Democrats Trot Out Impeaching ACB If She Refuses To Recuse Herself From Election Cases

Sorry for the second SCOTUS post, but, seriously, what a bunch of sore losers

Report: Democrats Consider Impeaching Justice Amy Coney Barrett if She Doesn’t Recuse Herself

Sore LosersDemocrats are reportedly considering impeaching newly sworn-in Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett if she does not recuse herself from contentious election cases, based on false claims that President Donald Trump discussed them with her.

George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in an op-ed in The Hill on Wednesday:

Feeling disrespected, Democrats are threatening acts of retaliation in changing the Supreme Court or the Senate. But the most unhinged was the idea to impeach Amy Coney Barrett after she takes her seat. This option was raised by columnist Norman Ornstein, who wrote that if she “immediately votes for voter suppression” after rising to the Supreme Court, “she should quickly be impeached” because President Trump “asked her openly to act to tilt the scales of the election.”

It does not matter, apparently, that Barrett denied having such a conversation and that no one has an inkling of how she would vote on election challenges that have not even been filed. Ornstein is building on demands from various senators that Barrett promise to recuse herself from any election dispute. Others have demanded her recusal in pending cases like the challenge to the Affordable Care Act, to be heard Nov. 10. After Barrett declined to discuss her personal views on the environment, still others demanded recusal from any climate change-related cases … forever.

The rules for recusal focus on the personal and financial interests of judges, not on their judicial views. Judges may have to recuse themselves if they have previously played a role in a case, or if there are serious questions about their impartiality.

Perhaps we should apply this to elected officials, forcing them to recuse themselves from most votes that they have a personal and/or financial interest in. Because most seem to have a personal and/or financial interest in a lot of votes. I don’t see Supreme Court justices getting rich off their rulings like members of Congress get rich off the laws they pass.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “Democrats Trot Out Impeaching ACB If She Refuses To Recuse Herself From Election Cases”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Judge ABC assures the prez she’ll rule in his favor in case of legal disputes in the outcome of the election, and he nominates her for the much desired SCOTUS position. Of course she won’t recuse herself.

    Trump demagogues to win. If that fails, he’s also suppressing the vote. If that fails, the most litigious “man” on Earth is prepared to sue and delay. That’s where ABC comes in. trump will not go quietly as long as he’s inside the statute of limitations for his crimes.

  2. Dana says:

    Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett was just confirmed by a 52-48 vote. The Democrats could impeach her, since it takes only a simple majority in the House of Representatives to do so, but it would take 67 votes in the Senate, assuming all Senators were present, to remove her from office. I’m guessing that even the dumbest of Democrats can count, and realize that there aren’t going to be 67 votes to remove her.

    Even if the Democrats win every contested Senate seat in this election, they’d have only 60 seats. Where are they going to get the other seven votes they need?

  3. formwiz says:

    Interesting piece what used to be the NeoNeoCon

    The 2 quick clips she mentions, and embeds, are fascinating. The first is the real Gropin’ Joe. Defensive and insecure because, without politics, he doesn’t amount to much. Not a very bright guy who had just enough to go along to get along.

    The second is projection*. He talks about Trump, but it’s really him. The racist who thinks everybody working in a convenience store will be POC. The guy who talks a good game about the “working classes”, but screwed them to the wall so he’d be in good with the credit card companies.

    He’s the guy who stiffed the country. He went into politics the second he got out of law school and did everything he could to sponge off the system and the people. He hates “smart guys” because he isn’t one of them and gets combative any time he’s called on it. He talks about blacks being put in chains because that’s the way he sees them.

    * No different than Zippy who wants desperately to be white and does everything he can to appear white, but never will be and hates whites for it, while he makes use of being black, but hates black people.

  4. Professor Hale says:

    It’s pretty pointless to appoint a supreme court justice, only to have her refuse to hear cases brought to her. Recusal has always been a pretty stupid concept. It should be limited to cases where the judge and the plaintiff have a close relationship, not where the judge has opinions of her own.

    Democrats are unable to grok the concept that conservative judges make determinations based on the cases as they are presented, not based on the outcome they want. Democrats see this as “picking the president they want”. Conservatives see this as, what was the case brought? What arguments were made? and What does the law say?” Democrats cannot fathom a justice ruling against the president who appointed them, because Democrats never would. They always vote party line, lock step for the democratic party agenda. There are no democratic party “Roberts”.

Pirate's Cove