General Discussion

shanny

(6,709 posts)

26. what about...?

Reply to Squinch (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 27, 2018, 01:35 PM

Jun 2018

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Impeach Gorsuch! [View all] TomCADem Jun 2018 OP

He's illegitimate because Obama's nominee wasn't given a hearing or turned down. shraby Jun 2018 #1

Which was only unethical and slimy but not illegal Amishman Jun 2018 #47

True, illegitimate is not the same as illegal. But impeachment is a political process, not legal. lagomorph777 Jun 2018 #64

Judges serve on good behavior. malthaussen Jun 2018 #2

If they wouldn't take Scalia down for being so crooked and compromised, then I can't imagine Baitball Blogger Jun 2018 #5

No Supreme Court justice has ever been removed from office following impeachment. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #3

yeah, unethical and slimy. mcturtle could have done it rather less so. unblock Jun 2018 #8

Think of what it will do to him just to go through the process of impeachment. Maraya1969 Jun 2018 #13

You can't impeach a judge because you don't like his decisions. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #14

Then impeach him because he is illegitimate. If we don't do something then every time Maraya1969 Jun 2018 #18

Again, the fact that somebody else got him appointed isn't an impeachable offense The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #20

The theory would be somewhat similar to the legal concept Danascot Jun 2018 #60

This is what I can't stand about Democrats. If we were in control of the house with a Repub Maraya1969 Jun 2018 #82

What McConnell did wasn't illegal or against the Senate's rules The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #85

THIS............. Maraya1969 Jun 2018 #83

No Senate Has Simply Refused to Hold a Confirmation Vote TomCADem Jun 2018 #40

impeaching him is certainly a power available to congress. unblock Jun 2018 #4

He didn't actually do anything illegal, so it would be a tough sell. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #6

the question is really moot anyway, we're not getting anything close to 2/3rds of the senate. unblock Jun 2018 #9

Court packing didn't work out well for FDR, so that might not be a solution either. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #10

considering our present circumstance, i'd settle unblock Jun 2018 #12

Actually, in a way it did work: shanny Jun 2018 #21

Appointing two extra judges would take a law change Amishman Jun 2018 #50

right, as i said. it would require a democratic president and a majority in each house of congress. unblock Jun 2018 #54

"Permissibile" isn't the issue FBaggins Jun 2018 #7

Then Get Out and Vote TomCADem Jun 2018 #17

That's nice FBaggins Jun 2018 #56

At the end of the day, that is why we are in the current predicament TomCADem Jun 2018 #58

Or sue to have him replaced by Obama's choice. Squinch Jun 2018 #11

Explain how that's going to work, and who should be sued. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #15

And, I would add, in what court? Who would hear the case? shanny Jun 2018 #23

He could be sued obnoxiousdrunk Jun 2018 #51

Which Article of the Constitution provides for that? WillowTree Jun 2018 #22

Which article provides for McConnell refusing to have a hearing on Garland? Squinch Jun 2018 #25

what about...? shanny Jun 2018 #26

What about what? Squinch Jun 2018 #29

ism shanny Jun 2018 #30

No. It is directly related to the appointment of Gorsuch. If McConnell had the hearings on Garland Squinch Jun 2018 #38

How do you know Garland would have been confirmed. onenote Jun 2018 #65

We never will know, will we? Squinch Jun 2018 #68

No. But a betting person would probably go with "not confirmed" onenote Jun 2018 #70

Then a more right leaning person might have been put forward. But not a lunatic like Gorsuch. Squinch Jun 2018 #72

And why wouldn't that nominee have been rejected by the repubs, too? onenote Jun 2018 #74

So if there is a Democratic president and a republican Senate, we should just not put Squinch Jun 2018 #75

Not sure how you leap from what I wrote to that conclusion. onenote Jun 2018 #79

I'm not even sure he would get all of the Democrats to support him FBaggins Jun 2018 #73

Article I, section 5: The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #32

OK, so as soon as we get the Senate back, there should be a determination that the appointment of Squinch Jun 2018 #39

Oh for goodness sake.......Which Article of the Constitution provides for THAT? WillowTree Jun 2018 #43

Apparently Article 1 Section 5 as quoted in the post I was replying to. Squinch Jun 2018 #45

You're reading things into the Constitution which you want to be there.......but aren't. WillowTree Jun 2018 #48

Everybody does. Squinch Jun 2018 #49

Not really. onenote Jun 2018 #69

Is your right to privacy a real right? Its nowhere in the Constitution, yet we have laws that Squinch Jun 2018 #71

You're not finding things that aren't in the Constitution. You're ignoring things that are in onenote Jun 2018 #77

What if the Senate decides that those rules can be applied retroactively if precedent was ignored? Squinch Jun 2018 #78

Your response to McConnell making up his own rules is to make up your own mythology Jun 2018 #61

Why not? Why can't we say that the jettisoning of centuries of precedent was not legitimate? Squinch Jun 2018 #62

No provision of the constitution requires them to vote. It requires "consent" PoliticAverse Jun 2018 #33

Two can play this game...... WillowTree Jun 2018 #42

Well, so essentially you are agreeing with me. There are no articles that say such a thing. Squinch Jun 2018 #44

Because there's no force of law behind what you're proposing. WillowTree Jun 2018 #52

There was no force of law behind McConnell refusing to have a hearing on Garland. But he did it. Squinch Jun 2018 #53

Once more time, there is no provision in the Constitution or any law........ WillowTree Jun 2018 #81

Sigh... let's try it this way. FBaggins Jun 2018 #59

Obama's choice would still need to be confirmed by the Senate Locutusofborg Jun 2018 #66

Should we impeach and FAIL TO CONVICT Gorsuch... brooklynite Jun 2018 #16

Details............Details................... WillowTree Jun 2018 #24

Get 2/3 majority of the Senate TomCADem Jun 2018 #34

Fun fact: if we won EVERY SENATE SEAT up this term, we wouldn't have 2/3 of the Senate. brooklynite Jun 2018 #46

Did you mean to say "wouldn't" instead of "would"? onenote Jun 2018 #63

Yes, my mistake brooklynite Jun 2018 #67

I'm in favor of increasing the size of the Court to 13 shanny Jun 2018 #19

hes illigitimate anyway and hes tainted with russian stink! samnsara Jun 2018 #27

Stronger case to impeach Thomas, IMO. Tatiana Jun 2018 #28

Gorsuch Holds the Stolen Seat TomCADem Jun 2018 #31

He could have been impeached for his filing of false financial disclosure forms... PoliticAverse Jun 2018 #35

Yes, there is a lot of dirt there. Tatiana Jun 2018 #41

He is fundamentally tainted. Crutchez_CuiBono Jun 2018 #36

Thomas first bigtree Jun 2018 #37

This is wishful thinking vlyons Jun 2018 #55

Which 18 Republican Senators would vote guilty? Locutusofborg Jun 2018 #57

It's possible but not until democrats have 67 senate seats beachbum bob Jun 2018 #76

Increase the number of SC justices. We need to win the presidency and congress overwhelmingly. Lucky Luciano Jun 2018 #80

Sounds good to me. Captain Stern Jun 2018 #84