- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
“Alito’s next opinion piece in the WSJ is about to be ‘I am a little king, actually. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly say I’m not,’” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) quipped.
You must log in or register to comment.
Unless they start impeaching Justices, he’s completely right. Impeach or shut the fuck up “Progressives”.
With what votes?
If the vote fails (as it likely would) then we can see which politicians are our enemies and need to be replaced. The failed vote could be used as a rallying cry to motivate voters and spark protests and generate momentum for reform. A vote would generate a news cycle.
Without a vote, nothing happens.
Which worked so well through TWO failed Trump impeachments…
Impeachment without removal is pointless. So step 1 HAS to be getting the majority back in the house AND getting a 2/3rds majority in the Senate.
Once you do that, I’d argue for a new Amendment. Ethics rules + age limits.
If you haven’t noticed, Trump isn’t President anymore.
The impeachments galvanized voters. Duh?
Impeachment had no impact on voters, if anything, quite the opposite, which is why we have a Republican run House of Representatives right now and the balance of power in the Senate hasn’t changed.
We need a 2/3rds majority in the House and Senate to start making massive changes.
How can you say impeachment had no impact when Trump literally lost? The fact that the House was lost 2 years after that was because voters saw that Democrats are worthless do-nothing losers that refuse to do anything when they win.
We need a 2/3rds majority in the House and Senate to start making massive changes.
If that’s true then I should just kill myself now because it will never happen for the rest of my miserable life
Because after impeaching him the House immediately flipped? Ya think? Impeachment was well recieved in the bubble, not so much outside the bubble.
Ok, how can they call a vote?
That’s harder, obviously. They need the Speaker to call for impeachment proceedings, which isn’t happening without drastic measures.
He also is only one man. He has an address. He has friends and family. He has business interests and donors and a whole host of private interests. He has investments and properties and associates.
Those are all legitimate targets. There are millions of people that would move on AOCs command. She could call on all her supporters to make McCarthy’s life a living hell. He’s just one man. He can be defeated by the masses.
There are millions of people that would move on AOCs command.
I’m sorry what? Agreeing with her, voting for her, campaigning for her: none of that is anything like the coordinated, multi-pronged and likely months long harassment campaign you’re talking about.
Maybe they wouldn’t be willing to physically show up at a sit-in or something, but those people are still willing to participate in smaller ways and that still counts.
While I appreciate your forthrightness about the need to kill the speaker of the house, I don’t think that is going to go over well with the people I’d need it to go over well with
Woah hold up, I mean his life needs to become a living hell; not literally send him to hell.
Nobody said that, and you know it. Stick to the topic. Your lack of logic and bad faith are showing.
deleted by creator
The ones we would think need to be replaced are largely in republican controlled areas. So that would likely gain them support from their base.
There are millions of people who don’t vote because they believe it doesn’t matter. Reaching them would change everything.
While I agree on the point that dems should be trying to reach disaffected voters in red states and that these Republicans who would vote against ethics for tc justices should be replaced. I don’t see this doing that if they couldn’t already with how corrupt the republican party openly is now.
They don’t care because they see that Democrats aren’t doing anything that matters anyway. Why bother voting for the do-nothing party?
Dems in the last 3 years have done more than trump and Republicans in 4. If they can’t bother to see reality then that’s on them.
Without a vote, nothing happens.
Feels like that’s the point.
Exactly! AOC and other so-called Progressives are allowed to speak out against the dominant political line and act like they’re anti-establishment, but they don’t have to actually humiliate any other members of the Party by putting them to a vote.
Pitchforks?
Impeach or shut the fuck up “Progressives”.
At least they could use it to fundraise, right?
Impeachment starts in the House, which is currently run by Republicans. So that’s a non-starter unless you want to impeach Kagan, Sotomayor or Brown-Jackson.
Impeachment is solely at the discretion of McCarthy. The rest of the House doesn’t matter.
And he’s just one man.
You need a majority vote in the house and the Republican majority will NEVER vote to impeach a Republican Supreme Court justice when there’s a Democratic President. Will never happen.
This is the same political body who needed 15 votes to decide who their own leader was.
I’m pretty sure impeachment proceedings can just be started by McCarthy whenever he wants.
Removal requires a majority so that won’t happen, but impeachment matters. Do you think Trump lost for no reason?
House leadership doesn’t do anything without knowing the votes are there first and they are absolutely not there.
McCarthy can be made to do anything with enough mass mobilization against him.
The problem is any mass mobilization against him will come from those further Right, not Left.
Agreed.
You can say whatever you want for publicity when you know you won’t lift a finger to make any of it happen.
What more could aoc do here? She can’t force a vote on it. And even if she could it’d be shot down with the current congress.
This is my favorite thing about the modern Democratic Party: the intense desire to get credit for excuses.
It’s not an excuse when it’s describing the reality of the situation. Dems can’t call a vote here and if they could somehow force a vote it would get voted down just by numbers. Republicans don’t care they are openly corrupt.
Anyone else notice how the two arguably worst Supreme Court justices were nominated by the so-called “moderate” Bush family?
Hey now, give those Trump appointees time. They’re still learning. I’m sure they’ll be unredeemable monsters soon.
Gorsuch is really weird. He’s always gonna be theirs but he’s gonna side with us in really weird ways sometimes. I don’t think he’ll ever be Alito levels.
Bush is only moderate now that we have fascists and terrorist as a segment of the party. I wish we could stop acting like Republicans were ever reasonable. At least in recent history.
Only because those enthroned by McConnell and his stooge in the White House haven’t been there long enough to show a track record. Give it time.
Alito: “Regulate us, I dare you!”
Congressional Dems: “Hold our beers…"
More like this:
Congressional Dems: “If we say really mean things about Alito, it’s cool that nothing changed, right?”
lol they won’t do anything
People said the same shit about the trump indictments right after all that shit happened with the election interference. Justice is a slow and methodical process and I’m tired of explaining it to dipshits like you who want to post a cool comment on some random social media site like you’re calling them out on something new. Can you please shut the fuck up and open a book next time? Thanks.
A lot of bravado over here… Do you feel like you are playing on the team? Some strong emotional responses.
Remember that time that rich and powerful member of the elite ruling class got held accountable for fucking anything?
Me neither.
Hey, they get held accountable sometimes… when they affect other rich and powerful members of the elite ruling class.
There’s more the justice dept an do then what the currently gridlocked congress can do.
Can you explain it to dipshits like me? As I read the Constitution, impeachment is the only remedy to remove a Federal judge, and success requires a supermajority of the Senate.
The Exceptions Clause states “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” (emphasis mine)
Congress can regulate SCOTUS. In point of fact, Congress can define what cases the court has jurisdiction over with the exception of “Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” In those cases, SCOTUS has final say per the Constitution, but in all other cases, Congress could assign final appellate authority to a lower court.
Kavanaugh: “I like beer!”
And Squee.
Alito: “Regulate us, I dare you!”
Congressional Dems: “Hold our beers…"
Narrator voice: They did not actually regulate Alito. Ever. And they sip wine instead of beer.
🍷 🍷 
Senate Republicans: loud evil laugh, mustache pinching, etc
ahem, I believe it’s mustache-twirling…
Lol…
Mwua-hahahaha.
Pinch pinch pinch, pinch pinch.
Well, here’s the problem. Alito is correct, that Congress can’t impose “ethics rules” on the court.
The sole remedy given to the people is impeachment, and Bribery is explicitly listed as a valid basis for impeachment under Article 1.
We would never get an impeachment through the Senate, of course.
There is a second remedy: constitutional amendment. Not sure exactly who should be watching the watchers if it’s not Congress. But we can assign someone to do so.
Maybe a supermajority of district court judges should rule on issues involving SCOTUS justices.
C O R R U P T
As long as they’re just whining in response and not taking action they’re proving him right.
Republicans control the house and the senate is still subject to the filibuster and likely will remain that way until the next time there is 52+ dem senators + dem house + dem president simultaneously.
Yeah, but think of how effective the empty gestures would be!
/sarcasm
So? That still means he’s right!
TIL that House Democrats can launch investigations without control over House committees.
Wild how the Democrats always have an excuse but the government works flawlessly for Republicans.
Anything works flawlessly when your goal is to not use it. The difference is that Democrats are interested in using the government to promote the common good and Republicans aren’t. But when they’re backed into a corner where no government action would get them crucified (like the COVID bills) Democrats won’t get in the way. Whereas whenever Democrats try the same thing Republicans obstruct and filibuster so they can blame Democrats for their inaction.
If we’re gauging by their actions and the results, their goal is to act as the apologist branch of our Republican government.
Except they do and have accomplished things to help. The fact that they haven’t done more is proof that we’re never satisfied. It would be easier to do if Republicans hadn’t decided their path to power is to obstruct and blame everything on Democrats, but we no longer live in that world. Let’s acknowledge reality instead of helping Republicans blame Democrats for their hindrance.
I’ll believe that when the Democrats stop making excuses.
How is describing the reality in front of you an excuse?
What’s your excuse for not investigating?
Brother I fix cars for a living. It’s literally not my job to investigate and I couldn’t if I wanted to. We have people for that. It’s long past time to hold them accountable.
Do so then
Political process is captured and broken, a wage slave has no sway over any of it
But I am sure next election is different, it will be the one! As long as people vote for “my” team
Oh, so you’re one of those Blue MAGA fascists who turn to narcissistic abusive tactics when your “team” is criticized.
Cry harder lib
Just a MAGA fascist then.
Call me when literally anything happens
This is why we need to overthrow this broken system and put a new one into place.
“No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period,” Alito told the Journal.
This dumb shit really should read the Constitution.
Art III.S2.C2.6 Exceptions Clause and Congressional Control over Appellate Jurisdiction
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Congress absolutely has, per the Constitution, clear authority to regulate the SCOTUS. How’s this for an exception. The Supreme Court shall have no Jurisdiction in any case where any member of the court has a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest and refuses to recuse themselves?
pile on
And do absolutely fucking nothing that actually changes that.
