this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
355 points (99.4% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3611 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 140 points 2 months ago

I love the simple explanation:

“If she is that ignorant of how to handle these matters, then she doesn’t belong on the bench,” Swartz said. “If she’s doing it because she’s lazy, then she doesn’t belong on the bench. If she’s doing it just to delay, then she doesn’t belong on the bench.”

[–] [email protected] 81 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 77 points 2 months ago (2 children)

So... can we impeach her yet?

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 months ago

Go picket, with enough people showing that justice matters, they'll have to find a less corrupt judge.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not until there is a democratic majority in the house. Impeachment starts there for federal judges.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago (4 children)

But what can be done? She's in a safe state for her kind, isn't she? It's not like they would suddenly realize what kind of person she is - they already know.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 months ago (1 children)

She's a federal judge and not subject to state oversight. She answers to the federal government.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Although with a lifetime appointment and a high threshold for removal, accountability is hard to come by

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

Legal, procedural accountability, sure.

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

But seriously, I do think that there might be some vigilante justice against the justice if she is gonna be that blatant, and then, for instance, gets appointed to the Supreme Court.

I bet this is her Supreme Court tryout. I would bet my salary on it, in fact.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago

In a sane world, one of two things would happen, ideally both:

Immediate Impeachment and motion for a mistrial be granted

Arrest for Obstruction of Justice

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The remedy is impeachment, so I'm pretty sure that means 60 senators need to vote to remove her, which isn't happening anytime soon.

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

And you need the house to kick things off. And the house is controlled by the GOP.

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

State has nothing to do with it. She is an appointed federal judge. If she’s going to be removed, she has to be removed federally.

More specifically, impeachment proceeding for her removal would start in the House of Representatives… which is currently controlled by the GOP.

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

for now. GOP hemorrhaging support faster than the dems let's see how this election goes

my guess as to why shit sucks so bad is because last few election cycles have really gone in better directions. I think once that scale tips we'll see some great and long overdue shit

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

Experts say? Shit, you don’t have to go that far to hear it.