• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      4 months ago

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

      • pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          One party that agrees with the majority of the court about almost everything.

          The other respects rules and norms (and the delicate sensibilities of their owner donors) much more than the will and even LIVES of the people they’re supposed to represent.

          While technically accurate, you’re making the mootest of points.

          • pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            If the impeachment passed Congress, like in the situation described by the comment I’m replying to, then that would imply the majority of Congress is on board.

            I agree that Republicans likely wouldn’t go along with this today in real life. One can dream

      • _g_be@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

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

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Congress and/or executive should step in and impeach or otherwise handle them

          …for annulling an attempt to impeach or otherwise handle them. You don’t see the flaw in that plan?

          • _g_be@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Impeachment of the judges is not the only way Congress has power over the judicial branch. Congress literally sets the rules about how the whole court functions, the number of seats, etc. One would expect Congress (regardless of which party is in power) to respond against the court if it feels threatened or subverted. But this scenario assumes just the court vs congress, it doesn’t assume an effort by multiple people across multiple branches to subvert the government as a whole.

    • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

    • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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?