Reminder, Gorsuch must be removed, Garland must be put in the seat

[Eliot Rosewater]

Just a reminder that anything less means we have no laws in this country.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Exactly how can that be done?

I'm not aware of any provisions in the Constitution or in federal statutes that would make that possible.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. If not we live in a country with no laws.

If not one political party can lose elections and still deny the lawful political process.

Like I said, it is one or the other, either what I propose happens or we have no laws.

I guess we have no laws.

[AncientGeezer]

8. A nomination to SCOTUS isn't a "political process"

President Obama knows Constitutional law.....as far as I know he never said the games Turtle played was/were illegal.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. But how can it be done?

We have a Constitution that says Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, specifically that they "shall hold their offices during good behavior." Only one Justice, Samuel Chase, was ever impeached (in 1804), but he was acquitted and retained his position. Gorsuch is extremely conservative and I wish he wasn't on the Court, but if they couldn't get rid of Samuel Chase based on what he did (he refused to dismiss biased jurors and excluded and limited defense witnesses in two politically sensitive cases, among other things), there's no grounds for impeaching Gorsuch that would survive an impeachment trial. We are a country with laws, and our laws don't have a mechanism for getting rid of a justice who hasn't actually committed a crime.

[maxrandb]

21. I would prefer that when the Dems retake control

And the White House, They add 4 more seats to the Supreme Court and nominate and seat Justices that will give Lindsey Graham the vapors and the 1% the running shits.

Purge the government of Retrumplicans like they were members of the nazi party in post WWII Germany.

We must excise this fucking cancer on our country.

Every single person Donnie Short Fingers appointed...all the way to the fucking coat check guy at Camp David needs to be gone.

We need to wipe this fucking shitstain presidency out of our history PERMANENTLY... and salt the fucking ground that grew it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. FDR tried court-packing. It didn't work out well.

[maxrandb]

25. I keep hearing that FDR bullshit

But it's not even a close comparison.

Hoover was a terrible President, but he was not an existential threat to our country!!

Leaving the shitbags that Donnie Short Fingers has appointed in place would be like keeping Nazis in power after WWII.

We need to fucking realize that this was a fucking coup... and treat the fuckers that enabled it like it was a FUCKING COUP!!!

[Pope George Ringo II]

39. I'm not sure that's the applicable lesson anymore

It's important to note as you do that FDR had backlash and Congress wouldn't go along with him, but he basically worked out a deal encouraging the older judges to retire so he actually could eventually pack the court with his guys, and that's the only reason the New Deal survived to 1940.

However, we're in a more polarized country today. There are more Congressional seats which are safe one way or the other than ever before, and more Representatives would have to bow to outraged constituents than to moderating ones. I'm not sure we've hit the required tipping point, but we're definitely closer to "damn the torpedoes" country on the subject. Honestly, we're probably in "that's overplaying your hand" territory, but my point is that it's no longer simply unthinkable.

[dalton99a]

31. Agreed. Beat them at their own game, and do it for the good of the country

[rock]

37. Sounds right to me!

What does it take to add 4 seats to the SC?

[CanonRay]

10. We have no laws that Republicans are bound do to follow!

[fallout87]

41. there is no law

allowing what you are asking for. So you are complaining about lawlessness and suggesting more lawlessness to remove him from the court?

I dont like him either, but he's there for good.

[AncientGeezer]

3. How? There is NO Constitutional authority for anyone to do that.

[Dotarded]

4. This will never happen

There is no mechanism available outside of impeachment to remove him from office and as far as I am aware there has never been a sitting judge removed from SCOTUS. It wont happen now. Far more egregious behaviors than the Senate just not confirming have happened.

We need to be focussing on sending all the energy we have to RBG and the others on our side in the court because it will be catastrophic to have this turn into a 6-3 or even 7-2 edge.

Its my biggest federal government fear.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. Um, how?

I mean that would be great, but...how?

[PoliticAverse]

6. The Garland appointment was not consented to by the Senate. His rejection was hardball politics...

but there's no indication there was anything unconstitutional about it. Why do you think the Obama
administration didn't challenge the rejection in the courts?

Ruth Bader Ginsberg's comment on the matter should have alerted anyone that there was no real constitutional
issue there.

[Old Vet]

42. Hardball to the face I would say..........

[Hoyt]

7. Nice thought, but we might as well say cancer must be cured by next year. Too late now to

to remove Trump's appointment.

[bluestarone]

11. wishful thinking

but only in our dreams i'm afraid

[Tatiana]

12. Our time would be better spent trying to impeach Clarence Thomas for lying under oath.

He sexually harassed women in his workplace and his wife Ginny was well aware of his proclivities.

I'd be happy with a 4-4 court until we return a Democrat to the executive branch. This would allow lower-court rulings to stand.

On edit: Corrected 6-6 to 4-4.

[AncientGeezer]

13. A 6-6 court? There are 9 SCOTUS Justices.

[Tatiana]

15. Thanks for the correction. I meant 4-4.

This is what too little sleep and attempted multitasking looks like on my part.

[AncientGeezer]

16. That leaves lower court rulings in place....in a SCTOUS tie...not always good.

[Mr. Ected]

14. In fact, we do have laws

They're good laws, based on morals and ethics.

The problem is, we didn't have enough laws. We never imagined leadership devoid of morals and ethics assuming control and undermining the very laws that gave them their existence.

We are living in an alternate universe, where graft and corruption rule and rule of law and sensibility are worthy of scorn.

If only the Founding Fathers had foreseen the total abdication of its precepts and the hijacking of its principles to serve evil, the Constitution may have included language to address it. But no one could imagine the vacuum of malevolence known as Donald Trump and his traveling minstrels of flying monkee Republican congressmen.

[Historic NY]

17. He can be impeached.

but for what.

[Codeine]

18. No law was broken. The Pukes played hardball

and won that round. There is no legal or constitutional path by which your proposed plan could be implemented.

[still_one]

27. It was the idiots who thought there was no difference between republicans and Democrats when they

went to the polls.

We will be living with that for decades to come, assuming the country survives

[Codeine]

35. This. This exactly.

Simpletons and the ignorant allowing themselves to be manipulated. Sad!

[Lurks Often]

19. LOL

[Drahthaardogs]

20. Yep. His appointment was compromised

He needs to resign. He won't though. He will have to be impeached

[Volaris]

23. Law is NOT the same as Justice. We try very hard to make Law as close an approximation as we can,

But they are NOT the same. Not even a little bit at their fundamental level.

[ProudLib72]

24. I'll admit, it's a catch 22 situation

The Rs played dirty and got away with it. The only way to get out of it is for us to play dirty at some point. Is it worth it? Because, if we play dirty as well, then who is going to believe there are laws in this country? None of us likes Gorsuck, but bending the rules to get him out is just as bad as (if not worse than) having appointed him in the first place.

[Squinch]

26. Nevery going to happen Eliot, I'm sorry to say. Elections have consequences.

[Iliyah]

28. The GOPers are in panic and blame mode

24/7 in your face. They are not even trying to hide it. This is telling me that Mueller's investigation may also reveal that the EC's were rigged. That alone should overturn this past election across board.

GOPers are acting like beside criminal charges, election tampering and collusion may be exposed. This is making me happy.

[Amimnoch]

29. Love the idea in theory, but would set a horrible precedent.

Even if it could be done, do we really want to set that precedent?

Just look at the filibuster as an example. They used our busting of it for lower court appointments after they'd used it to obstruct 60-something appointments to put Gorsucks in place to the SCOUTS on the very first round. We do this one time, and you can dam well bank that they'll take the processes/procedures we use and boot every one of our Democratic Party appointments off of the court the next chance they get.

our best plan is to hope all of our appointments and Kennedy make it to the next Democratic Party POTUS and Senate majority period, and make absolutely certain we get those in 2018/2020.

[oberliner]

30. Zero chance of that happening

And we do have laws in this country.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. Abso-fuckin-lutely!! And BEFORE anymore nominees by the Nazi-in-Chief are considered.

[metalbot]

33. On the contrary

"...anything less means we have no laws in this country."

Doing what you suggest would be proof that we aren't a nation of laws. Gorsuch is confirmed. If we are a nation of laws, then Gorsuch is on the court until he dies, resigns, or is impeached.

Elections have consequences. Had we held the senate, we'd have Garland. Had we won last year, we'd have Garland. If we get the Senate in 2018, I fully expect us to play hard ball and ensure that another seat doesn't go the way of Gorsuch.

[jodymarie aimee]

34. Eliot, agreed

but then I want a take back on Walker, too !!

[mythology]

36. Just a reminder. We have a constitution

What you propose is unconstitutional. Perhaps you should try reading it before you go about declaring yourself the sole arbiter of what means we have no laws.

[L. Coyote]

38. The thing about Constitutional Coups, they work. But they work both ways.

Their tactics need to be matched!

Meanwhile, the corrupt hold power no matter how unpopular they are, and they sell off the country. It is near impossible to fight back once they have seized complete control. The most important realization is that their power is maintained not just by the Constitution, but also by control of the media which promulgated their ascent.

Link to tweet

[demmiblue]

40. No words...

Are you for real?!