this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024

1756 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19120 readers

2602 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1756

AOC wants to impeach SCOTUS justices following Trump immunity ruling (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

440 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 621 points 4 months ago (52 children)

The statement:

The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.

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.

This is what leadership is, what voters want, and what wins elections.

Doesn't matter if it works, it's trying and highlighting that issues can be fixed. We might not succeed the first time, but we'll keep fucking trying till we do.

Put the votes on record and show voters where people stand.

[–] [email protected] 307 points 4 months ago (7 children)

AOC is earning my vote.

[–] [email protected] 215 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public...

We literally haven't even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don't understand what's happened to people.

People as a whole are more politically aware than I've ever seen, but we're just wasting it.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 4 months ago (3 children)

We have to undo decades of policy enacted the much longer politically aware and active owner class. They've had a head start on us, so it's going to take tome to dismantle the political machinery they've created while minimizing harm done to the rest of us.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 4 months ago (4 children)

We actually don't.

A single progressive president means they get to name the DNC chair and a bunch of voting positions.

It's literally that easy to take over the party.

Obama just didn't do it because he didn't need the party after they turned on him for opposing Hillary.

If he'd have rebuilt it, we'd have a functional progressive party planning decades ahead already. And trump would still just be that guy from the Mac Miller song. The SC would be a progressive majority. The situation and Gaza wouldn't have turned into an open genocide, COVID would have been handled appropriately.

It's not some insurmountable task, but it gets harder and harder every cycle.

By all rights we should have had protests in the streets calling for Biden and the DNC leadership to step down for stealing NH's delagets. But not enough people had crossed their personal lines by then.

If we'd have had the fight then, we'd have had a full primary almost to figure shit out.

But we didn't.

Until we finally do, shit won't change.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 78 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I want AOC with vice president Bernie.

That man may be in his final years of politics, and perhaps too old to be at the helm, but dammit, he deserves it.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 4 months ago

I saw him speak the other day and he was totally with it. Like that super old person who lives to be 120 and is sharp as fuck right until their body gives up, but until then they are firy and physically fit.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 4 months ago (18 children)

Literally has had one minor mis-step with the railroad union strike, telling them to go back to work, and they still got the deal they wanted in the end. She hasn't just earned my vote for POTUS should she choose to run, but she's got my full support. Heck, I might start throwing campaign contributions her way if she makes a POTUS try.

load more comments (18 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (51 replies)

[–] [email protected] 326 points 4 months ago (68 children)

No need to. Biden can have the 6 corrupt justices killed. He has the immunity and he can pick new justices. If members of the senate refuse to put the new justices on the bench, have them killed too. No rules anymore.

[–] [email protected] 96 points 4 months ago (22 children)

Strategically speaking liberal politicians are backed into a corner and only have two real options:

Seize control preemptively, promoting conservative conspiracy to prophecy, and likely inciting CW2.
Hand over full control come January and hope they continue to maintain some privilege under a new regime.

They're already in check, but more concerned with soliciting large donations and collecting hot stick tips.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 4 months ago (6 children)

We want them to do option 1, but know they are going to choose option 2.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (21 replies)

[–] [email protected] 46 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The quickest way to save the country would be for Biden to kill the 6 justices that ruled in favour of immunity (and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even mind since they're the ones that made it legal), install 6 liberal judges and the new court can overturn every ruling the corrupt court made. Which means Biden would probably end up in prison, but hey, it's a small price to pay for democracy.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Why would he end up in prison? It would not have been a crime when he committed it. That’s what immunity means.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (66 replies)

[–] [email protected] 163 points 4 months ago (3 children)

This is the sane and rational thing to do. Look forward to seeing what comes of it, keep fighting AOC!

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 154 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We deserve a fresh, genuinely impartial court with term limits - three decades ago.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 4 months ago

You can have it, if enough people fight for it. Now the president can practically do it all by himself.

[–] [email protected] 131 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Why does Biden not simply EAT the Justices as an Official Presidential Act?

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 122 points 4 months ago (15 children)

Like seriously, I'm tired of whining on the internet about this shit. Where can I go to learn about joining a protest? It's better that doing fuck all by tut-tutting the establishment hellbent on fucking us over while they count their money.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 4 months ago (2 children)

think you Americans are beyond a peaceful protest at this point, right now you need a revolution. you are quite literally 4 months away from a potential dictatorship.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (14 replies)

[–] [email protected] 95 points 4 months ago (2 children)

We need to hold the supreme court accountable.

[–] [email protected] 70 points 4 months ago (19 children)

It's ok, the the president can now just have them assassinated as a defence of the constitution.

load more comments (19 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 88 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The only Democrat worth their salt.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 85 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (24 children)

For once, I just want Democrats to take a fucking bold brazen move. Seriously. This is why Democrats never control the narrative because they're always too gun-shy to do the right thing and stand by their own beliefs.

Ditch the 81-year-old clearly suffering cognitive decline; run what would be a viral media frenzy that is an open convention and an American Idol contest for the American people.
Or fuck it: AOC will be old enough to be President this year. Even if she can't get the nomination, she should start campaigning literally today until 2028, just like Trump does.

Edit: Sorry, going to move this to the top of the thread because it's too important:

Before going forward, let me be clear: I want to be convinced that we're not fucked. I really do. The past three days I've gone into detail about how I think we're fucked and looking for anyone to make a sound, data-driven argument that shows we are not. I've yet to be convinced by one, and bear in mind I voted for Biden once and would vote for a corpse if it meant preventing the convicted felon getting keys to the WH again.

There is ample evidence that a not insignificant amount of swing voters either saw past the old man voice to what he was actually saying and standing for, as well as recognized how badly Trump did, even though literally everyone only focuses on Biden, just like always.

Please show me these! Because these are all the surveys I've so far seen:

Post-Debate: "72 Percent Say Biden Unfit Mentally, Cognitively."

Post-Debate: "64% of Independents want Biden replaced on the ballot"; that's more than they want Trump replaced on the ballot by 1%, by the way.

Post-Debate: "Voters think Harris is more fit than Biden to run the country"

Post-Debate: "Swing state voters react to presidential debate, Biden’s weak performance"

Post-Debate Focus Group: "Undecided voter focus group leans toward Trump after debate"

Post-Debate Focus Group 2/Reuters: "'I am absolutely voting for Donald Trump': Undecided voters react to Biden's debate performance"

Post-Debate USAToday/Suffolk Poll: "Republican Donald Trump has edged ahead of Democrat Joe Biden, 41% to 38%, in the aftermath of the candidates' rancorous debate last week"

Nate Silver of 538's Model: "Biden’s win probability has dropped to 28 percent from 35 percent on debate night."

Post-Debate Poll: "Three-quarters of US voters say the Democratic Party would have a better shot at holding the presidency in 2024 with someone other than President Joe Biden at the top of the ticket"

Let's face reality:

To me I view it as a known loss versus a known risky chance. At this point, personally and given all the data I've thus far presented, I am that convinced that we will lose. Polling shows people deeply unsatisfied with the current candidate. I think critical swing-state voters would just be happy to vote for a fresh face that is younger. Like Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans like new shit."

So I don't know how how you can say with a straight face that Biden is more successful while simultaneously dodging the obvious fact that there is a significant decline in physical and cognitive performance. So let's recap:

We can downplay all we want, but this wasn't "one bad debate," for it wasn't even about the debat eitself but the revelation of Biden's senility piercing through echo-chambers. For the exact same reason Biden ASKED for this debate to reach important voters and show he's mentally fit (akin to the SOTU) and show Trump is not, it backfired 100% and there will not be another chance to reach 50 million voters at prime-tme. Trump has no obligation to take another debate; ending on that note is all that is needed.

Biden took this debate because he is currently losing and needed to break the stagnant, steadily-declining polls.
Biden's performance is worse than his 2020 run and in fact, worse than Hillary's losing run in 2016 by every single metric I can find.
There is a MASSIVE amount of risk that Biden's condition deteriorates more rapidly between now and November, and following the convention there is no more backing out.

If I was a Republican strategist, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep Biden in the race because I know he'd be the weakest opponent compared to a fresh, younger face. Nate Silver, Ezra Klein, even former Obama/Biden staffers from PSA clearly agree.

Now if you agree with this and you say, "okay I see your points, but how can anyone else do better?" then we'll move on to that.

load more comments (24 replies)

[–] [email protected] 63 points 4 months ago

DO IT! DO IT NOW! You have to show them the checks and balances. There is no god king, there is no one that is not accountable for their actions. Impeach every single one that was nominated by him. Illegitimate court.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 4 months ago (19 children)

WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

[–] [email protected] 56 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Cuz hes a milquetoast coward. He shoulda packed the court day one.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (18 replies)

[–] [email protected] 55 points 4 months ago

Okay I say we get behind AOC. This is important. WTF!

[–] [email protected] 53 points 4 months ago (32 children)

Here me out: Supreme Court justices, Seal Team 6, official act. You don't even have to pack the Court any more.

load more comments (32 replies)

[–] [email protected] 53 points 4 months ago (1 children)

that would take a congress not filled with cotton-headed ninny muggins

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 51 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

Articles of impeachment is fine as this process stinks and I think this court failed, but we really, long-term, we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear that this is not okay.

I love the constitution, wonderful framework, but it needs the following amendments:

Anti-corruption measures on the judiciary (looking at you Thomas). Provide some teeth to enforce recusal and avoid conflicts of interest.
Term limits for justices and age limits on all elected/appointed officials at the highest level (justices, pres/VP, congress). Tie those to either the retirement age or a percentage of life expectancy (as we get older as a society, and work into our later years, federal officials should be able to remain longer too).
Divestment requirements for all federal elected and appointed officials. i.e. no more insider trading, sorry.
Replace the electoral college with a popular vote.
Replace the filibuster with nothing. Fuck that thing. Let the legislators legislate. If, whatever it is, is a bad idea, it'll be shown to be a bad idea and the next congress will fix it. This is especially important now that Chevron is no more. The court just replaced rules created by executive offices with the most dysfunctional branch of government (congress) without any prospect of undysfuctionalizing themselves.
Congress shouldn't be allowed to block supreme court justices without a vote. Once they are announced, they have X days to approve/deny or they are auto-approved.
(edit) I can't believe this has to be done, but the President is not above the law. The president must follow the law while in office, following "official acts" or not. This is a fucking democracy, not a dictatorship.

While I know there are other ways to approach a lot of these and those ways are easier is not the point of my post. These are things that the constitution is currently WRONG about and it should just be fixed.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 46 points 4 months ago

Fuck yes.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 4 months ago

Lol we are so fucked.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Can you.... Can you do that?

[–] [email protected] 37 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Maybe...Congress has impeached one Supreme Court Justice in history, Constitution Article 2, Section 4..

The Article itself stays within the scope of the Executive Branch but the Section itself just says:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Likely, if Congress tried, it would be argued that the scope is only the Executive Branch.

Article 3's scope is the Judicial branch but says in Section 1:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

However, Samuel Chase who was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice by George Washington and confirmed by the Senate was impeached by Congress in 1804, and other federal judges (some having life-time appointments apparently) were dissolved.

Samuel Chase ultimately was acquitted by the Senate in 1805 however.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments