None have ever been kicked off the court. In 1805 a Justice was impeached, but acquitted by the Senate. Same process would have to happen today.
This makes the court sound totally partisan. Not only the Trump appointees but the non-Trump ones, too, as if they're giving their verdicts along political lines and not because of considered legal opinion.
The analysis of this article concludes that the SCOTUS has been sympathetic to conservative causes, but not so sympathetic to Trump's escapades. The judges aren't just MAGA hats who Trump's people pulled off the street and put a judge's robe on.
That's what I thought, that there was something close but not actually a removal. Such an obvious democratic deficit to have lifetime appointments that can dictate the laws of a country. In retrospect, RBG hanging on rather than stepping down when Obama was in office turned out to be a terrible move.
Conservatives have been itching to remove Roe from the moment it came about - arguably this was Trump's biggest achievement from that point of view. With the added bonus of a now conservative Bullwark against future Liberalism at the highest court. The State's Rights types have what they want; so bar Thomas and his wife's MAGA affiliations compromising him, I just wonder how "friendly" they're gonna be to Trump when his position gets untenable.
I'd not put money on it or anything - far from it - but I just wonder if the issue isn't as cut and dry as Trump having useful friends in high places anymore.
"In retrospect, RBG hanging on rather than stepping down when Obama was in office turned out to be a terrible move."
Man, was it. Everything she did she undid by hanging on too long. Obama could've replaced her in his first election easily. People just hang on too long, you can be sure Alito and Thomas are going out feet first as well, in both cases, not soon enough.
You can be a conservative and not be someone that panders to Trump's every whim. Trump isn't even a Conservative, he's just a populist arsehole that has managed to grift his way into a position of power. If the conservatives on the Court actually espouse traditional conservatism, then they should enforce the constitution and its provisions. We'll have to wait to see whether they do or not.
ETTD
Libertarianism is the only future where society doesn't breakdown and fall apart.
Liberalism and conservatives go to hell as far as I'm concerned.
bless your heart
Name one example of a proven, successful implementation of libertarian politics for an entire country. And don't mention Argentina cos Milei is there a wet weekend and IIRC has already had to roll back some promises.
Libertarianism is astrology for men; it's fantasy stuff as lunatic as Communism in terms of an idea that fails the moment it meets the human factor.
All Western governments are married to the idea of Globalism. As are the opposition parties in each country.
"Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing equality before the law and civil rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice"
Who wouldn't want this?
That's not what I asked, and instead you wave the "Globalism" bogeyman which is just ... ooooo'kay.
We can all make very attractive and pompous declarations of heady ideals - I'd rather you show some examples where libertarianism has worked, instead of just making a fringe economic model that can't and has never worked.
Any reason why you've avoided addressing the fact that Trump actively tried to undermine a democratic election? This resulted in a violent insurrection that endangered the lives of many politicians including the VP.
He should also maybe offer why he believes that a «Small Government» totallitarian hellscape is better, or is it all about owning those damn commie libs?!
I sense I should include the word «Woke» for some reason….
Personally I think the court will weasel its way out of this saying insurrection wasn't proven in court
Is that what the SC is being asked? The SC wont answer a question it wasn't asked. Also the SC rules on points of law. Whether trump is an insurectionist is a point of fact, not law.
You have been emphasising respecting democracy though while celebrating a person who absolutely does not respect democracy... Do you think a person who eggs on an insurrection is respecting democracy?
Just a classic case of a Trump supporter who is unwilling to admit the kind of criminal they support. Rape, insurrections etc are nothing to overcome.
If we weren't social creatures that rely on our fellow man and trading outside our villages/towns/cities/countries, Libertarianism would be sound, but we are, so that's why it'll never work.
Pity somebody wouldn't drop him in water.........shark infested ones preferably
The SC is being asked to rule on whether POTUS is an officer of the United States government or something else entirely. You'd think it would be an officer, obviously, but there are apparently arguments and lengthy legal treatises to say that it's not. I posted one such a while back. This is just to point out that there is a case to be made. What consideration the SCOTUS gives it remains to be seen.
I see one argument being put forward that officer refers to officials who are appointed, not elected, and quoting this SC ruling as a precedent. I have no idea if this logic is sound, though, so maybe someone here could give an opinion.
Right, so whether he has committed insurrection or not will be irrelevant to them and they will not even mention it in their judgement.
I don't think that slides through so readily. He wasn't tried for insurrection, but he was 'found' to have been an insurrectionist -kind of legally theoretical. That said, this SCOTUS is fine with ruling on cases involving freedom of religion and gay-themed wedding cakes where no RL events corresponding to the accusation had actually happened. They can rule on matters of legal precedent without matching events.
If they want to.
Libertarianism is probably the stupidest thing to ever have come out of America and I include the covid denial and chemtrail stuff in that.
The SC is being asked to rule on whether POTUS is an officer of the United States government or something else entirely.
They are not being asked if he is an insurrectionist. It has no relevance to the question they are being asked.
About as apt a description as I've ever heard.
It has some relevance in the sense that the ruling could affect an insurrectionist's (in the opinion of the Colorado SC) ability to run for POTUS.
Doesn't have the part where he kicks the sherpas and calls them lazy sadly.
It's always something that amazes me tbh, so many simply don't realise how much they've landed on their feet and take it for granted. So the rest of society can get fucked is the logic. The US pushes it to the extreme of individualism combined with exceptionalism.
I'm sure you've never heard of this.... In fairness, you've already ignored his already well established criminal behavior.
Again, still waiting for this example of libertarianism that proved the concept a success. You got all of human history to work from, it shouldn't be hard.
Stop talking in Instagram level buzzwords and have the courage to argue your convictions. You think libertarianism is the way forward: prove it
Do your own research. Like you probably did with covid.
But they are not being asked what constitutes an insurrectionist, and definitely not being asked if Trump is an insurrectionist. The SC don't make findings of fact. That is not its job.
Legally I've not defamed Donald Trump, he's a rapist. The courts view him as such. So the faux outrage is more stupid than anything else.
