Ornstein: Impeach Amy Coney Barrett

My column this morning in the Hill discussed a call by columnist and professor Norm Ornstein to impeach Amy Coney Barrett if she does not yield to a demand to recuse herself from any election challenge before the Court. A demand for such recusal was filed yesterday in the Supreme Court. Ornstein’s call for impeachment is the latest unhinged response to Barrett nomination and further decouples our national debate from any sense rationality and restraint.

Ornstein declared on Twitter: “If Amy Coney Barrett goes on the Court and immediately votes for PA voter suppression, she should quickly be impeached. Trump asked her openly to act to tilt the scales of the election.”

I have already addressed the recusal calls as entirely baseless.  Recusal under these circumstances would create a dangerous precedent for future nominees who are pressured to recuse solely to influence the outcome of pending or expected cases. There is not a single case in history where such a recusal of the justice has occurred under this type of flimsy claim. Barrett has no personal, professional, or financial interest in pending election cases.

We have had only one justice ever impeached in our history. That was Samuel Chase in 1804 and he was acquitted by the Senate in 1805.

The Chase case is a telling point of comparison. Like today, the politics of the time were lethal and hysterical. Chase was a highly partisan Federalist who was tainted by the use of the Alien and Sedition Acts to attack political critics during the Administration of John Adams.  The impeachment, supported by Thomas Jefferson, was based on Chase’s presiding on controversial trials for figures like James Callender. Despite the Federalist being in the minority in the Senate, the senators overwhelmingly rejected the case against Chase.

It remains to be seen if we have a  bipartisan majority of senators equally committed to the integrity of the Court and the Constitution today.

179 thoughts on “Ornstein: Impeach Amy Coney Barrett”

  1. This is really baseless with all due respect. There are rules, federal rules, dictating when one judge should disqualify himself. here:

    “28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge”

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

    Nothing there suggests actually, that being affiliated with political party, ideological stance, constitutes, reason or cause for disqualification.

    Further, I quote justice Scalia, in that motion at the time, to recuse himself in Cheney v. United states district court (Columbia), here:

    ” To expect judges to take account of political consequences—and to assess the high or low degree of them—is to ask judges to do precisely what they should not do. It seems to me quite wrong (and quite impossible) to make recusal depend upon what degree of political damage a particular case can be expected to inflict.”

    One judge, can’t introduce any political issue or consequences of such, to his judgment or discretion or whatsoever.

    Beside any legal analysis and connection to the impeachment clause right now. Not relevant simply.

    Thanks

    1. “This is really baseless with all due respect. There are rules, federal rules, dictating when one judge should disqualify himself. here: ” — Sure, but the real reason the recusal request is ridiculous is that every other justice is in exactly the same position. Each was appointed by one party or the other. Yet those requesting recusal don’t seek the recusal of the others; i.e., they don’t agree with their own rationale.

  2. To win in an impeachment trial, the impeachers would need a 2/3 vote in the Senate. They obviously won’t get that. So what would be the point of the exercise?

    1. for them it is merely the occasion of “earning ink,” which is to say, wasting the time of Congress on political persecutions that will be cheered on by the biased fake news

    2. How can you know how people will vote without knowing the articles of impeachment and having a trial? It suggests that you think facts are irrelevant to Senators.

      In terms of your question, there was a point to Trump being impeached by the House even though the Senate didn’t remove him. The hearings helped to publicize some of Trump’s wrong-doing and also showed that most of the Republicans in the Senate care more about the GOP than about the country.

      1. I think the past 3 years have clearly demonstrated that for many, if not most, Democratic Congressmen and Senators, facts are indeed irrelevant.

      2. Ornsteuin is talking about impeachment before the justice in question takes office, which means necessarily that Ornstein’s envisioned articles of impeachment could not possibly include anything other than the fact that she has become a member of the court. As for the impeachment of Trump,. only a crazed neocon warmonger of the worst sort could imagine that anything that Trump did — or was accused of doing — was in any way contrary to this nation’s interests.

    3. And if they got a 2/3 vote, the justices in question would simply not leave the bench. Your scenario presupposes that there was no high crime or misdemeanor; ergo, no impeachment followed by conviction is possible.

  3. In the Hill article it seems that JT is unfairly equating what Ornstein (a columnist and a professor) wants regarding impeachment and saying that Democrats want it as well. His blog presentation is fairer in ths regard.

    1. Again, Ornstein’s long been an apologist for Congress in all its tawdriness, not the Democratic Party per se. The smart money says that if Ornstein want’s X, every Democrat in Congress other than Joe Manchin wants X too.

      1. I know but I totally love that song

        Sometimes I crank it up and roll through the diverse part of town just for kicks– scares the bejeezus out of them

        1. Good for you! I once did the same, ‘diverse’ ‘hood, windows down, classical very loud (forget what piece), and they were screaming from the sidewalk for me to “shut that sh*t off!” My idea of fun sometimes. Probably not these days. Don’t want to be shot by peaceful protesters.

  4. It’s jungle ball rules for the SC now Turley and you cheered on the breaking of the court and thus no standing to object. Whatever the Constitution allows – and judging by the willful failure of the GOP led Senate’s purposeful failure to advise and consent on a twice elected president’s nomination, even out side the constitution – and that’s what we’ll see from here on out. You reap what you sow.

    Enjoy

    1. It’s jungle ball rules for the SC now Turley and you cheered on the breaking of the court

      “The breaking of the court” means that more issues get tossed back to state legislatures to resolve, which is where they should have been all along. Liberals fancy the courts are their property, because liberals are childish people.

      1. The Supreme Court is the property of the American people who elect presidents to appoint it’s members. Turley has no problem with the stolen Liberal majority of the last 4 years, enabled by the GOP majority which in 2016 willfully blocked a twice elected President from choosing a member.. Now he cheers the ramrodding of another nominee by a president who was rejected by American voters one week before he and the Senate majority will get the bum’s rush out of DC.

        1. Then, there’s the gerrymandering, which is how America wound up with a Republican majority in the Senate. This gimmick results in the candidate choosing their voters instead of the other way around.

          Where I live, black radio stations are broadcasting tips for voters to avoid having their ballots disqualified, and tips for planning their vote. They are empowering listeners with how to stand up to pro-Trump bullies if they are confronted. I’ve never seen this before. I also heard a story about a long line outside of a polling place in which a passenger in a car going past asked: “how long have you been waiting”? The answer was: 4 years. Many Americans share this sentiment.

          1. Uh, Senators are selected by statewide vote. Are you suggesting that state boundary lines are gerrymandered? Seems rather a stretch.

            1. Well, The Dakota Territory was split into multiple states, West Virginia split off from VA, and the Carolinas split, so you could say that some state lines were gerrymandered to increase their representation in the Senate.

              1. Wow — you’re a clown. Never heard of New York/Vermont split? Massachusetts/Maine split? None of these splits occurred to increase anyone’ representation in teh Senate.

  5. We’ve all heard numerous solutions the liberals have to thwart a Supreme Court bent on strictly adhering to the Constitution. Politico writer Kia Rahnama writes that “we” don’t have to pack the court. The other solution might be to limit their jurisdictional powers. Mr. Rahnama cites several instances in which this proposal was considered, including: “In 1827, Calhoun, then vice president, began lobbying congressional members to introduce legislation that would take away the Supreme Court’s power to review state courts’ decisions interpreting federal laws.”

    Although Rahnama’s column devotes some wasted breath on specific issues, with Congress signing a law that the Supreme Court cannot rule on any matter involving abortion, for example, the general theme is Congress can develop a law restricting its jurisdiction? His conclusion: “Yes, we can!”

    Here’s my question to everyone on this board. Why shouldn’t I, as a person who believes that strict adherence to the Constitution is the best, most fair way to improve a nation of laws, not be for this? I realize that actions of this sort would be a result of a temper tantrum from a left Congress, then Senate, and president (if there is a blue wave), but I believe this nation’s laws should be written by The House, the most accountable branch of government. The House of Representatives not only provides more direct representation than any other branch of the federal government, it requires performance-related elections every two years. Even if all they do is restrict SCOTUS ability to find against Roe v Wade (which I find difficult to fathom on many levels), I like the precedent. I think The House should take back the power they’ve ceded to SCOTUS, and all these departments, and I don’t see why I should be against this, even if it might take power away from what should be a more Constitutionally-minded SCOTUS.

    1. The same thing could be accomplished by overturning “Marbury v. Madison.” However, keep in mind SCOTUS cannot, as seems to be the delusion in so many mental fever swamps, unilaterally overturn ANY decision.

      1. Marbury *can’t* be overturned. The issue it addressed will never come up again. Moreover, the rationale for their ruling is clearly correct. “Judicial review” logically follows from the Supremacy Clause. The Court had to choose between calling a statute invalid (because it conflicted with the Constitution) and calling the Constitution a dead letter.

    2. Yes Rilay

      we can strip the Article III courts of certain subject matter jurisdiction. by simple majorities in fact. assuming no veto.

      According to my constitutional law professor decades ago, that very much included certain issues now considered to be “substantive rights review” type cases such as the whole abortion thing. My prof was ACLU

      Republican majority at one time in Congress contemplated it, but did not dare. Likewise, Democrat schemes to apply that approach, would probably go nowhere.

      SCOTUS often acts in a way convenient to both parties, to force changes nobody wants to vote for, but the elites desire

      Such as: desegregation, abortion, and gay marriage

      Neither party really wants to draw those back into the realm of electoral politics any more than they are now.

      This is reality and a lot of talk about it is just speculation and super unlikely scenarios

      1. With the radical Democrats all the chips are on the table.

        So are ours, come to think of it. The sooner we recognize it is a revolution rather than a revolt the better.

    3. “strict adherence to the Constitution”? If so, the three women on the SCOTUS better leave immediately, as well as all of the female judges in the federal system, because the Constitution says nothing about women being judges. In fact, women weren’t even allowed to vote when the Constitution was ratified. Also, per “strict adherence” to the Constitution, the government can hack your computer and tap your telephone, because the Constitution only protects the person and papers of citizens from government intrusion. No mention of computers or telephones, so it must be OK. Ditto for slavery.

      You keep listening to pro-Trump pundits. People like Scalia and Barrett claim they are true to the Constitution, but this is just an excuse for taking extremist right-wing action not in keeping with the goals or spirit of the Constitution, which was never meant to be stuck in the 1700’s. Protection against government invasion into the security of persons and their papers without a warrant means that the Constitution protects a citizens’ right to privacy, including privacy in ways not contemplated when the Constitution was drafted, such as computers and telephones that couldn’t even have been imagined. That’s why the government can’t bug your house without a warrant. “Strict adherence” is just a right-wing argument to justify stomping on peoples’ rights.

      1. The Constitution also doesn’t say anything that forbids women serving as justices on the Supreme Court. Strict adherence, to me, means not wavering according to majority rule, and social and current desires. When strict adherence is not specific enough to allow for elements of modern technology and other anecdotal matters, the concerned citizen requires the justice to write an opinion of their findings, both majority and minority, to justify their interpretation and define for us how it applies to adherence to The Constitution.

    4. Although Rahnama’s column devotes some wasted breath on specific issues, with Congress signing a law that the Supreme Court cannot rule on any matter involving abortion, for example, the general theme is Congress can develop a law restricting its jurisdiction? His conclusion: “Yes, we can!”

      What an idiot she is! Taking away the Court’s jurisdiction to rule on matters related to abortion would immediately, in effect, overrule Roe v. Wade. Does Rahnama have even the foggiest notion of what Roe did?

    1. There was no need for Obama to release his long-form birth certificate,

      There was no purpose served in keeping it concealed, at least none to which he was willing to admit.

      1. I’m sure that you’re also calling for Trump to release his tax returns and for Melania Trump to release her immigration documents because there’s no purpose in keeping them concealed.

        1. I’m sure that you’re also calling for investigations into Joe Biden and his family for the following crimes:

          Illegal Lobbying
          Securities Fraud
          Tax Evasion
          Money Laundering
          and Conspiracy to do them all.

  6. Turley’s intellectual gerrymandering is getting downright painful.

    Turley: “Barrett has no personal, professional, or financial interest in pending election cases,” as if the benefit of an appointment to the Supreme Court by a president who explicitly says he is making his choice to get his nominee on the court in time to affect the outcome of a dispute over his election is not a benefit.

    There will be no glory for Turley’s sophistry to prop up the country’s worst president. History will be very unkind to him.

    1. Turley’s entire career path has been a head fake of sorts…

      The Republican who claims he doesn’t vote for Republicans. The complete tennis game flip flops on what constitutes impeachable offenses. The free speecher who gets enraged when others exhibit countering opinions. The willingness to be a hired gun for Republican orthodoxy, etc.

      Underneath I think he’s as dedicated to fairness as he claims to be, but ultimately he’s co opted his principles for partisan paychecks. Hey, no judgement…, it’s hard to financially thrive up in here. End of the day though, I’m guessing there are many regrets for Turley once he steps back for the grander assessment of things.

        1. You dislike Democrats. Why do you spend so much energy talking about them? Sounds like verbal S&M with you as the receiver.

      1. False, you guys just love to show up here and insult him, because he doesn’t sheepishly follow Democrat party leadership talking points like you do

        1. Actually I’m honest with Turley because I believe he ultimately is a good guy. IOW I have more faith in him than I do with you.

      2. He’s quite consistent in his dispositions and advocacy. You have trouble understanding anyone whose objects are not to advance the position of the Democratic Party or to oppose it. You’re impoverished understanding is not his problem.

          1. Indeed. You have acted like an ass. Typewritten mistakes regarding your/you’re etc. are not intellectual mistakes. They are mechanical mistakes. For many or most people, their hands “hear” the words and type what they hear. Sometimes it comes out the right way; other times it doesn’t.

    2. “by a president who explicitly says he is making his choice to get his nominee on the court in time to affect the outcome of a dispute over his election” When and where did President Trump say this? Please provide a link.

  7. So the PA comes before the court and gets turned down 4-4, if one of the first things Barrett does is make that 5-4 to violate previous SCOTUS rulings and have a federal court overrule a state court ruling on a state law in order to throw out legality cast votes, the SCOTUS is already lost. So ya, impeach her, remove her. Lets drop the notion that SCOTUS is non-partisan. It is up to Barrett to show, quickly, if she is going to be an honorable justice or a partisan hack.

    1. It is up to Barrett to show, quickly, if she is going to be an honorable justice or a partisan hack.

      Of anyone who posts here, you have the least self-awareness.

      1. You being expert at the sort of self awareness achieved through full insertion of your head up your b hole, of course.

      2. “Of anyone who posts here, you [martha] have the least self-awareness.”
        *******************
        I’m going with Gainesville in a hair’s breadth win in that category.

    2. The PA Supreme Court and the PA governor (or any other governor for that matter), have no jurisdiction or authority over Presidential elections. Article 2, Section 1 gives the state legislatures the sole authority to choose the electors sent to vote for the President, on a timetable outlined in the Constitution. State Supreme Court and/or a state governor cannot overrule the Constitution.

  8. Hard not to see how any person with bipartisan sensibility can’t see why the only proper route for Barrett to take would be to recuse around election issues.

    1. There are no ‘bipartisans’.

      It is all out war with the totalitarian left and finally some Republicans are waking up to that fact.

      1. There are a lot of bipartisan Republicans, like The Lincoln Project and Republican Voters Against Trump, working with Democrats to defeat Trump.

          1. Trump fans like Deco have no credibility on their ability to identify grifters. He probably thinks he’s getting perfect health care, a middle class tax cut, and a check from Mexico for his part paying for the wall as soon as the election is over.

            1. Quisling wasn’t an enemy. He was a traitor who embraced the enemy. Learn some history or you won’t be able to follow the discussion.

              And, yes, some Republicans are Quislings.

              1. You’re the one having trouble following the discussion, pal. I know that the quislings aren’t the enemy, but quislings collaborate with an occupying enemy force. Those Republicans are working with Democrats to defeat Trump, which implies that you think Democrats are an enemy occupying force.

                1. I don’t think of people who are destroying the fabric of the country as fellow Americans. Do you think Confederates were fellow Americans? Benedict Arnold? The Rosenbergs?

                  1. I think Trump is destroying the fabric of the country, but he’s still an American. The Democrats and Republicans you disagree with are fellow Americans too.

                    Britain and the CSA were foreign countries, and the British soldiers and the Confederate soldiers were enemy occupying forces, not fellow Americans. Benedict Arnold was a quisling and defected to the British during the Revolutionary War. The Rosenbergs were American spies, but not quislings.

                    1. The Rosenbergs were American spies, but not quislings.

                      Julius Rosenberg was a volunteer in Joseph Stalin’s espionage army, as were Alfred Sarant, Joel Barr, Morton Sobell, and David Greenglass.

    2. A generation ago, ‘bipartisan’ meant a conspiracy by insiders against the interests of their constituents. Now it means John Danforth, where you get rolled by the Democratic Party every time and make clueless noises about ‘moving forward together’.

    3. Her position is identical to that of each of the other justices. It’s irrational to think of her as somehow different because she is the most recent appointee.

  9. The holy, upright, virtuous response to the confirmation of Justice ABC to SCOTUS. Well done!

    Statement from Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., on Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    by Notre Dame News

    October 26, 2020

    On behalf of the University of Notre Dame, I congratulate Amy Coney Barrett on her confirmation today by the United States Senate as a justice of the United States Supreme Court. Recognized by experts from across the spectrum of judicial philosophies as a superb legal scholar and judge, she is an esteemed colleague and a teacher revered by her students. Justice Barrett becomes the first alumna of Notre Dame Law School and the first Notre Dame faculty member to be so honored. We join her family and friends in celebrating this momentous achievement, and we assure Justice Barrett and all her colleagues on the nation’s highest court of our continued prayers in their work of administering justice and upholding the Constitution.

    https://news.nd.edu/news/statement-from-rev-john-i-jenkins-c-s-c-on-justice-amy-coney-barrett/

    1. Give it 24 hours before he reappears on his knees. Begging for forgiveness for praising Justice Barrett. Cancel culture may press for his firing

  10. Our national debate has been unhinged from rationality since McConnell announced he would make Obama a one term president by blocking everything and Trump accused Obama of being a foreigner born in Kenya. There is nothing rational or responsible in the debate coming from leaders of the Republican Party. Trump has unhinged not only the debate but government itself.

    1. Trump accused Obama of being a foreigner born in Kenya.

      He made no such accusation. He challenged Obama to quit shilly-shallying and release his long-form certificate. Gov. Abercrombie also said it was time for BO to do that.

    2. If we continue down this path we will have “governments by get-back”, of course you should impeach/insult/degrade a Justice of the Supreme Court because X did or said something eight years ago. Such short sighted governance would Balkanize this nation.

      If this is your goal then continue down this path.

      1. You’re a liar, Squeaky. Obama never claimed that, and Clinton didn’t start it either, and her campaign never said it, though some of her supporters did.

        1. On the back cover of the first book Obama was a Kenyan. He is whatever he needs to be to advance. His only constant is that he is a liar.

          1. A quondam official of that particular publishing house said labeling him Kenyan was her doing (in the course of assembling the promotion for the book). I think there was only one printing, and the book at that time was a flop commercially, so the material on the dust jacket was never amended.

            I have a suspicion he allowed the controversy to continue because (1) he conceals by default, (2) the silliness of the controversy embarrassed the opposition and (3) it diverted attention from what he really wanted concealed. Academic institutions have been very conscientious with his records, in a way they were not with Al Gore’s and John Kerry’s. It’s a reasonable wager they’re maintained on microtext and locked in a safe in some administrator’s office. My own supposition is that the embarrassments in them are two fold: (1) his transcript at Occidental was quite mediocre and (2) he scammed around applying for financial aid and / or the transfer to Columbia – e.g. pretending to be a foreign student.

            1. My supposition is that Deco escaped from the state mental institution and posts by borrowing cell phones from other guys who live with him under the interstate bridge.

            2. Yes, he didn’t reject the standing impression that he was a Kenyan until it was convenient. I think, but not sure I remember correctly, that there were other occasions he publicly allowed his image as Kenyan to remain unchallenged. I have long suspected that he sought financial aid as a foreign student.

              1. I have no doubts that he was born in Hawaii, not far from Mazie Hirono’s place. I also have no doubts that like Elizabeth Warren he falsely claimed he was a Kenyan when it served him to do so. That’s why all those records will never see the light of day.

                1. His sire actually is an ethnic Luo. Elizabeth Warren’s Indian ancestry approximates mine. Of course, from 1961 to 1982, he spent all of nine weeks in the same city as his sire and did not visit Kenya until he was past 20. He knows squat of the place.

                  There’s a Youtube of him attempting to offer some remarks in the Malay trader’s dialect which is used as a lingua franca in Indonesia. He speaks for 40 seconds and you can almost hear the gears in his head grinding.

                  I suppose you could say he’s the issue of the haole bourgeoisie in Honolulu. His grandparents only moved there in middle age, of course, but most haoles in Hawaii are migrants from the Mainland (or they were at that time).

                  You’ll notice he hasn’t returned to Chicago.

                  I correspond with a lapsed newspaper reporter living in Springfield named Elaine Krewer. She’s at pains to emphasize that the blather you hear about Obama manifesting the “Chicago way’ is so much rubbish. Her point: actual ward politics in Chicago is labor-intensive retail activity. Obama does not now nor did he ever have the energy or the people skills to be a Chicago alderman. He was elected in 1996 with only token opposition after getting his opponent knocked off the ballot. He ran unopposed the next time. His attempt to enter Congress by knocking Bobby Rush off in a primary was a misbegotten enterprise. What’s so odd about his career is that he was catapulted to the U.S. Senate from a seat in the state legislature when his previous attempt at a lesser office had failed ignominiously. In addition, the campaign proved to be a perfect storm for anyone opposing him. It was bizarre.

                  NB, he was at the University of Chicago a p/t faculty member on renewable contracts. He never sought nor received tenure and never assembled the portfolio of scholarly writing you’d need to do that (in fact, he completed no papers at all). Prior to that he had temporary stints with law firms and a zero-marginal product job with some Alinskyite outfit. For all those years in Chicago (which included marrying a native), he doesn’t have many friends therein. Just the people in Valerie Jarrett’s circle.

                  He’s passed through all these places, but they don’t seem to have made an impression on him and he doesn’t seem to have made an impression on them. It’s most peculiar.

                  1. ” actual ward politics in Chicago is labor-intensive retail activity. Obama does not now nor did he ever have the energy or the people skills to be a Chicago alderman. He was elected in 1996 with only token opposition after getting his opponent knocked off the ballot. He ran unopposed the next time. His attempt to enter Congress by knocking Bobby Rush off in a primary was a misbegotten enterprise. What’s so odd about his career is that he was catapulted to the U.S. Senate from a seat in the state legislature when his previous attempt at a lesser office had failed ignominiously. In addition, the campaign proved to be a perfect storm for anyone opposing him. It was bizarre.”

                    That’s 100% right
                    and well said

                    this guy is way too lazy to have ever been an alderman., and way too arrogant.

          2. Please do post an image of the back cover of Obama’s first book, so we can all see what you’re gesturing about.

            1. You’ll need to have a look at the 1992 edition. It’s on the flaps of the dust jacket, where the biographical squib is to be found. The back would generally have blurbs.

    3. Obama’s lieterary agent was the one who “accused” Obama of being born in Kenya. That’s an admission by party opponent and admissible evidence in a court of law. Later it became an admission against interest and was thus doubly admissible. It’s reasonable to go with that until the person in question provides convincing evidence to the contrary.

  11. NB, Ornstein a generation ago was known as an iveterate defender of the Washington establishment. Jefferson Morley once wrote a parody article for The New Republic in which every other paragraph was a quotation from “Norman J. Ornstein” offering a specious excuse for some corrupt practice.

  12. “It remains to be seen if we have a bipartisan majority of senators equally committed to the integrity of the Court and the Constitution today.”

    Lol. Three guesses and the first two don’t count

  13. I am sure that real lawyers must be really embarrassed at these mental midgets who slur the profession of teaching

  14. “Trump asked her openly to act to tilt the scales of the election.” Yes, indeed. Trump and the Republicans are doing nothing less than trying to steal the election. Trump is signaling daily to white nationalist and quasi-fascist violent groups – which, speaking of the law, includes some law enforcement organizations that should be disbanded for insubordination – that he approves of their intimidation of voters on Election Day. He is making constant unsubstantiated claims about the supposed corruption of mail ballots, and otherwise making clear that he will not accept defeat under any circumstances, thereby stoking a powder keg that could erupt into anything between ragged, makeshift violence and full-scale civil war.

    As part of this attempt, Trump et al. are banking on Barrett’s vote to overrule the popular will, if necessary. Yet, Turley says calls for her recusal are baseless. I’m finding that this blog’s old-school reverence for the supposed majesty of the law and the alleged dignity of the Constitution less connected by the day to the reality of the current political situation in the U.S., and the urgency of confronting it with other than historical allusions or academic appeals to tradition. Calls for Barrett’s immediate impeachment may not be effective, but they are not baseless.

    That such a naked power grab as this cannot be frankly acknowledged for what it obviously is, on the dubious ground that Barrett may have a few wild cards up her sleeve and may not be Trump’s complete lackey, is dreadfully naive and utterly ignores the extreme appearance of impropriety that her rammed-through nomination displays. Turley expects the public to roll the dice on the uncertain possibility that she will not do Trump’s bidding as planned. Either that or he expects any significant enough minority of the public to accept that, if she decides a disputed election in Trump’s favor, it would not be a political decision. That Barrett herself (or any prospective Supreme Court justice who would be nominated under these circumstances) would not preemptively refuse the nomination, at least until after the election, says as much about her ethical outlook as a judge as it does about Trump.

    1. Wow! The sugar content of all the koolaid you have consumed must put you in danger of diabetic coma. Seek immediate help!

  15. Kavanaugh should be impeached for what he wrote in his concurrence in the WI case this week.

    Here’s a good discussion of the many errors made by Kavanaugh in his concurrence: https://twitter.com/Tierney_Megan/status/1321120019040866304

    As a lawyer in Bush v. Gore, Kavanaugh argued on the opposite side, for the GOP, that receipt rules needed to be relaxed, so there’s no way that he doesn’t understand the difference between receipt deadlines and submission deadlines. That means his mistakes were intentional, and he lied in this. The notion that the WI legislature set this ballot receipt deadline “to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night” is BS, as the WI legislature has refused to let ballots be processed before election day, guaranteeing results won’t be known on election night, and states seldom (never?) certify the election results on election night.

    Turley once again ignores more important legal issues in writing about Ornstein’s column and not about Kavanaugh’s dishonesty.

    1. As a lawyer in Bush v. Gore, Kavanaugh argued on the opposite side, for the GOP, that receipt rules needed to be relaxed,

      He didn’t argue that. It wouldn’t be an impeachable offense for him to offer an opinion to the contrary even if he had argued that 20 years ago.

      1. Learn to follow the argument, Arty. It’s not a matter of offering a contrary opinion. He understands the difference between receipt deadlines and submission deadlines and knows that the difference is meaningful, but is repeatedly substituting one for the other, pretending that the substitution is hunky dory and making flat out false statements. Judicial dishonesty can be impeachable if Congress wishes.

              1. Bruh

                I delivered that rag as a lad in the 80s.

                It’s not worth time to read and hasn’t been for a very, very long time.

                Trump allowed Veterans to CHOOSE,

                but i suspect your only for choice in some circumstances.

        1. I don’t hate my fellow citizens including Democrats of good will, but I hate the fake news. I guess Trump is the man

          ONWARD TO VICTORY! VOTE TRUMP

        2. Well that is the political spin since 2016 My family history starts with the Iroquois and over the centuries Hispanics, Blacks, Asians and a Jew have been added. We have both Dems and Repubs in the family and none are racist. With the exception of my Democrat French Uncle that got beyond it when his son brought home a Filipino wife

          It is so easy to just hurl slurs and demonize than actually engage in discussion.

          1. There is a saying going around that I like “Not all Trump voters are racist, but all Trump voters think that being a racist is not disqualifying.”

      1. First Step Act
        Increased funding the HBCU’;s
        Opportunity Zones
        No new military actions started and foreign forces reduced
        Energy independence and cheaper fuel prices
        Pre Covid low unemployment most of us have never seen.,3.5%
        Lower Fed taxes
        Right to choose. which allows the seriously ill to try pre approval drugs. Important for those that contract Covid to use Regeneron, convalescent plasma or any of the other therapeutics in the works.

        To understand why you need to shut off the news and actually converse with Trump supporters.

        1. He’s done some positive things. But you also have to consider the negatives. What would be on a Trump supporter’s list of negatives?

  16. The Pinkos are dedicated to making every disagreement a constitutional crisis.

    One of these days, conservatives will start playing the same game out of self preservation (and anger); then the system will start breaking down.

Leave a Reply