I don't believe the recent court ruling would actually allow that because suspending court justices isn't a regular part of the president's duty.
The best king example I've seen is that the president would be within the law if they shot the director of homeland security - the president is allowed to control who is in that position, they can remove them at will - the SC ruling means that the method they chose to remove that person is now unimpeachable... if they chose to suspend them by freeing them of their mortal coil they're "acting within official duties".
We knew he was a garbage human being during the Anita Hill hearings
Man, if only the head of that committee was a real leader. One willing to stand up for what is right, defend the victim, keep decorum, and allow the multiple other woman with similar complaints to testify...
Imagine if Clarance could have been kept off the court
I guess it would be pointless to look up who that was, it was 30 years ago and the Senator would have already been pretty senior to head that committee...
I'm sure he's far a way from modern politics by now, hell, he'd have to be like 81 years old now!
No reason to disturb his likely retirement enjoying his time with his family.
Thank god we learned from that and haven't confirmed any other justices with credible allegations of sexual assault against them. Imagine where we'd be if we confirmed that clown who regularly boofed beer.
I vividly remember a newspaper clipping about the Anita Hill hearings being displayed at my school in 10th grade. If only I knew that POS would not only still be there 33 years later, but would be actively trying to destroy democracy.
John Oliver offered him $1mil a year to retire and a brand new Winnebago yet upon the highest court he still reigns with that shifty ass smirk across his face
or what? the house is in complete chaos with people who dont know how (or care) to be congress critters, and what, theyre suppose to act on whatever the DOJ finds??
Yes and no. Regardless of what happens with the results, it's important that we not let [blatant] corruption become the norm. Better to try to do the right thing than let that kind of corruption go completely unchallenged.
And if the R-led House ignores it, that puts them on the record as saying that corruption is okay. If dems take the House, then an impeachment vote might at least make it to the floor. Ideally, we'd have the 60 votes in the Senate needed to do something with that, but I'm not holding my breath.