183 points

Good. It is a start…Won’t get anywhere but it is a start of a conversation

permalink
report
reply
11 points

Why wouldn’t it get anywhere?

permalink
report
parent
reply
57 points

In order to advance the measure, the Speaker of the House would have to allow it. He is an ally of the two. Then, once advanced, the House would have to vote to impeach, and the House is currently controlled by the gop, and they too are unlikely to impeach their allies.

So the chances of it getting anywhere are near-zero, for this year anyway. Next year could potentially be different.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

honestly, even if the house is turned in november and they vote to impeach them, the next step is trial at the senate. it requires 2/3 of the votes, so they won’t get convicted and removed

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Thanks. I wonder why AOC is doing this now instead of waiting until after the elections when the House may (may) flip.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Kinda makes it sound like these judges are members of the party and can’t be objective and therefore can’t be judges then.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Republicans control the House and even if they didn’t, there is nothing close to a majority vote of the House that want to impeach members of SCOTUS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Damn, man. Well, I guess it’s a first step.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Why would it get anywhere?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

Because there is a process for these things. Now, can someone answer my question?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Republicans

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Fuck!

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Because conservatives control the house, which is the first step in impeachment. Even if the speaker allows it to come to a vote (he won’t) they will just vote it down.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Thanks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Because this article is from Wed 10 Jul 2024

permalink
report
parent
reply
182 points
*

This article is from July. Johnson has not allowed this near the floor and never will because hes a corrupt sack of fucked up rotten eggplants; even if he does, it will obviously fail on party line votes. Non story.

permalink
report
reply
110 points

It’s a good reminder before a big election that one side is actively attempting to govern, while the other side is blocking any and all actions so as to curry more favor with their billionaire backers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-21 points

Please

Both ‘sides’ are blocking any and all actions so as to curry favor with their billionaire backers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Johnson has not allowed this near the floor and never will because hes a corrupt sack of fucked up rotten eggplants

There’s a very good chance that Democrats retake the House after November. Any idea whether Hakkem Jefferies will allow this proposal to advance?

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Knowing how absolutely fucking stupid our politicians are id imagine IF we win we’ll suddenly hear a whole bunch about needing to heal and show solidarity or some such bullshit that will just equate to “we aren’t going to do anything about Republican corruption.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I see you also lived through the 2009 congressional cycle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Dems will probably take the house but lose the senate, so in a way we’ll be right back to this situation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Dems will probably take the house but lose the senate

You don’t think Collier is going to win Texas in a historic landslide?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I’m waiting to read that since they didn’t have a code of conduct, how could they have known?

How could any suspect that accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes gifts would present a conflict of interest?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Jeffries would have everything to gain by forcing the issue, and i would frankly expect him to. But unless a miracle happens in the Senate post-election, an actual conviction will of course not happen as Republicans will never sign on to get the 2/3rds majority there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

If the Democrats can keep their Senate majority then they can have an actual trial for these impeachments, something that didn’t happen for the Trump impeachments (since the Republicans had Senate control then.) There probably still won’t be enough votes for the removal to actually happen, but it’ll let the Democrats really rub the Republicans’ noses in the corruption going on in the Supreme Court and make their vote to protect Thomas and Alito more damaging in the next election.

At any rate, Thomas and Alito are currently the two oldest justices on the court, and if Harris gets two terms then there’s a good chance that one or both of them will be dead by the next time there’s a GOP President. That, combined with some strategic retirements on behalf of some of the older Democratic appointees has a good chance of unfucking the court for a while.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Jeffries would have everything to gain by forcing the issue

I mean, I’ve been saying this about DC Statehood for two decades. Democrats should have made DC a state back during the Carter administration’s majority. All upside, save for the fact that it dilutes the power of the rest of the Senate by 2%. Bonus, because it gets you that much closer to doing things like a Senate conviction or a Constitutional Amendment passage via a liberal supermajority.

But this is something Democrats have punted on over and over and over and over again. Even within the Dem Senate Majority, you can’t find enough votes.

Republicans will never sign on to get the 2/3rds majority there

If you can get a Senate Dem majority on record as saying these judges need to be removed, the case for court packing gets stronger.

But this is another thing Dems can’t be convinced to pull the trigger on.

permalink
report
parent
reply
95 points

This election is so seriously fucked up that Dick Chaney and AOC are voting for the same candidate.

Weird timeline we’re in.

permalink
report
reply
20 points

No, who are you calling a weird timeline? this timeline is extremely solid. It’s a very solid timeline. When we’re talking these kinds of numbers, then we tax countries when they ship stuff here, and they will not like it, but we can see how solid the timeline is…

I feel like I should have left out all punctuation in that paragraph.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Needs more couch

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Whoa there, let’s keep it PG for the children.

-J.D. Vance

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Nnnnnhhhhh ~ Vance, probably

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Oh yes, yes YES! Maybe we could do a casting call for unknown voluptuous clean shaven chesterfield couches?

Does bring a different meaning to the backroom casting couch concept.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

And also Added a bunch of random Capitalized Words for NO REASON.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Weird timeline we’re in.

neoliberals and conservatives are flip sides of the same coin to be spent in the same vending machine of american hegemony; whether or not they select the same flavor makes little difference compared to the very real choices available in some other vending machines rich enough to effectively defend itself from the american machine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

This reminds me of the current French politics. After the previous legislative elections were won by the left, neoliberal president Macron nonetheless appointed a conservative as his prime minister.

At the end of the day, it’s all about the bottomline.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

So, are you considering AOC to be a neoliberal or to be a conservative?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

how she contrasts with cheney has little impact on the genocide; future the cia induced coups; nor the continuing widening wealth gap; etc.

cheney is an accelerant and aoc is an inhibitor to the same child bombing, rich guy party we’re calling a country since people like cheney hold all of he cards and the best people like aoc can hope for is play along and act surprised each time they re-discover that the game is rigged toward’s cheney’s side each time people like aoc fail and cling on increasingly rarer watered down victories to justify the relatively tiny distinctions between the two.

<SARCASM> and even when they fail it’s simply because you didn’t vote hard enough and ABSOLUTELY NOT because your vote is diminished or suppressed because only lazy non-voting americans are simply too lazy to overcome studied, coordinated, and court-busting-proven astro-turfed national conservative movements financed by unknown multi-milion/bilion dollar interests in coordination with most states and the federal governments since 1980, all intent on keeping them from voting…</SARCASM>

permalink
report
parent
reply
79 points

At least there’s something. Agreed with sibling comment that nothing will come of it. But at least something is happening. The corruption is astronomical and a thumb in all of our eyes.

permalink
report
reply
32 points

Literally 0% chance to change for good if all that happens is bearing witness to corruption and wrongdoing.

This is doing something. It’s hitting on the root of so many problems which have arisen in the US since the corporate takeover of government began in 1978 in partnership with the Supreme Court. I applaud AOC for this!

permalink
report
parent
reply
75 points

AOC 2032

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 385K

    Comments