She's a Justice for now, but we can impeach Amy Coney Barrett -- if the Democrats are brave

[babylonsister]

Throw in Thomas and Kavanaugh while you're at it...

She’s a Justice for now, but we can impeach Amy Coney Barrett — if the Democrats are brave
This isn’t the end of the fight. But if Barrett does what we all fear and uses her position to stop a fair election, Democrats are going to have to be more forceful than they were during her confirmation hearings
Alexander Heffner
New York
1 day ago


Democrats’ failure to persuade the public and Republicans to suspend the nomination of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett has the potential to erode American democracy for generations.

On countless questions of constitutionality, life and death, and law and order, the Court’s 6-3 majority will enforce the preferences of an extreme minority. A tyranny of the minority will fundamentally alter the American Republic, diminish the rights of the majority, and pervert any remaining equal justice under the law.

Longtime Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein has provided the best advice to the Democratic Party at this juncture: “If Amy Coney Barrett goes on the Court and immediately votes for PA voter suppression, she should quickly be impeached. Trump asked her openly to act to tilt the scales of the election.”

If Barrett does indeed rule against the rights of voters in the days leading up to or during vote-counting — refusing to recuse herself from decisions that would clearly amount to a quid pro quo for Trump’s re-election — Ornstein’s suggestion is precisely the required hardball Dems need to play to delegitimize the extremist justice and preserve democracy.

By voting against the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and interfering in state’s electoral practices, Barrett’s rank duplicity will be unmistakable — as will the fraud of her purported conviction in federalism and state’s rights.

This is when Democrats need to pounce on her ethically and legally dubious approach — to serve the interests of the Republican Party rather than uphold the law — and make the argument they were right about not seating her. Any public support for the nominee-turned-justice will crumble. And while there will not be a 2-3 majority to convict in the Senate, Pelosi and House Democrats can swiftly impeach her.

more...

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/amy-coney-barrett-justice-scotus-impeach-democrats-b1351458.html

[NurseJackie]

1. Someone here ridiculed me for suggesting this... just yesterday, in fact.

[lagomorph777]

3. Well, it's mathematically impossible to take 2/3 of the Senate this time.

Unless you are proposing another empty impeachment.

[NurseJackie]

8. Yes, at this time. Stand by.

[lagomorph777]

10. Maybe we start impeachments in 2023, but by then we'll expand the Courts, including SCROTUS.

[Polybius]

38. Even with 67 seats there has to be good grounds to impeach

But we'll never have 67 votes anyway. Best we could ever hope for is roughly 62.

[babylonsister]

4. You and Norm are right, it seems.

I wondered myself until I saw Ornstein's name on this.

[Voltaire2]

9. because it is ridiculous

we won't have the votes in the senate.

We can expand the court. We can set term limits. Both of those are realistic with control of the house and senate. Impeachment will not result in conviction because we will not have a 2/3 super majority. It is a non-starter.

[Me.]

22. What Do They Know?

My sense on this matter is that she's going to do herself in, one way or the other. Zealots always do.

[brooklynite]

2. We won't Impeach Barrett

We won't Impeach Kavanaugh

We won't Impeach Gorsuch

Reality sucks.

[blueinredohio]

5. Will she be removed if only the house votes for impeachment?

[lagomorph777]

12. Do you recall the Trump impeachment?

Is Trump gone?

Same rules apply.

[Statistical]

17. No. The Senate removes someone anyone from office with 67 votes to convict.

People need to stop pretending impeachment is a realistic option. Call me when Democrats have 67 solid votes in the Senate (excluding the blue dogs which will vote against it). Until then pretending impeachment is an option is just false hope.

[blueinredohio]

28. Then why bother?

[Statistical]

29. Exactly. The article is nonsense.

Likewise any article on anything claiming impeachment is the solution is nonsense if the Democrats don't have 67 seats in the Senate.

[LakeArenal]

6. This is BS....

“Democrats’ failure to persuade the public and Republicans to suspend the nomination of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett has the potential to erode American democracy for generations.”


Failure? What were they supposed do do? Bring guns?

Should read “Republicans scheme of packing the court”.........

[Voltaire2]

11. they could have stalled all senate procedures with priority processes

for example, and ironically, impeachment.

[LakeArenal]

21. I'm sure they Dems have a plan.

[tritsofme]

31. Again, this is bullshit.

What would be accomplished by stall tactics that delay the inevitable for a day or so, while potentially exposing Democratic senators to COVID?

[Voltaire2]

35. for days or so, repeated for weeks or so, until the clock runs out.

But we don't even try.

They use every trick they can find, we bring a cardboard spork to a nuclear war.

They don't give a shit about appearances, we are constantly fretting about how *they* will think about us.

Or as we keep saying: 'when they go low, we go high'.

And they keep handing us up our asses on a plate.

[tritsofme]

39. They couldn't have drawn it out for more than a few days.

All it would have done is pointlessly expose Democratic senators to COVID. It is a numbers game, there is nothing more of substance that Senate Democrats could have done.

[maxsolomon]

41. They did. Schumer used multiple tactics.

He denied the Judiciary Committee a Quorum. Graham broke his own rules and passed her nomination without a single Dem vote, yay or nay.

McConnell rammed it through because he knows better than any of us what's going to happen next week.

[Boogiemack]

7. Kavanaugh should be the first to be impeached. He is on record with his lies. nt

[jalan48]

13. I don't see Democrats doing this. It's a slippery slope to go down.

When the Republicans regain power they will then impeach liberal Justices.

[Statistical]

30. Nobody is impeaching anybody. It takes 67 votes to convict in the senate.

Do the Democrats have 67 votes in the Senate? No? Then they are not removing any conservative justice.
Do the Republicans have 67 votes in the Senate? No? Then they are not removing any liberal justice.

The article is ignoring that reality to generate clicks.

[kysrsoze]

14. Why bother? It will never get 2/3 vote. It's MUCH easier to add 2+ more justices.

[NewJeffCT]

18. Start with a proposal to add 6 or 8 justices

and then "settle" for 3 or 4.

Agree that it's easier to add justices.

Also add them at the appellate & distict court levels as well. That's far more common.

[Celerity]

33. the sweet spot is to add 6, to get to 15, and here is why:

1. it gives us a 3 seat margin, the same as we would have if the Rethugs had not stolen the 3 seats, so it is truly balancing the ratio to a valid number

plus

2. it follows the rule of 3

3 judges are the least you can have and avoid ties

add 3 more, its 6, so a no go

add 3 more you get to the next (and current) level 9

add 3 more, it is no good, as 12 can tie 6 to 6

thus 15 is the next number in the sequence


finally

3. 15 (9 + 6) is a premptive move that raises the number high enough so that the next move upward (if the Rethugs consider it if they ever gain back power in both POTUS and the Senate concurrently) would likely be 21 (ie 6 more)

as adding 2 for them doesn't get back their majority (we would still have a 9 liberal to 8 con advantage), adding 4 more leaves them with a majority of only 1 (and odds are high with 19 justices, getting ten to do a radical RW move will be very iffy) so they will try and sell expanding it to 21 (which is also the next step in the rule of 3 from 15, as 18 is not good, a tie can happen)

21 is going to be hella hard to sell, it breaks a psychological barrier (teens and under) and at that point, it also further makes a possibility of getting ELEVEN justices to do crazy crazy RW moves even harder

[NewJeffCT]

15. Only 1 SCOTUS justice has been impeached

and that was over 200 years ago. He was NOT convicted, either.

I don't see it happening unless she's guilty of GROSS misconduct.

[Statistical]

19. I don't see it happening even if she IS guilty of gross misconduct.

Trump is guilty of gross misconduct and still President.

The barrier of 67 votes might as well be 100 votes. It is never ever going to happen.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. Nope. None of this is illegal, and only one Supreme has been indicted in our history...

Samuel Chase was impeached for exactly what Barrett is accused of planning, but was not convicted by the Senate. He pissed off Jefferson with some of his decisions, so Tom's partners in the House tried to get rid of him.

This is far more dangerous than having a conservative court. Having judges fearing revenge for a decision is not what democracy is about.

What would you do if a President with control of the House threatened a justice for a decision you liked?

[beachbumbob]

20. Silly, until it's actual possible to pursue in the senate, which it is not

[Wednesdays]

23. Let's get 67 Democrats in the Senate

Then we can talk.

[Codeine]

24. Codswallop. nt

[Cosmocat]

25. Nope

People know both of the were "wrong" on the behalf of the GOP, but to force impeachment will create backlash, like it or not they got them under the "rules."

Bad faith does not rise to the level of motivating impeachment.

I do think the sense of fair play for most people who know the GOP did it in bad faith will be such to give enough support for reforms that depoliticize the SC ...

THAT is the play.

Adding more with some changes to keep it from being something that drives elections as much as it does now.

[ibegurpard]

26. Articles like this are irresponsible

They create an expectation of something being done that is mathematically impossible with even the best case of current Democratic Senate pickup scenarios.
Yes we CAN expand the court and THAT is what should be focused on.

[LiberalFighter]

27. I would like for anyone impeach from the court to have the following imposed on them.

They lose their federal pension. Cannot serve in the federal government or anything connected.

2 generations of their family ineligible to be elected to any federal office or serve in any appointed positions. Anyone marrying into the family also ineligible.

If only!

[tritsofme]

32. This is just stupid. No justice is being removed through impeachment.

The courts can be reformed by majority vote.

[carpetbagger]

34. 11 circuits, add an deputy chief justice

Get the chief and deputy off a circuit and on gen admin duties, that's 13 judges. Takes 50 votes.

[NorthOf270]

36. Boozin Brett first

We have deep deep dirt on him. Who paid off his debts?

[Polybius]

37. On what grounds?

She didn't perjure herself by lying, since she didn't answer any questions.

[onenote]

40. More of this nonsense.

As stated, there is no chance of peeling off the Republicans needed to get the votes needed to convict.
And Pelosi isn't going to waste time pursuing a symbolic impeachment if the Democrats control the House, Senate and White House. She will have enough to do carrying out the critically important agenda of dealing with the COVID fallout, strengthening Obamacare, and reversing Trump and the Republicans' actions relating to voting rights, immigration, civil servants, the environment, and on and on.

Finally, Biden isn't going to want to have judicial impeachments going on and sucking up the messaging during his first couple of years as president.


It ain't gonna happen folks and the sooner people admit that, the sooner people focus on what should be our priorities (which may well include other measures to restore balance to the courts).