Supreme Court impeachment plan released by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Supreme Court impeachment plan released by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she plans to introduce articles of impeachment against Supreme Court justices.
You're viewing a single thread.
I doubt Republicans will support this. Really it comes down to if Biden is going to use his newly gained "official" immunity and look like a dictator, or if Trump gets elected who will most definitely use a cover of immunity to target his political foes. Maybe this is Democrats attempt at we tried to be civil, but you gave us no other choice.
However, this doesn't go far enough quick enough to revoke the latest decision by the Supreme Court. What the Supreme Court has done is actually told the Jan. 6 rioters that under a Trump presidency that a dictatorship is permitted. It doesn't matter if they are impeached, replaced or the decision is reversed. Trump will do as he pleases and point to this moment and say "look, they said it was fine and Democrats didn't respect the rule of law."
I can appreciate your frustration and I share that sentiment, but the Supreme Court changed nothing with the "immunity" decision. No one that follows legal procedure was surprised by this, and anyone claiming to be is either ignorant or is intentionally conflating the significance. Presidential immunity has been a thing for a long time and SCOTUS has changed nothing.
Oh really? Do you mind going ahead and sharing your law license? I'd like to ensure the person trying to give me advice right now is also an attorney.
I know links are difficult, but if you just place your cursor over that underlined portion of the text and press the left button on the mouse, it will transport you to an entirely different site with relevant information that you can debate yourself over.
Also, assuming I was a lawyer, why would I try to prove that in any meaningful way? Do you not understand the concept of IANAL? Also, no such thing as a "law license" in the US. Also also, clarifying the first three sentences of a very basic wikipedia page is hardly "advice".
All SCOTUS did was confirm that a precedent set before Nixon still stands. This was confirmed once again by the courts during B Clintons terms. But confirming it yet again, for the third time since being set, is suddenly an affront to justice? They basically repeated themselves a third time. Then they kicked it back for the court to determine whether or not the act was official or not. Click a fucking link. Read a fucking book.
Or stay basic. IDGAS. You right now are no different in any way than trumpers who claim that trump's convictions were a show trial and that no one was injured by his acts. Bury your head in the sand and pretend to be incensed. Or, don't be afraid to have a little integrity. You'll get downvoted for posting something unpopular, and you'll have to deal with the occasional twat that's too lazy to check their facts. But I suppose that's the point of integrity. Doing the right thing with no expectation of reward. But the hubris of rubes can be its own reward. So thanks for that. 🙏
Except that isn't the case at all. From the very ruling
"Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32"
Literally saying that the president is free to organize coups, organize any crime so long as it's with his advisors or testimony it is 100% immune from evidence. Unironically this is one of the most facist shit I have ever read in the USA.
"The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct,"
The Supreme Court specifically even said that Trump directing Pence to refuse to certify the election was perfectly legal and 100% immune. That is an insane position. Absolutely no legal expert worth their salt would claim this was the expected result. That just means they are shitty legal "experts." AND EVEN if a lower court decides it wasn't official buisness of the president, as the ruling said that testimony or private records of the president or his advisers examining such conduct cannot be admitted as evidence at trial. So even if the act is found to be unofficial by some miracle by the lower courts, there would be no evidence admissible.