this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
1157 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2365 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 182 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Good. It is a start..Won't get anywhere but it is a start of a conversation

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (6 children)
[–] [email protected] 59 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago

Yeah, fair point. A Senate trial would still be useful to publicly air all of the evidence though.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Thanks. I wonder why AOC is doing this now instead of waiting until after the elections when the House may (may) flip.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago

So that everyone running for a House seat can get their position on record before the election, I suppose

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Kinda makes it sound like these judges are members of the party and can't be objective and therefore can't be judges then.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Damn, man. Well, I guess it's a first step.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Because this article is from Wed 10 Jul 2024

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago