Tue Jun 5, 2018, 02:24 PM
Goodheart (4,907 posts)
If by some shocking outcome the Democrats get back the House PLUS 67 Senate seats...
should Neil Gorsuch be impeached?
I say YES.
|
11 replies, 1730 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Goodheart | Jun 2018 | OP |
onenote | Jun 2018 | #1 | |
mythology | Jun 2018 | #3 | |
unblock | Jun 2018 | #2 | |
Civic Justice | Jun 2018 | #4 | |
samir.g | Jun 2018 | #5 | |
Goodheart | Jun 2018 | #6 | |
Awsi Dooger | Jun 2018 | #7 | |
Goodheart | Jun 2018 | #8 | |
regnaD kciN | Jun 2018 | #9 | |
tritsofme | Jun 2018 | #10 | |
Demsrule86 | Jun 2018 | #11 |
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Jun 5, 2018, 02:30 PM
onenote (41,084 posts)
1. That would indeed be shocking
Given that if the Democrats hold everyone of the Senate seats they currently have and won every Republican held seat up for grabs, they'd have no more than 58 (including two independents). And that's not going to happen.
I suppose in 2020 there is a possibility of enough pick ups to give the Democrats 67 or more Senate seats, although it's way too early to make such predictions. And, no, the Democrats should not impeach Gorsuch since he hasn't done diddly squat that can be considered a high crime and misdemeanor. It a silly idea that no one in the Senate would spend ten seconds considering. |
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Jun 5, 2018, 02:33 PM
unblock (51,611 posts)
2. not even theoretically possible, republicans have 42 seats not up for re-election.
well, ok, *nine* of them could leave office one way or another, and we somehow flip all those seats as well as sweep in november.
ain't happening. 2020 or later is at least a vaguely more viable fantasy. in any event, to your question, i think either he should be impeached or we should add two more seats to the supreme court for a democratic president to appoint in order to get us back to the one-seat edge we should have had with garland. |
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Jun 5, 2018, 02:41 PM
Civic Justice (870 posts)
4. if the lack of actual interactive narrative promoting dialog is any indicator.... we are toast!!!
We have no concern or awareness of the value of controlling the public narrative... and if this site is an example, we have no motivation to create and promote narrative... I guess, its always someones else's job....
That's exactly how and why we lost Congress and the office of the Presidency.... and we have not figured it out. (now come on, attack this, is about the extent of what many will do, but they won't create and promote content to promote narrative) |
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Jun 5, 2018, 02:44 PM
samir.g (835 posts)
5. As well as Thomas
Response to samir.g (Reply #5)
Tue Jun 5, 2018, 02:49 PM
Goodheart (4,907 posts)
6. The Constitution says the Justice should serve while in "Good Behavior"
You see.... it's Republicans who have ALREADY redefined "good behavior", so I see no point in refraining from their partisan game.
I say Gorsuch was illegitimately appointed, and every ruling he makes is thus illegitimate. Sounds like bad behavior to me. ![]() I can't make the same case for Thomas, though. |
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Jun 5, 2018, 02:59 PM
Awsi Dooger (14,565 posts)
7. More chance of the Atlantic and Pacific changing places tomorrow
Can't happen. You can remove 10 or 12 seats and it still can't happen
|
Response to Awsi Dooger (Reply #7)
Tue Jun 5, 2018, 03:08 PM
Goodheart (4,907 posts)
8. It could, just not in November. :)
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Jun 5, 2018, 04:02 PM
regnaD kciN (25,983 posts)
9. Not a chance, BUT...
...should Democrats secure both chambers of Congress plus the White House after 2020, there's nothing in the Constitution forbidding them from passing a regular law raising the number of Supreme Court justices to, say, 11 (or, if Trump makes any more appointments, 12-15 or more), and immediately filling those positions with progressive judges.
(Although most people believe the Constitution mandates only nine Supreme Court justices, it does not, and the number has fluctuated up and down over the years.) And the beauty of it is, since Mitchie blew away the filibuster concerning SCOTUS appointments, even 49 Republican senators couldn't stop it. |
Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #9)
Tue Jun 5, 2018, 04:19 PM
tritsofme (16,242 posts)
10. It would still take 60 votes, under current rules, to pass a law expanding the Court
Response to Goodheart (Original post)
Tue Jun 5, 2018, 04:46 PM
Demsrule86 (67,223 posts)
11. It is mathematically impossible to get 67 seats but hypothetically impeach Trump and pence...then
Nancy gets to be president...hello single payer.
|