20 points

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, saying that their refusal to recuse from certain prominent cases “constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law.”

In a statement, the New York congresswoman said that justices’ refusal to step aside from cases “in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements” has created an “unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court.”

The resolutions were co-sponsored by Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Rashida Talib, D-Mich., Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. and Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y.

Both flags have each been carried in recent years by members of the “Stop the Steal” movement, whose supporters claim that President Joe Biden did not lawfully win the 2020 presidential election.

Extensive reporting last year by ProPublica showed that Thomas has accepted lavish gifts like vacations and flights without disclosing them in official ethics forms.

In the aftermath of the election, Ginni Thomas also sent messages to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging him to stand with Trump.


The original article contains 548 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

permalink
report
reply
94 points

Godspeed.

permalink
report
reply
3 points
*

I mean, it would literally only pass if the nominees for their replacements were some of Trump’s spawn, but I guess it needs to be done anyways to establish just how corrupt Republicans are. You know.

Again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

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?

permalink
report
reply
39 points

No, the court interprets laws. Congress writes them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Impeachment isn’t a criminal process, it’s a political one, the same rules don’t apply.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

“We think the intent of this ‘Impeach These Clowns Act’ was actually to permanently enshrine our positions - so said with a 6-3 majority.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Yes, this could happen. Then checks-and-balances would dictate that Congress and/or executive should step in and impeach or otherwise handle them

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

That’s not how the three branches work, no.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

The three branches are working?

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

The country’s “check engine” light is on, and she’s trying to fix it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
155 points
*

She’s the best, incredibly inspiring.

Pretty open and shut for the both of them, presiding over cases they have material interest in.

Kick their ass.

permalink
report
reply
65 points

Which is why I’m honestly surprised reich-wingers haven’t tried to murder her

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

She hasn’t done anything to directly go after Fuckface 45. Once she does that…

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The rapist with 34 felonies. I won’t give the honor of calling him 45.

permalink
report
parent
reply
63 points

Knocking on wood.

There was that creepy anime assassination video by fellow congressman gosar, AOC has mentioned receiving multiple death threats and one of the capital rioters said he’d bring guns next time to “assassinate AOC”, so awful threats are happening.

Same guy that tweeted a selfie from inside the capital "just want to incriminate myself a little lol.”

AOC is very clear that she believes had they not escaped during the riot, assassinations would have occurred.

I’m happy that she is safe.

Knock on wood.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

I have no doubt they’d have killed more then have people there if given the chance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’m sure they have tried, I’m also sure she’s probably pretty careful about her day to day life knowing the amount of potential enemies she has

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

They did, though, on January 6th! They were looking for her and others.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Well… they did just legalize gratuities for political favors.

Not quite as open and shut anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Open and shut case… if the Dems controlled the house. But not enough democrats were voted into office, so these articles go to MAGA Mike Johnson, and unfortunately, his trash can.

But AOC knows this. Her goal is to keep this in the press so voters remember it in Nov. That’s the real play. No one is actually getting impeached this term. Mike Johnson is a Christian nationalist who loves what those activist judges are doing. No way he’s brining this to the floor. And if he did, AOC doesn’t have a simple majority.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yea, open and shut objectively, not practically.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

She’d get further just paying them enough to quit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Don’t down-talk John Oliver.

I thought his offer to pay the RV judge to quit was admirable. Was it a joke?

I laughed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Just gotta add a few zeros to the offers. And likely have decent blackmail

permalink
report
parent
reply
-22 points

She has no leg to stand on… Corruption is legal in the US for high ranking officials.

Congress and Mullahs are on the side here lol

permalink
report
reply
2 points

lol.

🙄

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 9.9K

    Posts

  • 163K

    Comments