• Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • kinsnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        2 months ago

        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

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, fair point. A Senate trial would still be useful to publicly air all of the evidence though.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

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

        • Fuzzy_Dunlop@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          So that everyone running for a House seat can get their position on record before the election, I suppose

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          2 months ago

          Politics. It’s important that we keep this in the news cycle, so people remember why its important to work together to try to get these people thrown out. It also forces the gop to block the measures, which could potentially make them look like they are condoning corruption. Which they are.

          Symbolism basically.

      • Artyom@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

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

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

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

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            And conservative Democrats, which is most of the ones in Washington.

            If they’re going to use the “but what would Republicans do?” excuse for preserving the filibuster and pretending that the word of an unelected clerk is final on raising the minimum wage, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will on impeaching SCOTUS judges.

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m 100% on AOC’s side here. I just don’t trust right wing demagogues from both parties to not be in the way of justice like they almost always are.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.