I am sure that few remember, but over the past year or so, I have more than once suggested that we

[Atticus]

endeavor to "annul" or otherwise invalidate all of Trump's judicial appointments. My argument in support of this was simply that Trump (God, I hope he reads this!) is an illegitimate POTUS and cannot, therefore make valid nominations to the federal judiciary. Each time I posted this, I was more or less pooh-poohed because no such annulment power was mentioned in the Constitution, there was no statute granting this authority and, my favorite, "this has never been done before!"

I assume those who thought me unrealistically naive still feel that way.

Now, however, speaker Pelosi has begun to "question the validity" of Trump's judicial appointments. If the appointments are, as I believe and Nancy suspects, invalid, SOMETHING must be done.

It does not matter whether we say the appointments are annulled, nullified, invalidated or set aside. What matters is that we not acquiesce in the corruption and perversion of our judiciary, one of the three co-equal branches of our nation's government.

[Polly Hennessey]

1. I remember and I agree.

His entire time in office should be invalidated.

[onenote]

2. I don't think she was say they were legally invalid

[Atticus]

5. When describing judicial appointments, what other type of "invalid" is there besides "legally"? nt

[dlk]

3. Excellent idea

The only question is how to successfully implement the annulments?

[dware]

21. There is no successfully implementing the annulments,

there is nothing in the Constitution that provides for that.

[Atticus]

37. See # 29 below. nt

[dware]

38. I just got done reading it and I have to say that I love your

enthusiasm and spirit, and I do agree that there needs to be a mechanism in place to rectify this abomination, and to prevent it from ever happening again, but I leave that to lawyers and such, I'm just not smart enough to figure out how it can be done without violating the Constitution.

[Atticus]

40. Thank you. I, also, must "leave it to lawyers". I'm just trying to strike the match that

lights a fire under them.

[soldierant]

23. It's true that it has never been done before.

But it's also true there has never before been a President who has been elected the way this one was - with freign money and foreign interference - in direct violation of the Constitution.

Whatever we do - or don't do - now will set a precedent. It should be a pprecedne twhich is in accord with thr spirit of the Constitution, and a precedent we can feel comfortable with, that it will not lead to future abuse.

I am NOT comfortable with setting a precedent which lets appointments made by an illegitimate president stand. Despite the fact they were confirmed. Even if the confirmations were done in good faith (not that I believe any of these confirmations were, but thinking ahead, I think it may be important to state that.)

[BComplex]

46. And that's the key: foreign interference.

Treason is one of the only things in the constitution that calls for a person being put to death. I'm only in favor of capital punishment for treason at the highest offices in the land.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and ...

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason | U.S. Code | US Law | LII ..."

[Blue Owl]

4. If tax cheating criminals are appointing SC justices, this country is in big trouble

n/t

[Mr.Bill]

14. The "trouble" is that he got elected. n/t

[dlk]

36. Impeached, tax cheating criminals...

[Cosmo Blues]

6. I'd like to hear

What speaker Pelosi said on the subject. I would fire everyone hired after noon January 20th 2017

[royable]

7. I echo your sentiments and go further.

I think every single appointment judicial or otherwise, every ruling, every proclamation, every decree, every firing, every forced retirement, every departure from an international organization or treaty, every single thing that drumpf and his minions have done should be annulled. Every dollar of salary given to drumpf, his minions and his appointees should be relinquished. Every grift should be investigated and prosecuted when appropriate. Every official fired for political motivations should be returned to the job and/or given back pay, or deserved retirement benefits (Andrew McCabe). Unfortunately we can not bring back the lives and health of the hundreds of thousands dead and scarred by the drumpf plague and his failed responses to natural disasters. The title of 45th president of the United States should be stripped from the imposter and given to the next president validly elected after President Obama.

And that's just for starters.

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Amen!

If only.

[we can do it]

12. Every fucking thing reversed.

[Delmette2.0]

24. So basically annul the last 4 years.

I'm down with that. I am totally serious, everything Dipshit has done has an ulterior motive. And McConnell has been an accessory to the crimes.

[Sympthsical]

8. There is no constitutional mechanism for this

He is the legitimate president. The Electoral College voted and Congress certified. That’s what counts in our system.

The only avenue would be to impeach hundreds of judges one by one. Even if you had the political capital to do that, it would be dangerous. What’s to stop Republicans from doing similar? And so we’d wreck another foundation of our institutions that provide stability to our republican system. We’d have endless impeachment wars. Even less would be done in a system that is already perilously gridlocked.

Partisan vengeance is not a governing philosophy. We must remove him and do what is within our power to undo the damage without causing more damage to an already fatigued foundation.

[Atticus]

29. There it is: "There is no Constitutional mechanism---". We are facing a totally unforeseen threat

for which no remedy was provided. "Unprecedented" is likely the most-used adjective for this regime. Are we to limit ourselves to precedents to deal with the unprecedented?

"Impeachment" is a remedy to remove officeholders. That PRESUMES that he is a legitimate POTUS, but the law recognizes that a contract PROCURED BY FRAUD is deemed "void ab initio", i.e, invalid and ineffective from the beginning.

I agree that there is no step-by-step guide to remove these judges and I understand that it has never been done before. But, I believe that motivated legal minds could fashion a remedy that would do no violence to either our Constitution or our long-held legal principles.

I can almost hear some dismissing this entire proposal with "See---he has no real solutions to offer. He just won't admit it can't be done!" And, my response would be: sometimes you just have to decide that you are going to go somewhere or build something or change "the way things are" and then find a way to proceed. That is how we went to the moon. It is how our predecessors gave us flight and electric lights and a polio-free nation.

[Sympthsical]

44. Trump believes were are not a nation of laws

Once we agree with him, we’ve lost the war even if we crush this one man in the next battle.

It doesn’t matter how he got elected. He did get elected by our laws. He appointed those judges according to our laws.

He must be removed. He is an existential threat. But if we do remove him, and tear through our laws and customs to erase his stain, we are creating a two-sided precedent that will creat great instability in our future system. Rather than mend damage, it will perpetuate and deepen it in places that have not yet been entirely fouled by him.

Remember, whatever we do, Republicans will do in the future, and they will do it with fewer scruples.

Emotions are running understandably high, but we need wisdom and foresight more if we’re to successfully reverse the crumbling of our institutions.

[Atticus]

45. "It doesn't matter how he got elected". The hell you say! IF this was true---and it is not---

there would be no chance that we could employ the laws and customs you purport to revere, for they would have vanished.

As for him getting elected "by our laws", where does our law say massive voter suppression is ok? Where does our law say soliciting and accepting assistance from Russia, one of our adversaries, is ok?

As for your admonition that "Republicans will do the same thing in the future", if ever a Democrat is as mentally unstable, corrupt, arrogant and traitorous as Trump, I and every other Democrat worthy of the name will JOIN the Republicans in ousting him as expeditiously as possible.

[Maraya1969]

47. Does the president make a contract, so to speak, with the US? He vows to "Uphold the US

Constitution" It could be argued that Trump never intended to do that after looking at the voter suppression of black people and the fact that he never divested himself from his business.

He never made an honest attempt at being a good president. It was first as a political stunt and after as a way to make money - as one can see easily with the amount of money that was stolen from his inauguration funds.

[Loki Liesmith]

9. Propose a mechanism?

[we can do it]

13. Nancy seems to be thinking of something.

[snowybirdie]

10. Perhaps

but that would extremely hard to enact. I'm thinking he's appointed these under qualified, too young and inexperienced people who will either screw up bigly and be made to step down. Or, they will get very bored with the actual work of a judge and hate the fixed salary when classmates are making oodles of money in the private sector, and will quit. The optimistic outlook, but I'm one of those.

[A HERETIC I AM]

15. Former Prosecutor for the US Attorney in the DC office Glenn Kirshner says impeach them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Kirschner

[ananda]

32. Exactly!

Impeach all Trump appointees.

[Illumination]

16. Yes Atticus I remember your comments. That's because I've always thought you're spot on

& agree with what you say! Thanks for reminding us again. You're right. If there's corruption, there must be invalidation, accountability, & justice!...

[MFGsunny]

22. This! n/t

[liberalla]

17. To me, he was an illegitimate president to begin with, and as such

anything he has done is also also illegitimate.

[Pepsidog]

18. I'm with you brother!

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. The only way to remove them is to impeach them, requiring 67 votes in the senate

It is much more feasible to expand and restructure the courts, which only requires a simple majority in the house and senate (once the filibuster is killed), diminishing the power and influence of any single judge or justice.

[maxsolomon]

34. 'Zactly. Dems haven't had 67 votes since 2009.

Before Kennedy got a Glioblastoma.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

20. Yes, I do recall your saying this.

But there really is not good mechanism for this. As much as we all despise Trump, as unhappy as we are that he lost the popular vote but became President because of the Electoral College, that's the way Presidents are elected in this country, and four other times in our history has a man lost the popular vote and won the EC vote.

Yes, the system needs to be changed but it will take amending the Constitution, which is pretty difficult to do.

[Atticus]

33. As difficult as it is to accept losing the White House when we won the popular vote,

that is not why I call him illegitimate.

The other candidates who won despite losing the popular vote were not aided by transparent boasted-about voter suppression, had not solicited and received the assistance of a national adversary and to my recollection, none of them had committed crimes before, during and after their campaigns.

[sandensea]

25. They'd have to show that the votes were electronically flipped in WI, MI, and PA

And then it would still have to be approved by the Supremes - which is unlikely.

For otherwise, you'd need 2/3 majority votes in the Senate - which is next to impossible.

Maybe if someone could threaten Jimmy Chao with jail and asset forfeiture, Bitchy Mitch might yield - but short of that, he wouldn't no matter what the circumstances.

[bucolic_frolic]

26. Just keep dredging up qualifications, corruption, background checks, Congressional testimony

Irregularities to be documented. Congress and a new DOJ has work to do.

[Delmette2.0]

27. Atticus, I haven't seen your posts on this subject

But I totally agree. But we need to go further than judges. We need to find the people the appointees hired and get rid of them too!

[AZizzy]

28. Willing to bet judges appointed by trump

have skeletons they’d rather not have exposed. Do I recall correctly that trump’s sister resigned rather than be investigated? Moving thru to impeachment would not be necessary, just rattle the bones

[doubleplusgood]

30. Lincoln 2nd inaugural addresses this

Per Abraham Lincoln:

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”

In other words, where there’s a will, there’s a way. Don’t worry that it’s never been done before. Find a way.

[Atticus]

35. My sincere thanks for that excellent quote. It is good to be of one mind with Lincoln. nt

[doubleplusgood]

48. You're welcome!

(I was out of town till now, just replying now)

[Escurumbele]

31. Off the topic, but equally important

The Intelligence Services must stop providing trump intelligence reports, like someone said somewhere in DU, it is very dangerous that trump, when he leaves office, will still have security information that will enable him to negotiate with Putin and other people, so I hope the intelligence has been giving him limited if not wrong information that he cannot use against the USA.
His kids, and Kushner, must also be prohibited from learning any new security information.

[world wide wally]

39. Take McConnell with him

[MoonlitKnight]

41. There is a precedent

That all appointments made after the tainted one are invalid. Not a ruling on judicial ones but could apply. The tough sell is that by not even considering or rejecting Garland the subsequent nominations are invalid because they were not actually nominated for the correct open seat.

[SheltieLover]

42. K&R!

[jaxexpat]

43. USSC is the smallest branch thus least difficult to corrupt.

But once the rot has set in, problematic. I give you C. Thomas, for instance.