AOC Says She'll File Articles Of Impeachment Amid SCOTUS 'Corruption Crisis'

[riversedge]

Source: huff Post



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's threat of impeachment comes after the court ruled on Trump's immunity argument.

Jul 1, 2024, 03:06 PM EDT |Updated 3 minutes ago

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said on Monday she’ll submit articles of impeachment against members of the U.S. Supreme Court when the House of Representatives is back in session.

“The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control,” the left-wing lawmaker wrote on X, formerly called Twitter. “Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s post followed the court’s ruling Monday that shields former President Donald Trump from prosecution stemming from “official acts” as president, with major implications for his pending trial on election subversion.

Last year, Ocasio-Cortez wanted to impeach conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after it was revealed that GOP megadonor Harlan Crow had funded trips for Thomas. But she didn’t follow through on filing articles, explaining that an impeachment or investigation was unlikely to advance in the Republican-controlled House...........................................

Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-impeachment-supreme-court_n_6682dd0fe4b05d5a5eb2d70e?d_id=7845374&ncid_tag=tweetlnkushpmg00000016&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=us_politics

[Ocelot II]

1. Waste of time. It's just a performance, won't go anywhere in this Congress.

Although I appreciate the underlying sentiment.

[in2herbs]

3. The J6 cte didn't get their Senate conviction to impeach 45 but the information that came out of those

hearings had sway with the public.

I am so tired of people refusing to do anything unless there is 100% certainty of the outcome.

[Miguelito Loveless]

11. The public no longer has a say

in this country. The SCOTUS made sure of that today. Yes, they didn't give Trump a total victory, that would have been unseemly. They just gave him a de facto victory by delaying his criminal trials and giving Cannon the fodder she needs to throw out the charges against Trump.

If they have to, the SCOTUS will step up in November to do for Trump what they did for Bush in 2000.

[jaxexpat]

41. The USSC exercised its power in 2000 to perform political mayhem. They're using it again and for the same purpose.

Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2024, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Funny how people have never come to understand just how absolutely undemocratic the concept of a "Supreme Court" actually is (and always has been).

[MadameButterfly]

105. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

Time to put some limits on SCOTUS. Limit terms to 20 years, install binding ethics standards, and yes, it's time to impeach. Let's make sure we have a Congress that can do it with teeth in 2025

[jaxexpat]

115. A congressional impeachment is the ONLY "less-violent" means available for setting the state aright.

Everything else is too little or too much. Democracy is "giving her all she's got and I'm not sure how much longer she'll stay together, captain." If the Klingons take this one, can the Romulans be far behind?

Life, when imitating art, gets realer.

[pnwmom]

78. The public has a say in the voting booths in November, and we should ALL be doing EVERYTHING

we can to encourage -- not discourage -- people from exercising that say.

[Miguelito Loveless]

118. We must all vote

And I think Biden will win handily. I just also know based on what the SCOTUS has done, they will get the final say, as they did in 2000

[pnwmom]

120. But they didn't in 2020. If we vote in large enough numbers we will win again. nt

[Miguelito Loveless]

121. The only way they don't challenge Biden's win

is if we in in numbers like Labour won yesterday in Britain. The GOP must be crushed.

[Abstractartist]

97. Disagree

VOTE BLUE EVERY DEMOCRAT, and replace the SC with liberal democrats. Expand if necessary, place young, strong, men and women on the SC. Replace the older retiring SC with young liberal members. Keep the congress blue, both houses, keep the presidency with younger active democrats, who will serve all of us. We can do this. STOP THE CLIFF JUMPING. We will get this done.

[Miguelito Loveless]

119. Not jumping off a cliff

I will be voting in November, and taking people to the polls. But people really need to wake up about the opposition and what they intend to do.

[Abstractartist]

104. And to follow up

VOTE BLUE EVERY DEMOCRAT…. Don’t forget the down ballot candidates also. Very important to include state, city and local campaigns when voting.

LETS GO BLUE…..

[FBaggins]

14. Resolutions by single members of the minority party do not result in hearings. NT

[pnwmom]

79. They can result in interviews in the media. They can result in publication in the media.

She is helping to get the word out about what happened in the best way she can.

What are the rest of us doing?

[MadameButterfly]

106. And informing us all that the solution to the imperial presidency

is a blue Congress next year.

Of course the Supreme Court will help overturn elections for their own survival.
It might become time for Biden to use some of his newfound immunity to stop them.

Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court when their rulings would have caused the Conferadates to overrun Washington. For the survival of the Republic, this court might have to be ignored when they try to give the election to Trump.

But we have to win it first.

[pnwmom]

107. Unfortunately, Biden has no immunity. This SCOTUS would turn on a dime

if Biden were to exercise the kind of criminal activity they'd forgive in Trump.

[MadameButterfly]

108. Agreed, but Trump will prosecute Biden for whatever he pleases anyway

if Trump is elected or appointed by SCOTUS.

SCOTUS (and Trump) will have to be stopped one way or another to save thousands of lives. Otherwise we'll have our own Night of the Long Knives.

We can't sit by helplessly and wait for that to happen.

First win. Then enforce the election. WHATEVER it takes.

[kelly1mm]

28. The D's controlled the House when the J6 committee was formed. The R's control the House now.

There is literally nothing the D's can do to hold hearings in the House.

[Shipwack]

47. It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

Or "We could just sit around and glare..."

Even if it does go nowhere, impeachment articles should be brought up each and every day against Thomas et al to remind people of how corrupt this court is.

"We've tried nothing and it's not working!"

[LakeArenal]

101. Simpson's once a day at least. Everyday.

?si=_2F9y0o_4frxne7l

[Shipwack]

109. Thank you! I knew I was somehow getting it wrong... nt

[The Unmitigated Gall]

9. It won't go anywhere,

But it will speak to history.

[pnwmom]

80. That's not the point. It will speak to TODAY's voters. The more attention we give to this

when she tries to introduce them, the better.

[usonian]

22. The Jan 6 hearings brought facts to light that MSM would have buried.

Every delay that TCF introduces results in the release of more evidence to the public in the rebuttal.

SUNLIGHT KILLS GERMS.

[bottomofthehill]

26. The J6 committee was brought up by the

By members in the Majority

[kelly1mm]

29. D's controlled the House when the J6 committee was formed. R's control the House

now. That means the R's control the forming of committees and the schedule. If you are seeking daylight, it ain't coming from the house.

[usonian]

37. Jack Smith is dropping documents every time there's an appeal.

The public gets to see the documents.

R's house hearings are such a 💩 show that EVEN MERRICK GARLAND is waving to them with only one finger.

I scraped the most recent DOJ news items from Hacker News. This is what DOJ other than Jack Smith is doing.

DOJ readying criminal charges against Boeing for deadly 737 MAX crashes
Justice Department to Charge Boeing
DOJ to offer Boeing "sweetheart" plea deal in pursuit of criminal charges
US prosecutors recommend Justice Dept. criminally charge Boeing
Prosecutors Recommend DOJ Criminally Charge Boeing as Deadline Looms
Why Is the DOJ Investigation into McKinsey Still Going
DOJ Cracks Down on Federal Contractors for Failing to Meet Cybersecurity)
Mexican cartels team up with Chinese nationals in LA to launder money, DOJ says
DOJ's decision on whether to prosecute Boeing over two crashes a half decade ago(
US sues Adobe for 'deceiving' subscriptions that are too hard to cancel
The Fight Against Ticketmaster
Google cut Uncle Sam a $2M check so it could avoid a jury trial
US eyes antitrust investigation against Nvidia as market value surpasses $3T
U.S. clears way for antitrust inquiries of Nvidia, Microsoft and OpenAI(
Epoch Times Executive Accused of Laundering $67M
DOJ Sues Meta and Zuckerberg
FBI raids Cortland Management in Atl;
Chinese national charged for operating world's largest botnet, which stole $5.9B(
Google sends DOJ unexpected check in attempt to avoid monopoly jury trial)
U.S. suing Ticketmaster owner Live Nation
The US sues Ticketmaster for driving up live event fees
US DOJ to seek breakup of LiveNation/Ticketmaster
Google sends DOJ unexpected check in attempt to avoid monopoly jury trial(
DOJ: Man sentenced to 14 years for posession of deepfake CSAM
DOJ Advances Marijuana Rescheduling Plan
Ethereum mevboost exploit stole $25M from mevbots, DOJ criminally charges
MIT students stole $25M in seconds by exploiting ETH blockchain bug

Notice what's missing.
Traitors,

[kacekwl]

27. Maybe if every congressperson

did this might make a dent.

[et tu]

45. push back is needed

if not then it's the same as giving permission,
rw extremists rely on 'good dems' to do nought.

[mahina]

48. Yet

[SpankMe]

71. Wrong. It's not a waste of time

It sets the stage for future actions against the court. It gets congress-people on record. It starts movement, no matter how small. Any momentum on turning the court around is worthwhile.

I never understood those who decline to do what is right just because its ultimate success isn't a sure thing.

Right-wing assholes were floating and proposing anti-abortion stuff long ago, when it "went nowhere". But, their relentless pushing and trying and failing and re-trying and modifying their approach every time it failed ultimately led to the fall of Roe.

I say we hammer the court in all arenas, whether it's "performance" or not. Hammer it every day. From every angle. Fail, and learn, and re-group, and try again.

If we never even start unless we know in advance it will work, we'll get nowhere.

[dchill]

73. And a better use of time would be.... ?

[pnwmom]

77. Nothing that educates the voting public is a waste of time. She's doing in a big way

the same thing we should ALL be doing in the particular ways we can.

She's trying to spread the word about the "legal coup" that has just taken place (wording of Heather Cox Richardson). AOC's impeachment articles are bound to bring TV cameras and attention to what has just happened, while ALL of the House members are facing re-election in 5 months.

We need to keep our majority in the Senate, and to win the House back. Her articles of impeachment will help to give all the races more focus. This is the moment to save our democracy, not to bicker over smaller issues.

[mntleo2]

96. Oh thank-you, thank-you, thank-you!!!!!

I have been mulling over this whole thing and considering writing something about it. AOC is no fool and she knows what she is doing. That proposal can sit on the shelf for all that matter, but it is still sitting there to be taken down and acted upon at any time. Furthermore, she will be supported by two powerful senators, Whitehouse and Durbin, along with others in both the House and the Senate.

And look People, maybe we should look at this in a positive light with these SCOTUS goons Right now President Biden also enjoys immunity,, Just think about how he could use it. I'm pretty sure he would not do anything about it, he is an honorable man. But the very threat to tRump and his goons means they are also vulnerable now, they are sitting ducks with Biden. I wonder how much sleep they are losing to consider this possibility. At this time they are prancing around thinking they have "won" something, but they are blind as bats.

Speaking of old bats, MTG, and her nimrods are hanging on a wall pooping mounds of putrid crap, again, thinking they "won" when in fact this ruling is not just about tRump, it is about ALL of them also.

So you go girl, Ms AOC. You rule!

My 2 cents,

Cat in Seattle

[in2herbs]

2. AOC Says She'll File Articles Of Impeachment Amid SCOTUS 'Corruption Crisis'

I support this 100%.

The SC decision this week that it is allowed to accept "bribes" after the fact will make any attempt by Congress to require the SC to comply with rules of ethics a moot issue.

The J6 cte. didn't pursue impeachment against 45 because they thought Senate conviction was a sure thing. But the information that came out during those hearings had an impact on voters.

[kelly1mm]

30. D's don't control the House like they did when the J6 committee was formed. nt

[mahina]

49. Yet

[ananda]

4. Good!

Thanks

[2naSalit]

5. Do it!

[myohmy2]

6. +1...

...

[Evolve Dammit]

7. Go full pitbull. Fuck 'em.

[BlueKota]

8. She should and all evidence that is uncovered made available to the public.

[kelly1mm]

31. There will be no evidence uncovered as there will be no hearings. D's don't control the House. nt

[BlueKota]

33. Then let the Senate Judiciary Committee open an inquiry into the six

and make their findings public.

[kelly1mm]

34. That can be done! Although it will not be an impeachment inquiry. Those can only be initiated

in the House.

[BlueKota]

35. I know it can't lead to impeachment, but

if there is evidence that is discovered that can be used against them in the court of public opinion that will be good enough for me. I believe we are entitled to know more about those donor gifts to Alito and Thomas, and if some of the others were given them too and were just better at hiding them.

[kelly1mm]

38. They all get donor gifts. Some (A LOT) more than others! However, can one ever be

just a little bit pregnant?

[Miguelito Loveless]

10. Way too late

and will never get the votes.

[JohnSJ]

12. What AOC and all the progressive caucus needs to do is tell all her supporters to vote for Biden and Democrats

up and down the ballot.

Disagreements on other issues need to be put on hold.

If we don't win this election, it is really over. There will be no do overs. We were fortunate to barely survive 2016, Project 2025 will make sure that doesn't happen again.

[The Grand Illuminist]

13. Realistically, a wasting effort.

Knowing it won't come close of going through.

[FakeNoose]

15. To be honest, I'd feel better of Jamie Raskin did it

But I like her spunk!

[jimfields33]

18. Doesn't Johnson have a say in this?

I can’t imagine him allowing it being the ass he is.

[FakeNoose]

19. For now, yes he does

After the election, I'm thinking a major blue wave will take over Congress like we've never seen.

[jimfields33]

21. Oh that's awesome. Can't wait for that.

[orangecrush]

16. GODDAMNED GLAD

SOMEBODY is doing SOMETHING.

[kelly1mm]

32. She is not doing anything and she knows it. D's don't control the House so this is going nowhere. nt

[pnwmom]

82. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. She will get media attention with this, and help to educate

the public.

She'll have a spotlight and she'll be using it. That's more than many of us. Sitting around and complaining doesn't count.

[Hiawatha Pete]

98. +1000

[republianmushroom]

17. The greatest threat to this country isn't the convicted felon or Putin,

it is Roberts Supreme Court.

[red dog 1]

20. Here's video

[The Grand Illuminist]

68. Anthony Brian Logan is a MAGA piece of shit.

nt

[red dog 1]

103. Thanks for pointing that out.

You're absolutely right! He is a MAGAt.
I didn't know who he was, or what he was when I posted that.

I was misled by his headline on the video, "AOC Threatens To Impeach Supreme Court Over Trump Immunity Ruling"
That title is totally misleading.
He only spends 30 seconds or so on what AOC said, out of the 14 minute video.

When I first posted it, I thought it was a straight news-type of video. (I should have watched the entire video before posting it)

But I'm leaving it up because he did give time in the video to Joy Reid (which he disagreed with, of course)
I hadn't seen Joy Reid's comments before. She's spot on! She nailed it!

(I'll never again post any Anthony Brian Logan videos, now that I know who he is)

[CONN]

23. Sure... let Congress play and NY Times pontificate. But now Biden has new super powers bestowed by the Supremes

And he should start by issues an order to remove the #1 threat to democracy

[Farmer-Rick]

40. Amen to that

The immunity is for Bill Clinton, Obama and Biden too.

But Biden is in power now and needs to fix the court with an official executive order.

[getagrip_already]

54. can't be an eo... that can be reversed.

He would have to physically remove them and imprison them in some hell hole nobody could locate them in, or just have them eliminated.

Yeah, too extreme, and I'm not calling for that.

But he would only be immune from prosecution for acts he commits or orders he gives. He isn't granted any new powers, and illegal orders are just that - illegal. They can be reversed by the courts.

So only actions are covered.

[onetexan]

59. As i've posted before. Desperate times calls for desperate measures. The corupt SCOTUS justices opened the floodgates

and enabled Biden to do this. They're hoping Biden will not resort to extreme measures. They forced his hand. He & his administration will need to prepare to execute these absolute powers fo the country to remain democratic. We are in code red territory& this is not a drill.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread riversedge

[Scruffy1]

25. I would like it if there is a way to force a vote and put members on record.

I think that will never happen. Mr. plastic man has control of what comes to the floor.

[flying_wahini]

36. I don't care if it doesn't go anywhere. File it! Make it part of the record that SOMEBODY is trying.

[Hiawatha Pete]

100. +1000

[Farmer-Rick]

39. Biden has immunity, he can unilaterally fix the court

The executive branch controls the execution of the Supreme Court's funding and administration. Biden can stop or hinder that execution by official executive order.

He can stop, delay or mess up paying for some of the justices and their staff. He can rearrange their working conditions. He can even take away their parking spots. That would all be official acts which he is immune from prosecution for.

[FBaggins]

43. He can't do any of those things

He just might not be able to be prosecuted for it if he tried.

[Farmer-Rick]

44. He is responsible for administering the law

When Congress passes a budget the executive branch takes it and doles out the money and payments. The executive branch has a whole slew of people who do the administration of buildings, hiring and maintenance.

He can do all those things listed in my post. They are in his purvue of responsibility.

Trump frequently put in incompetent people just so they would destroy the smooth functioning of a particular branch of the executive. Then, when people noticed and complained, he would fire them, ignore it or just put in someone else just as incompetent. Weaponized incompetence. You can be prosecuted for deliberate acts but general incompetence is not usually prosecuted.

So, yeah, he could do all those things. Trump did sometimes. But I doubt Biden would.

[FBaggins]

60. He is responsible for administering the law *within the constraints of those laws*

That "slew" of people that send out the payments don't have the option (absent discretion in the law) of NOT sending out payments. Immunity means that if the president orders them to stop sending a particular payment... he can't be criminally charged for it. But that doesn't mean that a court won't mandamus their butts into sending it out.

Trump frequently put in incompetent people just so they would destroy the smooth functioning of a particular branch of the executive.

Yep... and we often learned of their incompetence when a court told them to do their job. That doesn't change just because the guy at the top of the pyramid can't be prosecuted criminally.

[Farmer-Rick]

65. What are the Supremes going to do?

They have only threats. They can't send out military or police to do their bidding.

They can demand, request, complain and rule. They can't actually implement. They depend on the government to do what they say. When the government
turns into a dictatorship, will the Supremes have any use?

Since the Supreme Court has ignored laws, precedent and the constitution, their rulings need to be ignored and they need to be reign in immediately.

It shouldn't just be liberals and Democrats who follow the law.

[FBaggins]

67. The "Supremes" don't even have to get involved

Lower courts would unanimously halt the behavior. It would never get to SCOTUS.

They have only threats. They can't send out military or police to do their bidding.

Yes... we're all familiar with the oft misquoted "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it". The problem there is that the president can't do anything himself either... and the people that he orders to carry out some action are not immune from criminal consequences.

[Farmer-Rick]

93. Well, Biden could easily pardon

Anyone who was acting on his orders. So, that's not much of a threat.

But I get what you mean that the lower courts would be attempting to enforce the Supreme Court's rulings. It would not be the higher court itself enforcing the ridiculous rulings.

[FBaggins]

94. The lower courts would not be enforcing SCOTUS' ridiculous ruling

They would be enforcing non-ridiculous laws.

Decide to cut off the social security checks of TFG and anyone who voted for him? Cutting those checks is 100% an executive function that the chief executive is sworn to execute. So if the president refused to do it? Under this ruling he would be immune from prosecution.

But the first court that the issue came to (regardless of the party of the judge) would order the SSA to cut the check and they really wouldn't have a choice. The president could indeed promise to pardon whoever it was that followed his order - which would keep them from prosecution.

What it wouldn't do is protect them from contempt of court... which requires no conviction... can result in jail time... and is not always subject to the president's pardon power.

[Farmer-Rick]

95. Well you have no idea what else the Supremes

Will rule on and how far out it will be. They are very corrupt and regularly overturn established laws and precedent.

So, yeah the lower courts maybe enforcing some really crazy crap down the road because it seems Dems cannot stop them.

[getagrip_already]

55. no, he can't

It has long been ruled that the exec branch can't hold back funding granted by congress.

The immunity decision does not grant new powers. any actions taken can be reversed. It's just that he can't be personally prosecuted for breaking any laws.

While that gives him immense power for evil and corruption, especially when coupled with his inherent pardon power, there are still a few rules left.

for now anyway. Under a dem admin, they will remain.

He can't cut off funding. The courts would block any attempt to do that. Congress could, if the president signed it into law, but we all know the chances of that happening. And if they did, the courts would just accept funding from third parties and rule that was acceptable.

So no, it's not going to work.

Now if you want them thrown in gitmo or some south pacific bunker, he could order that. Then he could just refuse to release them under official act tsatus. (no, I'm not advocating that)

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

56. He doesn't have that power.

The executive branch controls the execution of the Supreme Court's funding and administration. Biden can stop or hinder that execution by official executive order.

No he cannot. The President lost the power impound appropriated funds back in the 1970s. If Congress appropriate money for it, then it goes there.

He can stop, delay or mess up paying for some of the justices and their staff. He can rearrange their working conditions. He can even take away their parking spots. That would all be official acts which he is immune from prosecution for.

Also no. Federal judges salaries are protected by the Constitution. Article 3, section 1 prevents their compensation from being diminished while they hold their position. Separation of powers prevents other branches from interfering in their day to day operation.

[Farmer-Rick]

64. So, take him to court

Trump would do it and did do it with Ukraine.

Let the dancing Supremes take him to court. They have no enforcement powers.

You quote all these laws that the Supremes can easily make unconstitutional. They ignore law and precedent regularly.Trump ignored laws.

So, use some of the right wing tactics to fix the supreme court. Why do liberals follow the law while the right wing are rapidly taking us into a dictatorship?

Seems to me to be a small quibble in order to keep our democracy.

[pnwmom]

81. Biden does NOT have immunity. What the Supreme Court giveth,

the Supreme Court can taketh away.

In their opinion they made themselves the final arbiter of which acts can be prosecuted and which cannot, and they have shown a flagrant willingness to change positions to achieve their own ends.

Trump is their puppet now, and they are his. Biden is not part of their little club.

[Oopsie Daisy]

42. Why? This serves no purpose other than finger-wagging and scowling *

* the effort being spent on this useless endeavor could be better spent elsewhere doing something more productive.

[et tu]

46. we can't all be ostriches

encourage dems to do their job~

[Oopsie Daisy]

51. I'm no ostrich. I live in the real world. I want all of our elected reps to spend their time on productive endeavors *

* and not waste their efforts on things that they KNOW will go nowhere, and that have ZERO chance of succeeding. It's one thing to be optimistic when there's a better than average chance that something may come of it, but it's quite another for any elected rep to waste time with showboating and grandstanding. Nobody is being an "ostrich" -- we can all see what's happening. But it's our obligation to do what's possible and to focus on making a difference, NOT on performative gestures and meaningless finger-wagging and empty threats.

[et tu]

57. this isn't performance

as in rw extremists- history has to show
dems pushed back and tried everything they could.

[Oopsie Daisy]

61. Sorry, performative gestures won't even warrant a footnote *

* although I know that there are a few who are quite concerned that "history will not be kind" 🙄 to Democrats, it's our (and our elected representative's) obligation to use time wisely and effectively.

[et tu]

62. ah a myoptic approach

that's the ticket~

[Oopsie Daisy]

75. I'm smarter than you think. I see things.

I also choose reality over fantasy. It's a total fantasy that any USSC Justice is going to be impeached and removed. She and her fan base may get some "fist-pumping" and "high-five" satisfaction from this, but in the end, that's all that it will amount to. Nothing meaningful, nothing concrete, nothing long lasting will come from it.

[mahina]

50. AOC disagrees, obvs

[Oopsie Daisy]

52. Really? (Thanks for clearing that up.)

[mahina]

53. You bet.

I think she knows more.

[et tu]

58. ty

[pnwmom]

83. Why are some Democrats so blind about using the media? I'm glad AOC is not.

This isn't a useless endeavor. It's a dramatic way of getting media attention. Her articles, when they are publicized, will do more to educate people on the fence than any complainers on DU will do.

[Oopsie Daisy]

90. The media will frame it as an exercise in futility that is destined to fail *

* and sadly that's how the public will see it too. It will be seen as a publicity stunt to (as you aptly describe) get media attention, but when it fails to accomplish anything meaningful, it will also be viewed as an effort that failed. I don't know about you, but personally speaking I get tired of Democrats being viewed as being incompetent and/or hasty and/or ill-prepared and/or caught off-guard and flat-footed. We should spend our precious resources and limited time doing things that will make a difference and that have at reasonable chance at being successful. This, sadly, will not and does not.

[pnwmom]

92. Fox will, but other outlets will use it as an opportunity to educate.

All the naysayers around here accomplish is discouraging people.

[Oopsie Daisy]

99. Well, all I can tell you is that I live in a reality-based world *

* and while you're obviously correct about Fox News, I believe it's unrealistic to think that any of the other mainstream news outlets (whether cable, OTA, streaming, or printed) will use it as any such educational opportunity. There are other ways to "educate" the public that would be direct and far more effective than performative stunts that are doomed to failure and that will likely leave the public disappointed (if their hopes were unrealistically raised) or they'll see how ineffective it was and their opinions of Democrats will be affected negatively.

>> All the naysayers around here accomplish is discouraging people.
Actually, what's discouraging is wasting time with things that have no chance of going anywhere, when the effort could be spent elsewhere and actual progress met and goals achieved. Now that's something that would be motivating when an elected rep can go back to the voters (either their own constituents or the public at large) and say, truthfully, here's what the DEMOCRATS successfully accomplished (not... well, it was a long shot but we tried anyway.)

[H2O Man]

111. Respectfully disagree.

AOC is our party's best bet for reaching younger voters. Her bringing attention to the disgraceful USSC unjustices, and at least taking some action, will connect with young voters more than anything anyone else in the party is capable of doing. It doesn'y matter that it won't result in any impeachments now. Young people want action.

[Oopsie Daisy]

112. Patience is a virtue. Impatience and haste is not.

>> Young people want action.
You speak as if only "young people" want this. But there's more to "action" than simply going through the motions and talking-up a good game. I think they reasonable people (both young and old) would prefer RESULTS rather than grandstanding, don't you? If these young people think that this is a substitute for results, then I fear that they will be very disappointed and disillusioned.

>> AOC is our party's best bet for reaching younger voters.
I disagree. I can think of at least a half-dozen other Democrats who have stronger records and who have accomplished more, but I have higher standards and I'm more impressed by results.

[H2O Man]

113. Yes, of course.

I'm the oldest person on this forum, and my children believe I'm the oldest living entity on earth. My late friend Rubin used to tell me that with patience, the smallest creature can climb the highest mountain.

And yes, there are a number of Democrats who have far more accomplishments than AOC. I think eeryone recognizes this. However, there is not a single one of them that is as attractive to young voters than her.

[Oopsie Daisy]

114. I think "young voters" are smarter than they're being given credit for *

* she's very popular with the young voters who are already her fans, certainly. But, they're already her fans. Young voters aren't a monolith and she appeals more to some, and less to others, and not-at-all to even more. It's a mistake to characterize her as some sort of savior when it comes to motivating or engaging with young voters.

[H2O Man]

116. Interesting.

You make valid points. And I enjoy talking with you.

One of the things that I've thought is that a lot of people underestimate the younger generation. I suppose that has beehn going on since even before I was a young person. I afmit that I am not totally objective, because my four children are all very intelligent, and have grown up on political & social activism. Three out of the four Love AOC, while the other can lst every error in speaking she has made while in office.

Though we are a tiny Democratic Party on a republican shirt in rural upstate NY, all four have worked on various candidates' campaigns. Two have run for local office -- small community, I know -- with the one who isn't an AOC supporter winning 545 to 5. My older daughter, who until recently lived in Boston -- worked at a law office on immigration, taught part-time at the college, and worked for the MA attorney general -- is a big AOC supporter.. When she got married a couple of weeks ago, before moving to Europe, a lot of her friends came. At the reception, it reminded me of when I used to speak at regional colleges and universities. They are very intelligent people, registered as either Democrats or independents.

They do not see AOC as a "savior" -- an odd term, I think, in the context of this discussion. They do see her as a much more attractive politician, capable of motivating younf adults to participate in politics, than the majority of politicians they view asbumps on a log.

[Oopsie Daisy]

117. Thanks, I've enjoyed chatting with you too.

[BlueWavePsych]

63. GO AOC !!!

[Torchlight]

66. She's keeping the collective conversation in play longer by doing this

I think she's attempting to ensure as many as possible keep the court's flawed staff on our minds as the election draws closer and closer.

[pnwmom]

84. EXACTLY. The naysayers here don't understand she's doing this for the media. nt

[Janbdwl72]

69. Even if this doesn't get very far in the GOP controlled House

Good for her. Someone needs to start holding the corrupt members of the Supreme Court accountable--especially Doubting Thomas and traitor Alito. It's a shame few, if any House Republicans, have indicated any support for even a basic code of ethics to apply to them. This is easily the worst Supreme Court in the history of the country.

For years, Republicans preached against judges legislating "from the bench," constantly accusing Democratic appointed Justices of doing that. Their disgusting rulings over the past two months is far worse than any of those isolated occurrences of years past when those accusations were so recklessly made.

[wryter2000]

70. Better to wait until we have the majority

IMHO

[pnwmom]

86. NOOOO!!!!! We all have to do everything we can between now and November. If we wait

till we have a majority we could be waiting forever.

You don't understand. She's not doing this in the hopes of actually impeaching them now. She's doing it to begin the conversation about the legal coup the US has undergone. If we don't reverse it with wins in November, it's all over.

[wryter2000]

89. I'd rather start the conversation

When we can actually impeach them and get a trial in the Senate.

[JustAnotherGen]

72. Generally don't pay attention

to Ocasio-Cortez - but on this item?

She's right to do it.

It will fail.

But it's worth it to make a point.

[pnwmom]

88. Right. It's worth it to make the point. And because she's "telegenic" it will get attention. nt

[Martin68]

74. Those who insist on pointing out that it will be impossible to get the votes to impeach a SC Justice are completely

missing the point. We need to do everything possible to protest the decision and scream it from the rooftops. You can sit this one out if you want to. We will fight this any way we can, including in the court of public opinion.

[FBaggins]

76. Sorry... "everything possible" doesn't make sense

There are lots of possible things that do not help. “At least I’m doing something!” Isn’t a sufficient rationale

When MTG submits her next impeachment resolution (she has several)… she may please a tiny portion of their base that at least she is doing something… but when even the most right wing nuts in her party fail to vote for it or cosponsor it or allow it to even come to the floor for a vote - her position is seen to be on the fringe

[pnwmom]

87. You don't understand. This is about the PUBLICITY. It's about giving the media

something to hang their reports on. It's about giving the public a document that shows what the Supreme Court 6 have just done to the American dream.

All those members in their confirmation hearings promised to always rule that no citizen is above the law -- something the vast majority of American voters support. But they all just broke that promise when they put themselves and Trump above the law.

The fact that even some people here on DU are treating this as just one more political thing shows how much educating there still is to do.

[Martin68]

91. Any publicity that brings the issue to the attention of more people helps and is meaningful. There is more to politics

than you seem to understand.

[oasis]

85. Turn up the heat!

[LakeArenal]

102. In the worst Congress ever, why not start sticking it to the right.

Motion every day. Congress isn’t going to accomplish anything anyway.

[RobertDevereaux]

110. The other two co-equal branches need to act NOW.

Near as I can determine, the House has 219 R and 213 D members.

if we could flip 4 R’s, we could impeach Alito and Thomas. (Of course, removal would be far more difficult.)

Are there not 4 R’s for whom the Court’s kingmaking betrayal of the rule of law is the final bridge too far?

That’s rhetorical. No need to venture an answer.

Just wondering if hidden conversations might be afoot.