Impeachment is, unfortunately, kind of a dead letter now. If we couldn't impeach Trump after inciting the insurrection, it's hard to see how we can impeach a Justice merely for offering moral support to said insurrection. The requirement for a two-thirds vote to convict makes it basically impossible.
Impeachment is no dead letter. A Democratic House majority could do it, and then draw national attention to the corruption. If the Republicans in the Senate vote as a block to protect the justices, that will at least show the people where the GOP stands on the rule of law.
If people don't yet know where the QOP stands on "law and order", and "family values" for that matter", then they aren't paying attention. Those are just meaningless slogans to that immoral and corrupt Party.
Unfortunately, there are several sources which point out exactly how uninformed a large percentage of the U.S. public remains. Either the major news source for these folks is Fox--which basically only reports anti-Dem, pro-MAGA news...and absolutely none of the most damaging facts about Trump and MAGA doings....or, they are too busy with their kids and their two plus jobs to follow the news in any detail.
I can confirm. Many of my relatives are exactly like this. Not only that, but the very second that I bring up politics, their eyes glaze over and they are completely disinterested. They are so priveleged that they do not believe they will be affected by anything I have to warn them about.
This is so true. Many people I work with pay no attention to politics, and just go about living their lives with no idea that there's bank safe about to drop on their heads.
Also, with the GOP in chaos because some conservative republicans are furious about being painted with the MAGA brush, this would be an excellent opportunity for a few republicans to distinguish themselves from the mega crowd.
Everyone who pays attention to politics already knows it, people who don’t wouldn’t notice. At any rate, the Supreme Court is already held in extremely low regard, there is definitely a perception of it being politically partisan.
I tried to add a comment in another place on Substack but kept getting 404 error.
So Susan, hopefully you do not mind me putting it here. If so, I have no problem with you deleting it. It is just my musings about having three branches of government:
So what we have here is what physicists call the three body problem. In the three body problem we get Chaotic behavior the is impossible to predict.
The three bodies here are the three branches of government. Thus, Newton, Einstein and others are no help in solving the problem. There are ways to limit the damage. For example, one may not be able to predict a particle movement around what Chaos Theory calls a Strange Attractor but the attractor can restrict the probable paths of the particle to within a distance of the Strange Attractor.
So how do we set up a strange attractor for the government to set one up? One clue may be that the Democrats need to stop being such wimps when the Repugnants are obviously being chaotic.
The Supreme Court is not an elected office. And it’s not true that corruption comes with length of service—George Santos was astoundingly corrupt before he was even sworn in.
True. And many serve honorably for many years. Corruption has little to do with length of service.
P.S. Donald Trump was also astoundingly corrupt before entering office. And remained corrupt after taking office. Which is why I was against him in '16 because I'd followed his career prior to his running for office.
Back to previously discussed issue of term limits---the problem is most don't vote because they know who the candidate or what he has professed. They vote on what the media or advertising tell them. We don't need term limits, what we need is to reform how candidates are selected. We need to vote on issues and then select candidates to support the issues. Issues can be termed when they are decided the way people want them to be.
For instance, when people go to vote, say abortion is an issue, the ballot should list candidates for and against. Then other issues. Voters should be able to get issues on the ballot. The might then be able to vote for a pro-abortion candidate for that issue but might not need to vote for the same candidate for tax issues or world affairs. I would favor ranked issue voting, and the candidate who supports the most popular issues gets selected rather than elected.
They also should return to the league of Women Voters running the debates on TV as they did a outstanding job for years. The Media running them is a got you controversial questions to cause incidents to increase viewers instead of revealing what the candidates are planning. It also used to be part of the fairness doctrine that even time on air was given to both sides. Fox should be mandated to allow the person they smear to respond.
yes. Ray-gun had the FCC rule for fairness removed…and the Limbaugh exploded with no one able to call out the self-proclaimed Man Who Knows Everything.
Hell, I might not too bright, but I bet your little toe. Moon Cat knows more than Rush Limbaugh ever had the capacity to know.
Ken, It would be wonderful to have a standard way to display candidates' positions on the issues. It should not be done on the ballot, though. It would be a nightmare for election document designers, who must make the polling document clear and understandable to both the voter, who must discern how to express their choices, and to the document scanner, which must tally the votes.
It comes in English and Spanish and maybe Chinese but I'm not sure. I think you can request a booklet in your language of choice if it's not one of the main ones but I'm not sure what languages they offer.
They are not appointed by one person---they are nominated by one person, but appointed by a majority of the senate. At varying times it was by more than a majority, and I think should necessitate at least 60.
and who can do this? congress can cite them for contempt,and should. then the courts have to agree they are. and now what? Scotus gets to decide if they are in contempt?
No.
There must be rules passed where congress states in black & white justices can be prosecuted.
That man has “issues” and should’ve never made it even close to an election. The Democrats in NY 2nd district didn’t run ANY background on him. NOTHING.
The local Newspaper did a investigation and the Democratic Candidate tried to get on the Media to talk about it but they weren't interested. The Media is very good at ignoring things that are important.
OK, a couple things. 1. in a two year position there is only so much money to spend on a campaign. People swear they want a positive campaign that highlights a candidates positions. So if you want to give the people what they say they want, you are going to spend your limited money getting your message out to the most people possible.
2. The GOP also did a background check on him and saw a bunch of problems but they ran him anyways because he was their unicorn - a gay Latino conservative. They figured he'd pull independents who thought they were being inclusive. The GOP is totally on the hook for Santos, he was their choice.
Eliminate lifetime appointments for Judges. We need turnover so that we get new judges more aligned with current society. I do not believe there should be term limits for elected officials that can be voted out of office. It's nice to have experience in Congress. Look at ALL that Pelosi and Biden accomplished with a very narrow majority!
I agree. One proposal I've read about is appointing justices to 18-year terms (since there are nine justices.) Stagger their terms so that one retires every two years, and each president will be able to nominate two justices during a four-year presidential term.
I if trump convicted of election fraud, all three of justices he nominated should be forced to resign and their decisions vacated since they are only on the bench as a result of corruption.
Changing the Supreme Court's lifetime appointment to a term limited appointment will require an amendment which would have to wait until the Dems get a majority in the House and Senate.
Oof! That's never going to happen then. It's been over 100 years trying to get the ERA passed. For the first 50 years, it was introduced in Congress every year.
Alice Paul wrote it, she was trained as a lawyer among other subjects, she had three law degrees.
Maybe term limits for appointed SC & the like. But not for every elected office. Creating & passing good legislation is complicated and Congress critters gain valuable experience over time. We want to be able to keep the good ones. Elections every 2 or 6 years are enough (but add campaign finance reform).
No thanks. Vote better. I like my long term congress people who are doing good work. You all need to vote like it counts and keep voting. Be informed. Be decisive. The Republicans have done it for decades, Democrats and Independents need to step up and get serious.
For appointed offices, I have no problem with terms as long as there is an option to reappoint for a second or third term. If someone is doing good work, why break it? If they aren't doing good work, don't renominate them.
Yep. I’m tired of reading the legal pundit class clutching their pearls at supposed attempts to delegitimize the Supreme Court of the Federalist Society. The Court has delegitimized itself.
It’s not the kid’s fault that the emperor decided to go around nekkid.
They're not even trying to hide their corruption and bias anymore; Roberts won't do shit, so he is complicit. And, as usual, democrats have to do the messy job of cleaning it all up. That clean up can do as much damage as a corrupt court, because we expend "political capital" gained post outrage. We cannot impeach them, the republicans in the senate will never vote to convict. So anything we do will look partisan, and will be spun as such by the right wing propagandists networks.
Added side note: Gov Abbott (Q-Racist) pardoned a man who shot a BLM protester and claimed self defense (Stand Your Ground BS!). He was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Abbott is announcing that it's okay to murder black people in Texas, he has their back.
Democrats most certainly can impeach them, and they should to hold them accountable. Whether they are removed or not is a different matter, but it shouldn’t factor into whether they should be impeached for things like tax evasion, ethical violations and corruption.
I agree in principle, but it's a lot of work for no payoff. This corruption stems from the fact that they know they are safe from removal. Let's work on getting rid of the filibuster and expanding the court.
A second cousin of the murdered man in TX posted on Hubbell this morning that her cousin was white but his wife (at that time in a wheelchair) is Black. I only point this out for accuracy’s purposes and not to express disagreement. I am right there with you, Chris. I mention the wheelchair only because second cousin mentioned it in her comment.
OMG, what a big freaking mess.
I wholeheartedly agree that we must Reform the Court. My pessimistic side screams, “But these jackasses can’t even pass a budget on time!”
I hope I made it clear that it was the murdered man whose wife was in a wheelchair. I took it to mean he was marching either beside her in the wheelchair or FOR her.
Chris, I didn’t know it either until I read his cousin’s comment this morning. And I agree that the horrendous resulting message is the same. I don’t want any of us to be dismissed because we didn’t know a detail. 💙
I believe the protestor was white (not that should have even mattered). His girlfriend was black. Abbott should be totally ashamed of himself for this injustice but that asshole has no shame. He sucks and I detest him and find him disgusting.
Once we take back our Congress and Senate this November, we must quickly act to not only impeach both Alito and Thomas, but then we must also expand the court to the appropriate 13 justices. At that point, we can start working on making laws forbidding acts by Justices AND THEIR FAMILIES against the Rule of Law. That includes any and all appearances of impropriety. Such as this flag outrage. And laws against sitting members of Congress and the Senate attending trials of the likes of trump's, unless under subpoena.
I agree with you in principle but I think your order is wrong. The first order of business should be enacting an enforceable code of ethics that includes a means of enforcement. And a way to remove them even if they have a lifetime appointment.
Then we can expand the court. I agree with 13, one for each district.
Last should be removal. Because even if removal can’t be accomplished the first two will have pulled their fangs. Or maybe the two worst offenders will have succumbed to natural forces. They are old, after all.
That works, too! I'm all for it. But first things first; get everyone you possibly can to get to the polls in November ( but first, make sure the MAGAts haven't purged you from the voting rolls, like they're trying to do in Ohio! ), and vote against every Republican on all levels. Then, once we've regained control of our Democracy, we can get to work!
I have the same problem with increasing the number of SC justices because of some bad ones on the bench as I have with expanding law enforcement because of so many bad apples.
Which amplifies my point; We The People VOTE OUT every Republican up for election this November. Then, our first point of order is to impeach those 2, if not a couple more, and get about the business of democratically governing our nation!
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I really don't see us getting a 2/3 majority in the Senate any time soon. Expanding the court is our best option, but could come with a cost.
We need to get to 60. There's a couple of VERY winnable races coming up, like Scott in FLA, and Cruz in TX. Won't be easy, but I have a REALLY good feeling about this November. Come about September, you'll see the enthusiasm start to ramp up. But you and I have to help!
I also have a good feeling about November, but I can also see the SCOTUS trying to tip the scales and toss out ballots. So a win too big to steal will be needed. But 60 only gets us past the filibuster, which I think we can do away with a solid hold on the Senate. You need 66 votes to impeach.
A common misconception: federal judges serve for life, and cannot be removed except by impeachment and a Senate trial. That's tradition. But it's not the law.
The US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour[.]" A judge, including a SCOTUS Justice, who is no longer on "good Behavior" is constitutionally ineligible to remain on the court.
Congress can pass a law explicitly defining what sort of misconduct is inconsistent with "good Behavior." For example, the failure to disqualify oneself from a case when required to do so by federal law. Or the failure to promptly report bribes disguised as "gifts". Or to abide by judicial ethics codes.
Congress can also define a judicial process, so a judge accused of misconduct will get a fair and impartial hearing, with full due process, on whether they actually committed the misconduct that is alleged.
But once it's established in court that a judge committed misconduct, they're fired by the terms of the Constitution itself.
A "Judicial Integrity Act" would be a easy way for Congress to make the entire judicial branch self-cleaning, by letting the courts themselves throw out every judge who won't follow the law.
This might not survive judicial scrutiny. It’s hard to see the current Supreme Court agreeing to hand Congress the power to define Good Behaviour beyond what the Framers intended.
I can see the right-wing majority doing that. But if Congress creates a judicial hearing and appeal process for "good Behaviour" complaints against judges, and used its Article III Section 2 power to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear appeals of such proceedings, would SCOTUS even get a say?
Thomas and Alito are too biased to serve, all three Drumpf appointees lied during confirmation. Roberts may be the ONLY conservative fit to sit if only because he may not have been complicit in his own installation.
We do have a federal statute on recusal and no one does it say scotus justices are exempt, Federal statute 28 U.S. Code § 455 .
By the statute, spousal interest is also included as a requirement for recusal. Roberts should be recusing himself from any case that is represented by any of his wife's client law firms.
The statute has another standard for recusal. ")Where he has...expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;"
didn't Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch (at least) express opinions on abortion before being of the court.; Federal statute says such judgments themselves are invalid and must be reheard by a different judge or panel. So Dobbs was actually 4-2 in favor of not overturning Roe because existing law says three of the justices who had expressed prior opinions on the issue that did hear the case were disqualified from making a judgement in the case.
The only thing is, apart from the justice dept. bringing criminal charges, I don't know who can enforce the statutes. that do exist.
Once congress passes a statute, isn't it the dept. of justice responsible for enforcing it?
Your occasional reminder that five of the six explicitly America-hating justices were appointed by Republican presidents who got fewer votes than their opponents.
FYI - the reason PA needs 3 days to count mail in votes after Election Day is because they are not allowed to begin counting those votes until all of the polls close. 😥
Typical. Republicans pass laws to create problems with things that are working fine, so they can intervene in the program and destroy it. The Post Office is another example of this and currently a problem is being created by DeJoy for mail in voters as he's closed many local Post Office centers and directing local mail out of State for sorting before returning it to a local address adding days to local mail delivery. This goes hand in hand with the Pennsylvania issue.
"I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Alito wrote back. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” He was referring to a neighbor’s anti-Trump sign that contained an expletive."
How can a sign, even one with an expletive, be PERSONALLY insulting to Alito?
The sign wasn't about him, it was about Trump.
All it shows to me is that Alito identifies so closely with Trump that an insult to Trump personally offends Alito.
Thank you, let's also recall that Alito received fast tracked Gohmert v Pence on the morning of J6 and didn't rule in it until J7 as 'moot' because Thanks to brave officers, staffers and Nancy Pelosi the certification of our votes was completed. If the planned militia occupation and delays requested by team treason had been implemented, I believe Alito would have acted in furtherance, especially in light of the symbolic display of the US flag flying upside down at his residence identifying the rot within. Chief Justice Roberts needs to act, maybe the DOJ does too, evidence supporting.
You give Alito too much credit in interpreting of our Founding Fathers intent, this shit gibbon referenced centuries old gibberish by guys from other countries when drafting his opinion on stripping away our rights.
I think quoting a 17th Century Judge who hung witches is somehow appropriate to Ailito's religious position and Separation of Church and State should exclude him from Office.
Concur, they are violating the First Amendment when inserting their religious beliefs into our laws, not sure which part of 'or prohibiting free exercise thereof' they aren't getting. They also disregard the 'well regulated' part regarding militia in the Second...failures all.
Au Contraire mon Cheri. I give him no credit at all. I humbly thank you—sincerely—for reminding me that there is no end to how low this “shit Gibbon”—I like that though a little insulting to gibbons—can go. ♐️♐️♊️
As Sen. Whitehouse has discussed, somehow a way to get the Judicial Conference involved? Though unlikely now, they can authorize investigations of federal judges accused of criminal malfeasance, and those found guilty can be referred to the House Judiciary Committee for impeachment.
Title 4, United States Flag Code, Chapter 1, Section 8:
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
As the son of a veteran, I take this shit seriously.
It's comforting to expect Alito and Thomas to resign, but deeply unlikely. For Thomas, this is the gig of a lifetime that he's not qualified for in any other field. He'll be lying to us, shielding his wife, and hobnobbing with his wealthy funders for the foreseeable future. For Alito, no reason he'd ever give up his power to reshape the US to fit his religious and political dogma.
Yup. Lifetime appointments NEED TO GO. TERM LIMITS for EVERY ELECTED OFFICE. CORRUPTION COMES WITH LENGTH OF SERVICE.
Check out termlimitthecourt.com
Term limits is an insufficient response when there is an obvious cancer in the court. The cancer needs to be surgically removed NOW.
Thanks for posting the link, sent a question to this group. Disgust is all I feel for Alito and Thomas,
I donated.
Both Alito and Thomas are completely corrupt, beyond imagination and too biased to serve on SCotUS; they should be impeached!
Impeachment is, unfortunately, kind of a dead letter now. If we couldn't impeach Trump after inciting the insurrection, it's hard to see how we can impeach a Justice merely for offering moral support to said insurrection. The requirement for a two-thirds vote to convict makes it basically impossible.
Impeachment is no dead letter. A Democratic House majority could do it, and then draw national attention to the corruption. If the Republicans in the Senate vote as a block to protect the justices, that will at least show the people where the GOP stands on the rule of law.
If people don't yet know where the QOP stands on "law and order", and "family values" for that matter", then they aren't paying attention. Those are just meaningless slogans to that immoral and corrupt Party.
Unfortunately, there are several sources which point out exactly how uninformed a large percentage of the U.S. public remains. Either the major news source for these folks is Fox--which basically only reports anti-Dem, pro-MAGA news...and absolutely none of the most damaging facts about Trump and MAGA doings....or, they are too busy with their kids and their two plus jobs to follow the news in any detail.
I can confirm. Many of my relatives are exactly like this. Not only that, but the very second that I bring up politics, their eyes glaze over and they are completely disinterested. They are so priveleged that they do not believe they will be affected by anything I have to warn them about.
This is so true. Many people I work with pay no attention to politics, and just go about living their lives with no idea that there's bank safe about to drop on their heads.
Also, with the GOP in chaos because some conservative republicans are furious about being painted with the MAGA brush, this would be an excellent opportunity for a few republicans to distinguish themselves from the mega crowd.
They don't have the stones to take out a conservative justice. They will not do it.
Everyone who pays attention to politics already knows it, people who don’t wouldn’t notice. At any rate, the Supreme Court is already held in extremely low regard, there is definitely a perception of it being politically partisan.
@susanhofstader
I concur completely — that impeachment isn't really a plausible action. I'm just "screaming" it (in theory) only.
All American patriots need to support Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and other's efforts to pass SCotUS ethics reforms. Vote!
And donate, even $5.00 to Senators Whitehouse and others fighting against this corruption. Vote for people who are refusing Corporate Donations.
Vote first 🌊🌊🌊 impeach later
Sometimes accepting this bird-like fickled finger of fate is enough to choke on.
Agreed. It’s lost its bite. Now it’s a tool. No longer a punishment.
I tried to add a comment in another place on Substack but kept getting 404 error.
So Susan, hopefully you do not mind me putting it here. If so, I have no problem with you deleting it. It is just my musings about having three branches of government:
So what we have here is what physicists call the three body problem. In the three body problem we get Chaotic behavior the is impossible to predict.
The three bodies here are the three branches of government. Thus, Newton, Einstein and others are no help in solving the problem. There are ways to limit the damage. For example, one may not be able to predict a particle movement around what Chaos Theory calls a Strange Attractor but the attractor can restrict the probable paths of the particle to within a distance of the Strange Attractor.
So how do we set up a strange attractor for the government to set one up? One clue may be that the Democrats need to stop being such wimps when the Repugnants are obviously being chaotic.
Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is set to expire December 31, 2025 at 11:59 pm.
The morbidly wealthy one percent of America is about to lose their precious tax cuts unless Trump is re-elected.
Look no further than Justices Thomas and Alito as to whom is getting payoffs so Trump gets the win this November.
Guaranfknteed
Absolutely. Bought and paid.
The Supreme Court is not an elected office. And it’s not true that corruption comes with length of service—George Santos was astoundingly corrupt before he was even sworn in.
Alioto and Thomas also corrupt before their nominations which is why they were nominated.
True. And many serve honorably for many years. Corruption has little to do with length of service.
P.S. Donald Trump was also astoundingly corrupt before entering office. And remained corrupt after taking office. Which is why I was against him in '16 because I'd followed his career prior to his running for office.
Back to previously discussed issue of term limits---the problem is most don't vote because they know who the candidate or what he has professed. They vote on what the media or advertising tell them. We don't need term limits, what we need is to reform how candidates are selected. We need to vote on issues and then select candidates to support the issues. Issues can be termed when they are decided the way people want them to be.
For instance, when people go to vote, say abortion is an issue, the ballot should list candidates for and against. Then other issues. Voters should be able to get issues on the ballot. The might then be able to vote for a pro-abortion candidate for that issue but might not need to vote for the same candidate for tax issues or world affairs. I would favor ranked issue voting, and the candidate who supports the most popular issues gets selected rather than elected.
They also should return to the league of Women Voters running the debates on TV as they did a outstanding job for years. The Media running them is a got you controversial questions to cause incidents to increase viewers instead of revealing what the candidates are planning. It also used to be part of the fairness doctrine that even time on air was given to both sides. Fox should be mandated to allow the person they smear to respond.
Excellent
yes. Ray-gun had the FCC rule for fairness removed…and the Limbaugh exploded with no one able to call out the self-proclaimed Man Who Knows Everything.
Hell, I might not too bright, but I bet your little toe. Moon Cat knows more than Rush Limbaugh ever had the capacity to know.
Ken, It would be wonderful to have a standard way to display candidates' positions on the issues. It should not be done on the ballot, though. It would be a nightmare for election document designers, who must make the polling document clear and understandable to both the voter, who must discern how to express their choices, and to the document scanner, which must tally the votes.
California sends a booklet to all registered voters with candidate written positions for each office on the ballot. I think Colorado also does.
So does NY. I read mine carefully.
It comes in English and Spanish and maybe Chinese but I'm not sure. I think you can request a booklet in your language of choice if it's not one of the main ones but I'm not sure what languages they offer.
Massachusetts does that in
العَرَبِيَّة (Arabic)
中文 (Chinese)
English
Kreyòl ayisyen (Haitian Creole)
Português (Portuguese)
Español (Spanish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
I think we should add a republican version.
great!
Dear Ken Taylor,
You say you followed Trump's career but didn't elaborate how that and what about that is related and relevant to this argument.
Please elaborate on how Trump's career research you have is correct to extrapolate corruption related to the SCOTUS's alledged issues here.
trump appointed people who are as corrupt as he is. That is who he looks for to give jobs/awards to. Like attracts like, birds of a feather, etc.
Oh, kinda like this thread about the essay here? But you're not the one to answer my question either, right? But I appreciate your enthusiasm.
Read up on trump. You're a big boy, you can figure it out.
And I understand they aren’t “elected”…. Even WORSE. They are appointed by ONE person.
They are not appointed by one person---they are nominated by one person, but appointed by a majority of the senate. At varying times it was by more than a majority, and I think should necessitate at least 60.
There should be a repercussion for lying under Oath to the Senate to attain the position.
Freedom of speech does not include freedom to lie under oath. Why is that not a serious concern?
and who can do this? congress can cite them for contempt,and should. then the courts have to agree they are. and now what? Scotus gets to decide if they are in contempt?
No.
There must be rules passed where congress states in black & white justices can be prosecuted.
That man has “issues” and should’ve never made it even close to an election. The Democrats in NY 2nd district didn’t run ANY background on him. NOTHING.
The local Newspaper did a investigation and the Democratic Candidate tried to get on the Media to talk about it but they weren't interested. The Media is very good at ignoring things that are important.
🎯
OK, a couple things. 1. in a two year position there is only so much money to spend on a campaign. People swear they want a positive campaign that highlights a candidates positions. So if you want to give the people what they say they want, you are going to spend your limited money getting your message out to the most people possible.
2. The GOP also did a background check on him and saw a bunch of problems but they ran him anyways because he was their unicorn - a gay Latino conservative. They figured he'd pull independents who thought they were being inclusive. The GOP is totally on the hook for Santos, he was their choice.
He is the rarity….
Eliminate lifetime appointments for Judges. We need turnover so that we get new judges more aligned with current society. I do not believe there should be term limits for elected officials that can be voted out of office. It's nice to have experience in Congress. Look at ALL that Pelosi and Biden accomplished with a very narrow majority!
I agree. One proposal I've read about is appointing justices to 18-year terms (since there are nine justices.) Stagger their terms so that one retires every two years, and each president will be able to nominate two justices during a four-year presidential term.
I if trump convicted of election fraud, all three of justices he nominated should be forced to resign and their decisions vacated since they are only on the bench as a result of corruption.
Changing the Supreme Court's lifetime appointment to a term limited appointment will require an amendment which would have to wait until the Dems get a majority in the House and Senate.
And amendments would still have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states
Oof! That's never going to happen then. It's been over 100 years trying to get the ERA passed. For the first 50 years, it was introduced in Congress every year.
Alice Paul wrote it, she was trained as a lawyer among other subjects, she had three law degrees.
I think SCOTUS could be very usefully expanded to the number of Federal Circuit courts plus one: thirteen.
Maybe term limits for appointed SC & the like. But not for every elected office. Creating & passing good legislation is complicated and Congress critters gain valuable experience over time. We want to be able to keep the good ones. Elections every 2 or 6 years are enough (but add campaign finance reform).
Yes. Doing away with Citizens United too.
No thanks. Vote better. I like my long term congress people who are doing good work. You all need to vote like it counts and keep voting. Be informed. Be decisive. The Republicans have done it for decades, Democrats and Independents need to step up and get serious.
For appointed offices, I have no problem with terms as long as there is an option to reappoint for a second or third term. If someone is doing good work, why break it? If they aren't doing good work, don't renominate them.
Yep. I’m tired of reading the legal pundit class clutching their pearls at supposed attempts to delegitimize the Supreme Court of the Federalist Society. The Court has delegitimized itself.
It’s not the kid’s fault that the emperor decided to go around nekkid.
They're not even trying to hide their corruption and bias anymore; Roberts won't do shit, so he is complicit. And, as usual, democrats have to do the messy job of cleaning it all up. That clean up can do as much damage as a corrupt court, because we expend "political capital" gained post outrage. We cannot impeach them, the republicans in the senate will never vote to convict. So anything we do will look partisan, and will be spun as such by the right wing propagandists networks.
Added side note: Gov Abbott (Q-Racist) pardoned a man who shot a BLM protester and claimed self defense (Stand Your Ground BS!). He was found guilty by a jury of his peers. Abbott is announcing that it's okay to murder black people in Texas, he has their back.
Democrats most certainly can impeach them, and they should to hold them accountable. Whether they are removed or not is a different matter, but it shouldn’t factor into whether they should be impeached for things like tax evasion, ethical violations and corruption.
I agree in principle, but it's a lot of work for no payoff. This corruption stems from the fact that they know they are safe from removal. Let's work on getting rid of the filibuster and expanding the court.
He did out loud what we all knew: Texas is not bound by Rule of Law.
A second cousin of the murdered man in TX posted on Hubbell this morning that her cousin was white but his wife (at that time in a wheelchair) is Black. I only point this out for accuracy’s purposes and not to express disagreement. I am right there with you, Chris. I mention the wheelchair only because second cousin mentioned it in her comment.
OMG, what a big freaking mess.
I wholeheartedly agree that we must Reform the Court. My pessimistic side screams, “But these jackasses can’t even pass a budget on time!”
Ranting, sorry.
I'd like to know why his wife was in a wheelchair. Domestic Abuse comes to mind. But that's just me.
I hope I made it clear that it was the murdered man whose wife was in a wheelchair. I took it to mean he was marching either beside her in the wheelchair or FOR her.
You might want to delete this comment. That is a pretty horrible thing to say about someone you know nothing about.
She was a dancer and got a UTI, went into septic shock, her limbs went dead and then ended up having all four limbs amputated.
There was no domestic violence and you are very awful to say that there might be.
His very beautiful wife was disabled and he took care of her and helped her in every possible way.
I must admit, I did not know that. But the resulting message is the same. Thank you for pointing that out.
Chris, I didn’t know it either until I read his cousin’s comment this morning. And I agree that the horrendous resulting message is the same. I don’t want any of us to be dismissed because we didn’t know a detail. 💙
I appreciate the detail, it's so important to be accurate.
I too shared that story and several others regarding Greg Abbott's pathetic, disgusting, and immoral indiscretions.
I believe the protestor was white (not that should have even mattered). His girlfriend was black. Abbott should be totally ashamed of himself for this injustice but that asshole has no shame. He sucks and I detest him and find him disgusting.
Once we take back our Congress and Senate this November, we must quickly act to not only impeach both Alito and Thomas, but then we must also expand the court to the appropriate 13 justices. At that point, we can start working on making laws forbidding acts by Justices AND THEIR FAMILIES against the Rule of Law. That includes any and all appearances of impropriety. Such as this flag outrage. And laws against sitting members of Congress and the Senate attending trials of the likes of trump's, unless under subpoena.
I agree with you in principle but I think your order is wrong. The first order of business should be enacting an enforceable code of ethics that includes a means of enforcement. And a way to remove them even if they have a lifetime appointment.
Then we can expand the court. I agree with 13, one for each district.
Last should be removal. Because even if removal can’t be accomplished the first two will have pulled their fangs. Or maybe the two worst offenders will have succumbed to natural forces. They are old, after all.
That works, too! I'm all for it. But first things first; get everyone you possibly can to get to the polls in November ( but first, make sure the MAGAts haven't purged you from the voting rolls, like they're trying to do in Ohio! ), and vote against every Republican on all levels. Then, once we've regained control of our Democracy, we can get to work!
I have the same problem with increasing the number of SC justices because of some bad ones on the bench as I have with expanding law enforcement because of so many bad apples.
Vote🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊
And drag along as many as you can carry to vote with you!!
The Senate Q-cultists will never vote to convict them.
Which amplifies my point; We The People VOTE OUT every Republican up for election this November. Then, our first point of order is to impeach those 2, if not a couple more, and get about the business of democratically governing our nation!
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I really don't see us getting a 2/3 majority in the Senate any time soon. Expanding the court is our best option, but could come with a cost.
We need to get to 60. There's a couple of VERY winnable races coming up, like Scott in FLA, and Cruz in TX. Won't be easy, but I have a REALLY good feeling about this November. Come about September, you'll see the enthusiasm start to ramp up. But you and I have to help!
I also have a good feeling about November, but I can also see the SCOTUS trying to tip the scales and toss out ballots. So a win too big to steal will be needed. But 60 only gets us past the filibuster, which I think we can do away with a solid hold on the Senate. You need 66 votes to impeach.
Well then, we've REALLY go some work to do!! Good to have you in the foxhole with me!
A common misconception: federal judges serve for life, and cannot be removed except by impeachment and a Senate trial. That's tradition. But it's not the law.
The US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour[.]" A judge, including a SCOTUS Justice, who is no longer on "good Behavior" is constitutionally ineligible to remain on the court.
Congress can pass a law explicitly defining what sort of misconduct is inconsistent with "good Behavior." For example, the failure to disqualify oneself from a case when required to do so by federal law. Or the failure to promptly report bribes disguised as "gifts". Or to abide by judicial ethics codes.
Congress can also define a judicial process, so a judge accused of misconduct will get a fair and impartial hearing, with full due process, on whether they actually committed the misconduct that is alleged.
But once it's established in court that a judge committed misconduct, they're fired by the terms of the Constitution itself.
A "Judicial Integrity Act" would be a easy way for Congress to make the entire judicial branch self-cleaning, by letting the courts themselves throw out every judge who won't follow the law.
This might not survive judicial scrutiny. It’s hard to see the current Supreme Court agreeing to hand Congress the power to define Good Behaviour beyond what the Framers intended.
I can see the right-wing majority doing that. But if Congress creates a judicial hearing and appeal process for "good Behaviour" complaints against judges, and used its Article III Section 2 power to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear appeals of such proceedings, would SCOTUS even get a say?
I'd like to seeJay comment on this.
Ever since the biblical myth-man Adam they’ve been blaming the women.
That this flag flew for days says it all about da judge.
https://open.substack.com/pub/endlessnameless/p/two-thirds-of-scotus-is-illegitimate?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=29z8f0
Thomas and Alito are too biased to serve, all three Drumpf appointees lied during confirmation. Roberts may be the ONLY conservative fit to sit if only because he may not have been complicit in his own installation.
And frankly maybe that bears investigating.
Robert's Wife has a job that continually puts him in overseeing Cases that he should have recused from but didn't. He's not clean either.
We do have a federal statute on recusal and no one does it say scotus justices are exempt, Federal statute 28 U.S. Code § 455 .
By the statute, spousal interest is also included as a requirement for recusal. Roberts should be recusing himself from any case that is represented by any of his wife's client law firms.
The statute has another standard for recusal. ")Where he has...expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;"
didn't Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch (at least) express opinions on abortion before being of the court.; Federal statute says such judgments themselves are invalid and must be reheard by a different judge or panel. So Dobbs was actually 4-2 in favor of not overturning Roe because existing law says three of the justices who had expressed prior opinions on the issue that did hear the case were disqualified from making a judgement in the case.
The only thing is, apart from the justice dept. bringing criminal charges, I don't know who can enforce the statutes. that do exist.
Once congress passes a statute, isn't it the dept. of justice responsible for enforcing it?
https://open.substack.com/pub/endlessnameless/p/your-welcome-to-america
Here's why.
And Roberts is a vote suppressor. Waste of human life, that one.
Alito needs to resign in disgrace immediately. Expand the courts. Impose term limits. And ban them from receiving gifts.
Your occasional reminder that five of the six explicitly America-hating justices were appointed by Republican presidents who got fewer votes than their opponents.
FYI - the reason PA needs 3 days to count mail in votes after Election Day is because they are not allowed to begin counting those votes until all of the polls close. 😥
Typical. Republicans pass laws to create problems with things that are working fine, so they can intervene in the program and destroy it. The Post Office is another example of this and currently a problem is being created by DeJoy for mail in voters as he's closed many local Post Office centers and directing local mail out of State for sorting before returning it to a local address adding days to local mail delivery. This goes hand in hand with the Pennsylvania issue.
"I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” Alito wrote back. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” He was referring to a neighbor’s anti-Trump sign that contained an expletive."
How can a sign, even one with an expletive, be PERSONALLY insulting to Alito?
The sign wasn't about him, it was about Trump.
All it shows to me is that Alito identifies so closely with Trump that an insult to Trump personally offends Alito.
What a wuss. “Not me, Mommy, I didn’t do it. It was her.” Sickening.
Thank you, let's also recall that Alito received fast tracked Gohmert v Pence on the morning of J6 and didn't rule in it until J7 as 'moot' because Thanks to brave officers, staffers and Nancy Pelosi the certification of our votes was completed. If the planned militia occupation and delays requested by team treason had been implemented, I believe Alito would have acted in furtherance, especially in light of the symbolic display of the US flag flying upside down at his residence identifying the rot within. Chief Justice Roberts needs to act, maybe the DOJ does too, evidence supporting.
These judges are traitors to this country. They also like to rely on bullshit reasoning of knowing what our “founding Fathers” thought.
Let me think for a minute. How did the founding fathers handle treason? I think I’ll go out and get some Eggs Benedict as I try to remember.
You give Alito too much credit in interpreting of our Founding Fathers intent, this shit gibbon referenced centuries old gibberish by guys from other countries when drafting his opinion on stripping away our rights.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/15/abortion-history-founders-alito/
I think quoting a 17th Century Judge who hung witches is somehow appropriate to Ailito's religious position and Separation of Church and State should exclude him from Office.
Concur, they are violating the First Amendment when inserting their religious beliefs into our laws, not sure which part of 'or prohibiting free exercise thereof' they aren't getting. They also disregard the 'well regulated' part regarding militia in the Second...failures all.
Au Contraire mon Cheri. I give him no credit at all. I humbly thank you—sincerely—for reminding me that there is no end to how low this “shit Gibbon”—I like that though a little insulting to gibbons—can go. ♐️♐️♊️
💙
As Sen. Whitehouse has discussed, somehow a way to get the Judicial Conference involved? Though unlikely now, they can authorize investigations of federal judges accused of criminal malfeasance, and those found guilty can be referred to the House Judiciary Committee for impeachment.
Sheldon Whitehouse has suggested using the Judicial Conference or the dept. of justice, by the way.
https://www.legion.org/flag/code
Title 4, United States Flag Code, Chapter 1, Section 8:
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
As the son of a veteran, I take this shit seriously.
It's comforting to expect Alito and Thomas to resign, but deeply unlikely. For Thomas, this is the gig of a lifetime that he's not qualified for in any other field. He'll be lying to us, shielding his wife, and hobnobbing with his wealthy funders for the foreseeable future. For Alito, no reason he'd ever give up his power to reshape the US to fit his religious and political dogma.
He might if there were health reasons to do so.
May it be so and soon.
Seize the day and vote blue!