politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Can't they just make it a law they can't be impeached? Can't they just say the rulings and bribes are official acts?
No, the court interprets laws. Congress writes them.
"We think the intent of this 'Impeach These Clowns Act' was actually to permanently enshrine our positions - so said with a 6-3 majority."
I mean, at the end of the day, the SC only has power if we allow it to. The two other branches could decide to ignore them and pick a new supreme court. Aka the supreme Court has no army
One party that agrees with the majority of the court about almost everything.
The other respects rules and norms (and the delicate sensibilities of their owner donors) much more than the will and even LIVES of the people they're supposed to represent.
While technically accurate, you're making the mootest of points.
If the impeachment passed Congress, like in the situation described by the comment I'm replying to, then that would imply the majority of Congress is on board.
I agree that Republicans likely wouldn't go along with this today in real life. One can dream
Yes, this could happen. Then checks-and-balances would dictate that Congress and/or executive should step in and impeach or otherwise handle them
..for annulling an attempt to impeach or otherwise handle them. You don't see the flaw in that plan?
Impeachment of the judges is not the only way Congress has power over the judicial branch. Congress literally sets the rules about how the whole court functions, the number of seats, etc. One would expect Congress (regardless of which party is in power) to respond against the court if it feels threatened or subverted. But this scenario assumes just the court vs congress, it doesn't assume an effort by multiple people across multiple branches to subvert the government as a whole.
They can interpret the law any way they want. Nothing in the constitution restricts it in any way. They can literally decide that whatever existing law they want actually says that SC justices can't be impeached, and that would be the official interpretation of that law. There is no higher court to say otherwise.
So the law is that the sc presides over impeachment hearings in the Senate, once the house sends it over, can't they just dismiss the case with prejudice?
Impeachment isn't a criminal process, it's a political one, the same rules don't apply.
That's not necessary, as far as I understand there's a 2/3 majority required to carry an impeachment (not American, so could be wrong). That's not possible with roughly 50% republican votes. The impeachment can't succeed, but it's their job to try, and it also puts the evidence on the record.
And ensure that we align those who voted “the president should have the power of the king” and “I can be bought and sold” are at least written in history for their deeds. There’s far more that needs to happen, but this is a good thing
That's not how the three branches work, no.
The three branches are working?
The country's "check engine" light is on, and she's trying to fix it.
Country needs to get its front end/ alignment checked. Seems to only make right turns.
sounds like the steering linkage is disconnected
slaps hood of country this baby can fit so much corruption in it
Gawddayamn, can it ever.
Half the country is about to flood the engine bay with spray foam and put oil in the coolant reservoir.
Not to mention the blinker fluid refills.
Headlight fluids too