Should Dems now call on Gorsuch to resign?

[gulliver]

Should he be impeached?

McConnell seems to have pulled the constitutional rug out from under Gorsuch.

[spooky3]

1. Can you quickly fill in those of us new to this story? Thx.

[LonePirate]

3. McConnell's admission that he would fill a vacancy next year, unlike in 2016.

[spooky3]

5. Ah. Thank you. LOD on this now. Nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. election year ! got it

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. How so? What is this about?

Context is always nice.

[LonePirate]

4. See post #3 above.

[StarfishSaver]

6. No.

[3catwoman3]

13. i can think of plenty of others, too.

Chris Kobach. Ted Cruz. Kevin McCarthy. Steve Mnuchin. And on and on.

[guillaumeb]

9. McConnell has no integrity, and no principles.

He worships power and money.

[LonePirate]

10. No. Even if Gorsuch resigned, he would be replaced by someone even more conservative.

Gorsuch has at least sided with the liberal bloc a couple of times, possibly due to a libertarian streak in him. His replacement, were it to come with 45 still in office and with Republicans controlling the Senate, would certainly be more of a conservative tool than Gorsuch.

Make no mistake, Gorsuch is a horrible justice by and large and if we had a Democratic President and/or Senate, then I would welcome calls for his resignation. As it stands now, it is detrimental to seek his resignation now.

[gulliver]

12. Good point

[Irishxs]

22. +1 Agree

[EndGOPPropaganda]

15. No. What? If we can get him out, we do so

We almost almost blocked Kavanaugh.
If Gorsuch resigns McConnell will be weakened.
Dems will talk even more about the Federalist Society.

In politics, if you have the chance to win, you take it.

Impeach him.

[Polybius]

34. Perhaps not

Kavanaugh came after him and is less conservative.

[Nitram]

11. No, that would have a snowball's chance in Hell of making a difference in anything. Just make them

look impotent. Impeach Trump first. All else will follow.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

14. No, impeach him. Or ignore his opinions

He’s clearly illegitimate. He sits in a stolen seat.

[Amishman]

32. Impeach him for what crime?

For Gorsuch to be removed you have to prove he committed a major crime. Just because we don't like him or question the circumstances of his appointment doesn't give grounds for impeachment the way the system works. Same way the electoral system doesn't have a mechanism for a do over for foreign interference.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

35. You don't understand the Constitution

Impeachment is for what the Congress decides it's for.

You don't gotta prove jack about crimes.
And the electoral system has a mechanism for correcting foreign interference: impeachment.

Impeach Gorsuch. Impeach Trump. Impeach Kavanaugh. Undo Trump.

[WillowTree]

38. So I take it you haven't actually read the Constitution.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

58. Here's some references

From 1867, a classic discussion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1867/01/the-causes-for-which-a-president-can-be-impeached/548144/

More recent.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/when-impeachment-right-remedy

The purpose of the impeachment power was not to inflict punishment on the guilty but to “secure the state against gross misdemeanors.” The “remedy of impeachment” is appropriate in some circumstances, and not in others. If it is a fail-safe, as Cass Sunstein has argued, then it is presumably a last resort, to be deployed when all else has failed. If it is a mechanism for securing the state against serious threats to the system of government, as Story argued, then it presumably needs to be demonstrated that the state must be secured against such a threat.

And that guy is a Federalist Society conservative hack. He even says it is a mechanism for securing the state against serious threats to the government. Gorsuch applies.
Impeach him.

[Amishman]

42. You are wrong, it requires a high crime or misdemeanor

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

SCOTUS judge falls under this category.

While what constitutes this category is undefined and left to Congress, you still need some sort of fairly serious crime committed by the person being impeached.

Without evidence of a crime by Gorsuch, he cannot be impeached. Kavanaugh on the other hand could potentially be targeted.

I suggest you read the Constitution again and try to understand what it really says rather than what you wish it said.

[Recursion]

44. But the Senate and House are the judges of what constitute "other high crimes and misdemeanors"

Being corruptly appointed could count.

The problem isn't the legal argument, the problem is that we don't have the votes.

[Amishman]

46. Several problems with that

I'm not aware of a actual criminal statute which could be brought against Gorsuch's nomination; and if so, the people who put him in place would be the ones chargeable. Gorsuch would probably be better described as a victim rather the a perpetrator in that circumstance (as nauseating as it sounds).

It comes back to the person being impeached has to have committed a crime. Our system just isn't written to handle what has occurred, and we are limited by the laws and constitution we have. Even if we change the laws to allow removal of officials appointed illegitimately, we still probably couldn't use them on Gorsuch as it would be an ex post facto scenario. Gorsuch is the product of the Pubs exploiting a loophole. A huge part of the reason we don't have the votes is because we don't have a good legal argument.

Kavanaugh on the other hand is much more targetable as both his possible pre-nomination crimes and potential cover-up are absolutely fair game.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

57. Exactly. Thank you

[Recursion]

43. Impeachment doesn't require a crime

If we had 218 Representatives and 67 Senators who would vote for impeachment and removal, we should do it. But we don't.

[former9thward]

16. Please name a SC justice who has been impeached and removed.

None. And that number will not change.

[gulliver]

17. I know, but it doesn't mean we don't have a case.

McConnell essentially admitted that he stole the seat Gorsuch now occupies. I don't know of a precedent for something like that.

I don't seriously think he'll be impeached or that he'll resign. I just think that the question is worth bringing up. McConnell basically just admitted he stole Obama's constitutionally mandated SCOTUS appointment.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. To impeach and remove a Justice he, personally, would have to have done something wrong,

and it would have to be really serious - no Supreme Court justice has ever been removed from office. Only one (Samuel Chase in 1805) has ever even been impeached by the House, but he was acquitted by the Senate. Some lower federal court judges have been removed but in all those cases they had committed financial crimes, usually bribery. While Gorsuch got his position through the dirty tricks of Mitch McConnell, that wouldn't warrant his impeachment. There is no precedent for removing a judge because somebody else manipulated the system to get them appointed.

[ProudLib72]

21. Which is why this thread should be about McConnell and not Gorsuch

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. Exactly. Impeaching Gorsuch isn't the solution (apart from the fact that it won't happen).

The solution is voting MConnell out of office, which will be merely extremely difficult as opposed to completely impossible.

[ProudLib72]

30. I'm not so sure that attacking McConnell would be very effective

It would make us look like whiners. And, let's be honest, how many of the people who vote for McConnell care about him being 'fair'? On the other hand, there might be a way to frame the argument in the Senate if it came down to choosing another justice. I just don't know.

[gulliver]

23. Gorsuch arguably personally did something wrong.

He took stolen goods from McConnell, knowingly or not. I know...I know...but every first precedent is unprecedented. I'm just putting this out there without any serious hope of action being taken any time soon.

If we stop and think about it, what is actually off the wall is the idea that Gorsuch can keep Garland's seat. We knew McConnell was stealing the seat at the time, but now we essentially have a confession.

The Constitution wasn't intended to have gaping holes in it. McConnell didn't just "discover a loophole." The theft of Garland's seat is rightly thought of as a Constitutional crime, imo. I just think McConnell helped us establish that with his confession. If I were Gorsuch, I would be pissed at McConnell and ashamed.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

37. No, Gorsuch can be impeached if the Congress decides he can be impeached.

He doesn't have to do anything wrong, although I would say his consorting with Phil Anschutz is something wrong.
His impeachment is warranted if Congress decides it is. Impeachment is a political act.

If Congress decides a judge can be impeached, she/he can be impeached. History is is in the past. We are talking about the future.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. How do you figure?

It's true that impeachment is a political act, but if they couldn't remove Samuel Chase, good luck with Gorsuch. I guarantee this Senate will not remove Gorsuch.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

40. If public opinion shift, they will remove him.

It is our job to shift public opinion. That simple.

[Recursion]

45. OTOH a Supreme Court size of 15 sounds nice

That would be more do-able realistically than removing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

[former9thward]

48. Well Roosevelt tried that.

Enormous blowback in the country and Congress. Went down in flames.

[Recursion]

49. But the threat was enough to spook the justices.

Same when Lincoln tried it, too

[Xolodno]

19. Nope.

Much as I want him gone...and pisses me off that seat was stolen from Obama, the answer is no. Once you open the door for the court to be packed...we have no institution that is immune to politics. Even if it means the next 20 years will slant against our direction. Thomas Jefferson and FDR tried to overcome this and failed....and right fully so. Were going to see a conservative court for awhile, just accept it and learn to work around it.

You want to reform how judges are appointed? Then reform the Senate.....and that is easier than packing the SC.

And lets be honest, the recent conservative judges have surprised us....to the dismay of the rabid right. True they haven't been supportive of every liberal idea, but they have been loathe to reverse decisions of previous courts. Of course the recent abortion laws by some states will put them to the test. But I have to think, they are already looking at this and deciding to pass the hot potato. To reverse that, will almost certainly make the SC fully political...and for the first time, susceptible of the SC to be packed and they lose all influence. They are lifetime appointee's and thus not going anywhere. So they can wait out political winds, if they screw that up, they lose and gain power by election cycles...pretty sure they don't want to change that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Rehnquist was actually much worse any of the current justices.

He was even worse than Scalia. I'm not defending Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, who shouldn't be there; but Rehnquist was absolutely terrible. He was Nixon's Bill Barr. He'd never been a judge before he was appointed, but had spent his entire career as a political operative for the GOP, and his opinions almost without exception were extreme and blatantly biased. Even Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have sided with the four liberal justices in a few cases. I don't hold out any hope that either of them will ever morph into an Earl Warren, but when we're talking about bad Supreme Court justices we should use Rehnquist as the paradigm.

[JHB]

56. IIRC, he also got to say who was on 3-judge panels overseeing independent counsels...

...under the law that existed at the time. Thanks to that, ICs investigating Republicans were kept tightly focused, while investigations of Democrats had judges who gave them a lot more leeway.

And the pinnacle/nadir of this partisan selection was replacing an old-school Nixon-appointed judge George MacKinnon with Jesse Helms protege and politically-active judge David Sentelle. Sentelle and fellow conservative partisan judge Lawrence Silberman removed Robert Fisk from being in charge of the Whitewater investigation and replaced him with Ken Starr.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

41. NO. That bird has already flown.

The courts are already corrupted.
Either we pack the courts or we lose democracy. The current Republican judges will approve rule by minority oligarchs.

[tritsofme]

20. Huh? I heard what McConnell said...it doesn't change that Gorsuch was confirmed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. Might be easier to just add more justices when we take the WH

[gulliver]

28. Or cut the number to seven, laying off by least seniority.

Then add two back.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. HAHA. Adding is actually ok !

[mcar]

33. Yes! 2 more justices...

Then statehood for DC and Puerto Rico - 4 more senators.

[onenote]

31. He admitted he engaged in raw politics? And anyone is surprised by this?

It was never a principled decision and there was never any doubt that if the situation arose again but with a repub in the White House, he would push for the vacancy to be filled.

What he did lacked any integrity, but no surprise there. But it wasn't unconstitutional or illegal and Gorsuch can't be and won't be forced to resign. Nor will he be impeached and removed from office.

[TeamPooka]

36. You're adorable. nt

[ooky]

47. Let's win both the House and the Senate in 2020 with 2/3 of the Senate and then

come back to that question.

[clementine613]

50. Impeach Them All

Every Rethug on the Bench. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. They should all be impeached, convicted and sentenced*.



(* Yes, I know that Senate conviction is not a criminal conviction...)

[Gothmog]

51. Without 20 GOP senate votes impeachment is meaningless

You need 67 Senate votes to remove and with out 20 GOP senators, impeachment of a SCOTUS justice is meaningless

[kacekwl]

52. Jeeeze , one thing at a time.

Let's get rid of the Orange anus 1st.

[Initech]

53. And allow Trump to appoint an even further right justice? Fuck that shit.

I'm not defending Gorsuch, but we can't allow Trump to fuck up SCOTUS even more than he already has. If anyone needs to go in this equation, it's Mitch McConnell.

[Vinca]

54. I think we're stuck with those who have been installed. I do have another suggestion though.

How about term limits for judges? Why should any judge be awarded an appointment for life? 10 years and you're out.

[Codeine]

55. What McConnell did wasn't illegal

or unconstitutional, just political. He had the votes, he called the shots. If we don’t want that happening we need to win more elections.

It’s all math.

[Turin_C3PO]

59. You'd think McConnell being

such a hypocritical asshole would cost him his seat. I know it’s Kentucky but damn.