Skip to main content

View Diary: If the President Had Done What SCOTUS Just Did with Partisan VRA Ruling (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not doing the dance of the seven subject changes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thestructureguy, terrypinder, Ahianne

    with you, Troubadour. Just commenting in case anyone stops by who doesn't know what impeachment requires and what folly it is to propose as a reaction to a bad decision. Short version:

    1) An impeachment of 5 Republican-appointed justices (or any other) must begin in the House. The House is controlled by Republicans -- most of whom like the decision on which you want to base impeachment.

    2) Conviction and removal requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate. There are not enough votes in the Senate to convict. (I doubt there would be a single vote on the current record.)

    Those basic realities are enough. We don't even have to get to the weakness of the analogies in the diary. But since I promoted someone else's diary, I'll pimp a couple of yours, too. For those who want more detail and comments from lawyers and others who have repeatedly engaged Troubadour in excruciating detail on this topic:

    Change.org Petition to Reject Lawless Partisan SCOTUS Ruling and Impeach Court Majority, which followed: If The SCOTUS Five Strike Down VRA Impeach Them.

    Of course, you know that impeachment is not a possibility. You acknowledged in one of the other diaries that it's not really your goal. So when you continue to talk about ejecting people from the Supreme Court when you know it's not possible, it makes me wonder about your real goal here. I'll leave that for others to suss out.

    •  I have to wonder why you find this so threatening (0+ / 0-)

      if, as you repeatedly insist with a very strange amount of vehemence, that this is just an idle folly.  

      You can't possibly believe it would serve as a "distraction" from your oh-so-"practical" attempts to just deal with an endless series of judicial abuses rather than standing up and saying enough is enough.  After all, you said impeachment was "dead."

      Let me give you a little truism: If you have to keep saying over, and over, and over that something is not credible...you're advertising the fact that you find it threatening.  

      The fact is you have no better ideas.  None.  You treat permanent abuses of power by this Court as an immutable law of the cosmos rather than action by criminal enemies.  Your approach has not done a single thing to mitigate even the abuses they've already committed let alone will commit in the future.  So lead, follow, or get out of the way.

      Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

      by Troubadour on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 03:57:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site