This article is from July. Johnson has not allowed this near the floor and never will because hes a corrupt sack of fucked up rotten eggplants; even if he does, it will obviously fail on party line votes. Non story.
It’s a good reminder before a big election that one side is actively attempting to govern, while the other side is blocking any and all actions so as to curry more favor with their billionaire backers.
Please
Both ‘sides’ are blocking any and all actions so as to curry favor with their billionaire backers.
Johnson has not allowed this near the floor and never will because hes a corrupt sack of fucked up rotten eggplants
There’s a very good chance that Democrats retake the House after November. Any idea whether Hakkem Jefferies will allow this proposal to advance?
Knowing how absolutely fucking stupid our politicians are id imagine IF we win we’ll suddenly hear a whole bunch about needing to heal and show solidarity or some such bullshit that will just equate to “we aren’t going to do anything about Republican corruption.”
I see you also lived through the 2009 congressional cycle.
Indeed lol we’re very good about being extra nice to our would be oppressors…
I’m waiting to read that since they didn’t have a code of conduct, how could they have known?
How could any suspect that accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in
bribesgifts would present a conflict of interest?Jeffries would have everything to gain by forcing the issue, and i would frankly expect him to. But unless a miracle happens in the Senate post-election, an actual conviction will of course not happen as Republicans will never sign on to get the 2/3rds majority there.
If the Democrats can keep their Senate majority then they can have an actual trial for these impeachments, something that didn’t happen for the Trump impeachments (since the Republicans had Senate control then.) There probably still won’t be enough votes for the removal to actually happen, but it’ll let the Democrats really rub the Republicans’ noses in the corruption going on in the Supreme Court and make their vote to protect Thomas and Alito more damaging in the next election.
At any rate, Thomas and Alito are currently the two oldest justices on the court, and if Harris gets two terms then there’s a good chance that one or both of them will be dead by the next time there’s a GOP President. That, combined with some strategic retirements on behalf of some of the older Democratic appointees has a good chance of unfucking the court for a while.
Jeffries would have everything to gain by forcing the issue
I mean, I’ve been saying this about DC Statehood for two decades. Democrats should have made DC a state back during the Carter administration’s majority. All upside, save for the fact that it dilutes the power of the rest of the Senate by 2%. Bonus, because it gets you that much closer to doing things like a Senate conviction or a Constitutional Amendment passage via a liberal supermajority.
But this is something Democrats have punted on over and over and over and over again. Even within the Dem Senate Majority, you can’t find enough votes.
Republicans will never sign on to get the 2/3rds majority there
If you can get a Senate Dem majority on record as saying these judges need to be removed, the case for court packing gets stronger.
But this is another thing Dems can’t be convinced to pull the trigger on.
deleted by creator
Dems will probably take the house but lose the senate
You don’t think Collier is going to win Texas in a historic landslide?
Good. It is a start…Won’t get anywhere but it is a start of a conversation
Why wouldn’t it get anywhere?
In order to advance the measure, the Speaker of the House would have to allow it. He is an ally of the two. Then, once advanced, the House would have to vote to impeach, and the House is currently controlled by the gop, and they too are unlikely to impeach their allies.
So the chances of it getting anywhere are near-zero, for this year anyway. Next year could potentially be different.
honestly, even if the house is turned in november and they vote to impeach them, the next step is trial at the senate. it requires 2/3 of the votes, so they won’t get convicted and removed
Yeah, fair point. A Senate trial would still be useful to publicly air all of the evidence though.
Thanks. I wonder why AOC is doing this now instead of waiting until after the elections when the House may (may) flip.
So that everyone running for a House seat can get their position on record before the election, I suppose
Politics. It’s important that we keep this in the news cycle, so people remember why its important to work together to try to get these people thrown out. It also forces the gop to block the measures, which could potentially make them look like they are condoning corruption. Which they are.
Symbolism basically.
Kinda makes it sound like these judges are members of the party and can’t be objective and therefore can’t be judges then.
Republicans control the House and even if they didn’t, there is nothing close to a majority vote of the House that want to impeach members of SCOTUS.
Damn, man. Well, I guess it’s a first step.
Why would it get anywhere?
Because there is a process for these things. Now, can someone answer my question?
Republicans.
And conservative Democrats, which is most of the ones in Washington.
If they’re going to use the “but what would Republicans do?” excuse for preserving the filibuster and pretending that the word of an unelected clerk is final on raising the minimum wage, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will on impeaching SCOTUS judges.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m 100% on AOC’s side here. I just don’t trust right wing demagogues from both parties to not be in the way of justice like they almost always are.
Republicans
Fuck!
Because this article is from Wed 10 Jul 2024
Because conservatives control the house, which is the first step in impeachment. Even if the speaker allows it to come to a vote (he won’t) they will just vote it down.
Thanks.
This election is so seriously fucked up that Dick Chaney and AOC are voting for the same candidate.
Weird timeline we’re in.
No, who are you calling a weird timeline? this timeline is extremely solid. It’s a very solid timeline. When we’re talking these kinds of numbers, then we tax countries when they ship stuff here, and they will not like it, but we can see how solid the timeline is…
I feel like I should have left out all punctuation in that paragraph.
Needs more couch
Whoa there, let’s keep it PG for the children.
-J.D. Vance
Nnnnnhhhhh ~ Vance, probably
Oh yes, yes YES! Maybe we could do a casting call for unknown voluptuous clean shaven chesterfield couches?
Does bring a different meaning to the backroom casting couch concept.
And also Added a bunch of random Capitalized Words for NO REASON.
Weird timeline we’re in.
neoliberals and conservatives are flip sides of the same coin to be spent in the same vending machine of american hegemony; whether or not they select the same flavor makes little difference compared to the very real choices available in some other vending machines rich enough to effectively defend itself from the american machine.
This reminds me of the current French politics. After the previous legislative elections were won by the left, neoliberal president Macron nonetheless appointed a conservative as his prime minister.
At the end of the day, it’s all about the bottomline.
So, are you considering AOC to be a neoliberal or to be a conservative?
how she contrasts with cheney has little impact on the genocide; future the cia induced coups; nor the continuing widening wealth gap; etc.
cheney is an accelerant and aoc is an inhibitor to the same child bombing, rich guy party we’re calling a country since people like cheney hold all of he cards and the best people like aoc can hope for is play along and act surprised each time they re-discover that the game is rigged toward’s cheney’s side each time people like aoc fail and cling on increasingly rarer watered down victories to justify the relatively tiny distinctions between the two.
<SARCASM> and even when they fail it’s simply because you didn’t vote hard enough and ABSOLUTELY NOT because your vote is diminished or suppressed because only lazy non-voting americans are simply too lazy to overcome studied, coordinated, and court-busting-proven astro-turfed national conservative movements financed by unknown multi-milion/bilion dollar interests in coordination with most states and the federal governments since 1980, all intent on keeping them from voting…</SARCASM>
At least there’s something. Agreed with sibling comment that nothing will come of it. But at least something is happening. The corruption is astronomical and a thumb in all of our eyes.
Literally 0% chance to change for good if all that happens is bearing witness to corruption and wrongdoing.
This is doing something. It’s hitting on the root of so many problems which have arisen in the US since the corporate takeover of government began in 1978 in partnership with the Supreme Court. I applaud AOC for this!
AOC 2032
“Justice Thomas and Alito’s repeated failure over decades to disclose that they received millions of dollars in gifts from individuals with business before the court is explicitly against the law. And their refusal to recuse from the specific matters and cases before the court in which their benefactors and spouses are implicated represents nothing less than a constitutional crisis,” Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, said in a statement.
Moderate Dems don’t want to actually fix the SC.
They love complaining about it. And saying that’s why they can’t fix anything.
But they refuse to even bring up that we can fix it by impeaching the problematic ones or just expanding the court.
People say “if we do it, trump will do it” which is just insane to me because why the fuck would any republican not do something unless a Dem does it first?
This is literally AOC trying to impeach them, which isn’t going to be successful in a republican controlled house anyway. It’s more just for principle and show.
Court packing isn’t really an option right now for the same reason…if dems get firm control of the house and senate then it would be possible. For those who don’t know Manchin and Sinema are two “democratic” senators who won’t abolish filibuster or expand the supreme court so the current 51 - 49 democrat control of the senate isn’t real control either.
So when Biden and the party said 50 was enough to do stuff…
Are you saying they were lying, or that you know more about it than Biden and his admin and they were just ignorant?
And did you really just call AOC a moderate?
I’m just not logically following what you’re saying. Like, I understand what you’re trying to say. It’s just not logically sound.
Quick edit:
Also, 50 was enough for Kamala to cast the tiebreaking vote to expand domestic fracking…
Why is 50 enough to do what republicans want. But not enough to do what Dems want?
Are you going to double down and say that’s what Dem voters want? More fracking?
You’re really trying to strawman me and aren’t making good faith arguments here so I’m not going to waste too much time on a response… but take 51 and then subtract 2 from it (for Manchin and Sinema who won’t vote with dems on these issues) - is that 50? Besides that dems also don’t control the house.
Also, 50 was enough for Kamala to cast the tiebreaking vote to expand domestic fracking…
Why is 50 enough to do what republicans want. But not enough to do what Dems want?
Are you going to double down and say that’s what Dem voters want? More fracking?
50 is enough for republicans to get what they want, just not enough for Dem voters to get what they want
but take 51 and then subtract 2 from it (for Manchin and Sinema who won’t vote with dems on these issues) - is that 50?
If you just forget that Biden and the party said 50 was enough when we knew two of them was Manchin and Sinema.
So again:
Are you saying they were lying, or that you know more about it than Biden and his admin and they were just ignorant?
And for this:
Besides that dems also don’t control the house.
We’re just ignoring the two years we also had the House?
Is any of this getting thru to you? Because honestly you’re not the only one here about to write off any chances of you understanding this…
We don’t have to guess, they tried. 50 is enough if you can get 50…on these issues the dems couldn’t get 50 even when they had the house. Guess which two senators opposed filibuster reform? Guess which two senators also very publicly stated they wouldn’t vote for packing the supreme court?
Math isn’t your strong point is it? 51 - 2 != 50. Go pick up your crayons and practice your numbers and stop with your bullshit spewing you always seem to be doing.
The Democrats have not controlled both the house and senate for more than a few months in the last decade+. When they did, they got the ACA passed. Manchin and Sinema are DINOs at best.
Because Mancin and Sinema will vote together with republicans but not dems
So when Biden and the party said 50 was enough to pass the party platform…
That was a __________
And Kamala voted to expand domestic fracking because_____
Yeah, he said 50 votes was. And with Mancin and Sinema voting elsewhere, that means they have how many votes?
Let’s work together!
If you have 50 apples, and 2 of them end up being full of worms and rotten, how many apples do you have to eat?
That’s right! 48 apples!
Good job!
So …
During the GA runoffs when Biden told us 50 senators with a D by their name was enough to pass party platform:
That was a ______
Because Manchin was already in office, everyone knew what he was and what he would do. Except the Dem party leaders.
Just not sure why you won’t answer if they were lying or ignorant of what the Senators in their party was like.
Keep in mind, Biden got the nomination because he said he was a “senate whisperer” and never expected to actually get 50/50 till he won the election.
Either Biden didn’t know what he was talking about. Or he lied.
You seem to be saying Biden was ignorant of who Manchin is
Acting like a campaigning politician in a tight race could say “I don’t know if I’ll be able to actually get these things done, sorry guys. Please vote for me anyway though because I’m being realistic instead of optimistic” and still win.
He thought he could put enough pressure on Manchin. He was wrong, but it’s still better that Democrats won the runoff and that he tried to get 50 senators in line like he said he would. He failed. He didn’t lie. No one knew what was going to happen. It’s politics.
If you think every politician on the campaign trail is given you the most realistic version of what they will accomplish, I have a bridge to sell you buddy.
This is just a terrible take. Is your point that Joe Biden is a secret Republican and doesn’t support the policies he pushes for? Or that Kamala will somehow be more moderate than Biden?
If so, fucking lol dude.
So when Biden and the party said 50 was enough to do stuff…
The Inflation Reduction Act passed only because of that extra senator. So it was true. 50 is good enough to do stuff. 50 is not good enough to do everything, only as progressive as the least progressive “democract” (which at the time were Manchin and Sinema
50 is not good enough to do everything, only as progressive as the least progressive “democract” (which at the time were Manchin and Sinema
Party leadership said it was enough for the Dem party platform…
That’s why the GA runoffs got an insane amount of donations from the entire country, hell I gave.
It’s not that I’m arguing against you. I’m pointing out voters were lied to and that causes turnout depression for a significant amount of time, and for that reason alone the party needs to stop lying.
It may help short term, but it hurts more long term
The person you’re replying to basically explains this - the two “democratic” senators (Manchin/Sinema) were not reliable votes so specifically on more rightwing issues you could usually get Manchin to be #50. Sinema is batshit as far as I’m concerned so it was pretty hard to ever get her to vote with the Dems.
Something I’ve explained multiple times…
What I could use help understanding is why you dropped your comment chain to comment here asking questions I’ve already attempted to explain.
Seems like something people do when they’re just looking to argue and not trying to learn anything.
If that’s what’s going on. It’s an easy fix on my end
I’m sorry I don’t follow - what do you mean by dropped my comment chain?
Don’t worry about it
This is not happening in the Senate, it is happening in the House. Additionally, anything that would face a filibuster requires 60 votes to pass, not 51.
Details are important.
So annoying that Democrats propose something, the Republican majority opposes and entirely quashes it, and the “take” is that we should blame Democrats for not getting it done.
See also, filibuster and gerrymandering.
Republicans absolutely will do something if it benefits them. We can safely assume current filibuster rules benefit them otherwise they would have removed them themselves already. Dems do actually stand on tradition (which is why they haven’t eliminated the filibuster even though it would greatly benefit them), often to their own detriment and I would say it’s far more likely that they are actully concerned about norms (I would say overly so) when they’re hesitant to do something like impeach justices.
Dems do actually stand on tradition (which is why they haven’t eliminated the filibuster even though it would greatly benefit them)
Really?
Everyone else always say it’s just Manchin and maybe Sinema that won’t, and that Biden and the rest want to…
To be honest I think you’re right and there’s a hell of a lot more moderates that would refuse even if we had 60 D senators, and Schumer refusing to hold a vote is to block for them so people don’t replace them in their next primary.
That’s pretty much the whole point of my original comment…
It’s true that Manchin and Sinema are a pain and kill a lot of things that otherwise would get through majority votes. I mean I’m no expert or anything but I sure don’t get the sense that ending the filibuster would be something that would get the necessary unanimous support from the rest of the sitting Dems. It just seems like a lot of them believe it’s there for a good reason.
It just seems like a lot of them believe it’s there for a good reason.
Yup. It keeps them from being expected to keep their campaign promises.
“Moderate” Dems have been trying to appear palatable to an increasingly unhinged conservative voter for decades now, so they won’t push for anything too controversial
They love complaining about it. And saying that’s why they can’t fix anything.
Should be noted how many conservative Democrats are genuinely happy to have a SCOTUS do the dirty work of deregulation, dismantling of the administrative state, and legalization of bribery at all levels of government.
People say “if we do it, trump will do it” which is just insane to me because why the fuck would any republican not do something unless a Dem does it first?
The Republican strategy, to date, has been to rely on liberal apathy and “norms” that favor their reactionary policies in order to ratchet their way into a judicial permanent majority. But for policies that this ratchet effect won’t work fast enough - funding of Trump’s Wall, illegal surveillance under Bush, police harassment of minority groups in Texas and Florida, police harassment of women’s health clinics, police harassment of GOTV efforts by liberals - the Republicans simply do as thou wilt and leave it to the Democrats to pound sand in response.
To the idea of court packing, I do have to ask… why are we afraid of more SCOTUS judges? What happens if the court swelled from nine to nineteen over the course of a couple of D/R/D/R administrations? Is that actually a problem? Will court rules be meaningfully worse as a result. I’ve yet to hear how a larger court with a more diffuse power base would be bad for the American public.
Is there no method of self policing for the judiciary or legal profession?
the Supreme court justices have exempted themselves from prosecution for accepting gifts through previous decisions and C. Thomas was not required to recuse himself in the Jan 6 cases involving his own wife so let’s go with no policing at all.
🫡
deleted by creator
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/10/aoc-articles-of-impeachment
