis, have been urging the Senate tax panel to give clean energy projects more time to use the credits. The Senate bill retains some of the restrictions called for in the House bill against the use of tax credits for projects that rely on equipment or critical minerals from foreign adversary nations like China. But under the Senate bill, some publicly traded companies using materials from China would face fewer restrictions. The bill text also introduced a formula for calculating whether a project received "material assistance" from a foreign entity that would preclude it from being eligible for the incentives. Clean energy industry groups had opposed those restrictions because they would severely affect projects that rely on Chinese components in their supply chains. The Senate's version of the bill preserves project developers' ability to sell, or transfer, their tax credits to third parties to reduce financing costs. The House bill had phased out that provision. Like the House bill, the Senate bill eliminates consumer-facing credits for installing rooftop panels and making other energy-related home improvements. "Eliminating the tax credits that save families money is a profound mistake," Ari Matusiak, CEO of the electrification nonprofit Rewiring America, said in a statement. The electric utility industry, which had flagged concerns that nearly 75 gigawatts of planned new generation capacity of renewable energy would be canceled between 2025 and 2032 at a time of rapidly growing energy demand if the House version passed, said the Senate version made progress on key provisions including project timelines and transferability. "These modifications are a step in the right direction," said Edison Electric Institute (EEI) interim President Pat Vincent-Collawn.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's massive tax-cut bill could shield the president from court orders
A provision in President Donald Trump 's massive tax-cut bill that would shield Trump from some court orders is drawing Democratic opposition as it heads for the Senate. But a leading Republican says the court restriction is necessary to keep judges from abusing their authority. The provision drew little attention in the marathon debate that ended with a 215-214 House vote to approve the measure in the early-morning hours of May 22. But it would make a significant change in the standards for injunctions, the orders judges issue to prohibit a person, business or government agency from taking actions the judge has found to be illegal. Under the proposal, a judge could find a violator in contempt of court, and issue penalties, only if the judge who issued the order required those who sought it to post a bond that would reimburse the other side for its costs if the injunction was later found to be unjustified. And the new rule would apply not only to future injunctions, but also to those issued in the past, when judges have rarely required bonds. No bonds were ordered, for example, by judges who prohibited Trump from sending immigrants to a prison in El Salvador — injunctions that would become unenforceable under the legislation passed by the House. And it could even cast doubt on decades-old court orders to limit police practices or desegregate schools, said Erwin Chemerinsky, the UC Berkeley law school dean whose online posting called attention to the bill's language. While the debate has centered on the bill's reductions in taxes for the rich and health care for the poor, some Democrats are starting to voice opposition to the injunction limits. 'Republicans are once again seeking to twist the rules to avoid accountability and advance their overtly political interests by attempting to shut down federal courts' enforcement mechanism,' Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said after the House approved the measure. 'The Constitution outlines the Judicial Branch as an independent, co-equal branch of government, and I will do everything in my power both to ensure it remains that way and to shut down Republicans' attempts to further insulate Donald Trump from our system of checks and balances.' 'You have activist judges, a handful of them around the country who are abusing that power,' Johnson told a reporter last weekend. 'They're issuing these nationwide injunctions. They're engaging in political acts from the bench. And that is not what our system is intended for. And people have lost their faith in our system of justice.' His language was in line with Trump's responses to judges who rule against him, whom the president has labeled 'radical left lunatics' who should be impeached. One was U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of Washington, D.C., who ordered Trump in March to halt the deportations of more than 200 Venezuelans to El Salvador and turn the flights around, orders the Trump administration has ignored. Boasberg was initially appointed to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, and promoted later by Democrat Barack Obama. The tax-cut legislation, however, does not address individual judges' authority to issue nationwide injunctions, an issue the Supreme Court is now considering in the Trump administration's challenge to birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. The language in the bill would instead invalidate standard injunctions issued against one person, including the president, or a business or organization accused of violating the law. The bill 'has nothing to do with nationwide injunctions,' Chemerinsky said. 'The ability of the courts to review presidential actions was articulated in Marbury v. Madison,' an 1803 Supreme Court ruling, 'and was not something new created for the Trump administration,' he said. As budget-related legislation, the bill is exempt from filibusters and could be passed by a majority vote in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. But Chemerinsky said that if the restrictions on injunctions remain in the measure, the Senate's nonpartisan parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, could determine they were unrelated to taxing or spending and could be blocked by a filibuster, which would require 60 votes to overcome. And a House Republican who voted for the bill last week predicted Friday that the injunction limits would be dropped from the legislation. 'I don't see any argument that could ever be made that this affects mandatory spending or revenue,' Rep. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said at a town-hall meeting. 'I don't see it getting into the Senate bill.' Chronicle reporter Shira Stein contributed to this article.
