AOC: "Impeachment should be considered if Supreme Court justices lied during - - -

[Nicholas Scheuer]

confirmation". For once I agree with her. Turn up the heat! Ask Kavanaugh how he likes warm beer.

[Gerarddm]

She is dreaming. Sometimes I wish she'd just think twice before uttering some things.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

She is keeping up the left wing of the Democratic Party.

I think that’s an OK thing to do.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

^^^ Often the case with me, too. However, in this case she may be pushing an interesting button. (^^^ arrows refer to Gerarddm's post)

[David G]

I'm fine with her giving voice to that option. It may be an unlikely option... but it should be bruited.

[L.W. Baxter]

i'll be contrary, as usual.

there is no benefit making this headline unless you can do it.

otherwise, it's just more intentional losing. stoking flames that do no good.

[Bobcat]

Silliness: no Supreme Court justice has ever been removed from the bench. Only one has ever been impeached and that was in 1804

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Do the Supremes eat breakfast and/or lunch together on days when they meet, or do they work from home now?

[CWSmith]

She is dreaming. Sometimes I wish she'd just think twice before uttering some things.

+1 ! A lie can never be proven when the decision came after the testimony.

[Reynard38]

You lost me at AOC.

[Osborne Russell]

+1 ! A lie can never be proven when the decision came after the testimony.

And so -- impeach them for what, Congresswoman? Pray tell. What high crime or misdemeanor?

Let's go on wasting time and energy, and putting ourselves further behind, clinging stoutly to our rationalizations for not knowing how things actually work. Let's appeal to sentiment. Feels good.

[WI-Tom]

i'll be contrary, as usual.

I'll disagree with you, as even more usual when it comes to AOC.

Saying what should be done, even when (maybe even especially when) it is unlikely it will be done, is an important thing to do. It holds people and institutions accountable for their failure to live up to the ideals of justice and the rule of law.

Absent any pressure from this kind of moral/ethical pressure, our political parties and institutions would be even farther from ideal than they are now.

Tom

[skuthorp]

I like the sentiment, but that horse has bolted. The solution is probably not within the institution that allowed the problem to exist. And abortion may just be the tip of a bigger problem.

[John Smith]

^^^ Often the case with me, too. However, in this case she may be pushing an interesting button. (^^^ arrows refer to Gerarddm's post)

Funny, I suggested this and got little support.

[John Smith]

Silliness: no Supreme Court justice has ever been removed from the bench. Only one has ever been impeached and that was in 1804

As Sully said about landing the plane in the Hudson because both engines went out; Nothing ever happened before until it happens the first time.

The has the authority to impeach justices. Senate won't remove them, but I'm not sure that's a valid reason to not hold the hearings.

[John Smith]

+1 ! A lie can never be proven when the decision came after the testimony.

What's the level of proof: preponderance?

I think we should do what we can in order to make lying for personal or political gain less appealing.

[SKIP KILPATRICK]

Left wing populist!

Not helpful rhetoric, work on getting out the vote not grabbing headlines if you please!

[John Smith]

Left wing populist!

Not helpful rhetoric, work on getting out the vote not grabbing headlines if you please!

I'd like to think some of us can multi task. If the house dems impeach (hold hearings) on these three justices lying, I'm inclined to think it would gain votes for democrats.

If no effort is made to hold them accountable for lying to get confirmed, it's apt to cost democrats votes.

I know I'm redundant, but this country cannot survive accepting lying for political gain as free speech. Deliberately misinforming voters should be a crime. Deliberately misinforming senators should be a crime. Inciting violence, supposedly, IS A CRIME. Except at a Trump rally. And maybe on Jan. 6; we'll see.

[SKIP KILPATRICK]

It would turn into just another Capitol Hill Circus and just turn more people away from politics and voting.

[L.W. Baxter]

mike! good to see you kicking.

and you're right! i am all about letting the republicans plunge us into an authoritarian theocracy. i've been promoting this for years, my dreams have nearly reached fruition.

who would hillary have nominated to the court?

maybe we should not have torn the party to shreds in '16 over some male ego-driven bull****.

[L.W. Baxter]

what a bunch of self-absorbed pansies you bros look like now.

like you just woke up and realized what's at stake.

i told you in october of 2015, the only thing is to win.

and now you're like, "we have to fight!"

no **** , sherlock.

it was never a bad thing that hillary stacked the deck leading up to '16. that's how it's done. that's how you win.

but, anybody can get stabbed in the back. and the world turns on a dime. it happens.

[L.W. Baxter]

i love you man. welcome back.

[L.W. Baxter]

your time away has really mellowed you out.

[L.W. Baxter]

oh.

you've been storing it up.

[WI-Tom]

it was never a bad thing that hillary stacked the deck leading up to '16. that's how it's done. that's how you win.

Huh. Hilary lost. So, there's that...

Tom

[skuthorp]

America lost……………………… and continues to lose.

Hoist on it's own petard.

[L.W. Baxter]

Huh. Hilary lost. So, there's that...

Tom

yuh.

and this country has never had a female potus.

you bros did your part. picked up the corrupt hrc meme right where rush left it for you.

if there was a cash award with that presidential medal of freedom, you guys should get a share.

[WI-Tom]

yuh.

and this country has never had a female potus.

you bros did your part. picked up the corrupt hrc meme right where rush left it for you.

if there was a cash award with that presidential medal of freedom, you guys should get a share.

Hmm... I voted for Clinton. Not sure how that earns me a share in her loss, but whatever.

Also, Clinton would have lost by a far larger margin--both the popular vote and the electoral vote--if a large majority of Sanders supporters had not voted for her. So, there's that. Facts, you know. Pesky things that often get in the way of kneejerk reactions if you pay too much attention to them.

But my point was simply, you can't claim "that's how you win" unless your candidate actually wins.

Arguably, the way the DNC and party mainstream threw their weight behind Clinton as the approved choice--while not "rigged" or "illegal" or even outside the bounds of normal party politics--probably played a big part in exacerbating the divisions in the Democratic party that we are still arguing about today. Engaging in actions likely to cause a lack of trust from voters whose votes you need as part of your coalition is not smart tactics.

Tom

[Osborne Russell]

Huh. Hilary lost. So, there's that...

Tom

Because so very many ding dong "progressives" didn't vote at all; the younger, the more so. Too sophisticated, too modern. Can't fool them! Both sides are the same!

[WI-Tom]

Because so very many ding dong "progressives" didn't vote at all; the younger, the more so. Too sophisticated, too modern. Can't fool them! Both sides are the same!

I disagree--your post is simply an attempt at rationalizing away the fact that Clinton lost because she was unable to inspire enough voters to vote for her. That's on her, and on the campaign. And arguably, on the party.

But it's a deflection from the real point here anyway, which is that Baxter claimed that the way Clinton and the DNC did things in 2016 is the way you win. But Clinton lost, proving exactly the opposite.

Tom

[David G]

Because so very many ding dong "progressives" didn't vote at all; the younger, the more so. Too sophisticated, too modern. Can't fool them! Both sides are the same!

Data please, if you can find some. I think you're wrong.

Peruse the census data for more -- https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blog...n_america.html

[Osborne Russell]

I disagree--your post is simply an attempt at rationalizing away the fact that Clinton lost because she was unable to inspire enough voters to vote for her.

They didn't vote, as they said they wouldn't. Those are facts, and quotes. What they did and what they said.

That's on her, and on the campaign. And arguably, on the party.

It's on ding-dong progressives. There is no time to explain to ding-dongs that both sides are not the same, and that the choice is binary. By what right do they demand to be treated like children? By the time they pull their head out, the elections are lost, and the consequences follow. They pretend to be surprised. Then we go through it again, and again. Their cheap, lazy, ignorant, cowardly imitation cynicism.

But it's a deflection from the real point here anyway, which is that Baxter claimed that the way Clinton and the DNC did things in 2016 is the way you win. But Clinton lost, proving exactly the opposite.

LW speaks the truth, though its not the real point. The way she did things is strategy. The why is morality; the real point, which governs the choice of strategy.

[Osborne Russell]

Data please, if you can find some. I think you're wrong.

Peruse the census data for more -- https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blog...n_america.html

Data, schmata. They urged people not to vote. Let's see the data on whether the Trump Squad speeches on Jan 6 incited the attack on the Capitol. Otherwise, we have to suspend judgment.

This isn't a F ing social science essay.

[Keith Wilson]

I'm fine with her giving voice to that option. It may be an unlikely option... but it should be bruited.

I agree. It's not going to happen, but I think in this case floating the idea won't do any harm.

[L.W. Baxter]

i said it's how you win, pamperin.

victory is never guaranteed.