WithoutEternalVigilanceItCouldHappenHere
155553
2782
65
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/aoc-impeach-supreme-court-justices-lied-under-oath-1374447/
Jun 26, 2022 7:04 PM
WithoutEternalVigilanceItCouldHappenHere
155553
2782
65
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/aoc-impeach-supreme-court-justices-lied-under-oath-1374447/
1nonlyS
They didn’t lie just conveniently changed their minds when their masters told them to do so. Revoke church tax exemption!
DownUnderDanny
deadtedw
catsandcoke
I feel sorry for the kids of that Amy conwoman. They’re just accessories yo her.
zFUBARz
You can still impeach after he's out of office can't you? Just instead of removal it'd be barong from holding office.
MasterBaconProclomation
You know what sucks. They never ACTUALLY lied. And it breaks my heart.
yepwatermelon
Or, and here me out here, how about just the fucking guillotine instead?
bingotown
AOC is awesome but this statement is just pandering to her base. There’s no basis for perjury claims. They avoided answers, they didn’t lie
embodymentofgattaca
And you know, that other thing with the Insurrection and all
dickable
Abolish SCOTUS.
RobJenkins
There's a realistic chance of it with Thomas and I suspect Alito was also involved in the coup
NeverDownvoteMelBrooks
9 justices because there were 9 federal circuits... there are now 13 circuits so there should be 13 justices
theedragonlady
The SC is as outdated as the electoral system and all the old farts running the show
DukePhelan
Impeachment?
thatiscomedygoldrightthere
Get Bony Carrot on the stand.
Quasime
This is not the time for very serious consideration, this is the time to clear house of all who seek to damage American rights
SecretAgentSuperBooger
Glad to see the idea is spreading. Sauce: https://floridapolitics.com/archives/535227-impeach-crist-scotus/
DreamingOfDistantShores
Congress has been in gridlock since before I was born. The supreme court has become a laughingstock and states are opting out of working
DreamingOfDistantShores
with each other on matters of law. And the president and upper leadership is either useless or authoritarian depending on the day and year.
DreamingOfDistantShores
Shit's not going to get better in the near future, folks. Tuck in and prepare for the worst.
CallMeSleeper
Damn, AOC got a long finger!
ivvarish
That's why she's good at pointing out errors and lunatics. Or she grew it while doing it as there are a lot of them
smegheadenergy
Maybe the rest of her fingers are just tiny?
trippingthelightfantastic
AllForFee
That's fing scary. Women who willingly subjugate themselves to men, especially as a judge, shld NOT be justices as their rulings are 1-
AllForFee
Immediately suspect. She isn't making these decisions, HE is. Amy Conman Butthead shld also be impeached. So sorry, US.
SmokyDoggg
#2
That's what's been bugging me. If you can't hold them accountable what's the point of the hearing? Is it
KaoruVanity
The only thing is, by saying its a precedent thats established fact. Precedents are not unchangable. See history of the 2nd amendment.
SmokyDoggg
just a load of bullshit? Why even ask the question if they can just straight up lie and do the opposite later? What's the point?
haIucid
Is it too late to abort Amy Conan O’Brian?
imredheaded
Please leave him out of this and choose another name for her. Conan did nothing wrong
haIucid
Amy Conan Barbarian?
theedragonlady
Amy the Crusty Bootlicker*
4everwild
Impeach that ball sucking maggot
Marsupialmessiah
Cuz hes black? "Lets impeach all these 4 liars off the bench" and i mean uncle tom and the 3 douches.
ninjafartball
On another note did y'all catch the size of AOC's finger?
Harryteeters
Hey don't give ball suckers a bad name by comparing them to this scum
WolfRexV3
Hey, scum has more integrity than Judge bottom feeder
Jandegrote
All big talk but what are the odds shit will happen?
TheHuntedSnark
Ianal nor a betting person but I'm not sure whether the statements made are legally lies. (Misleading for sure.)
Whatdoyousaytoanicecupoftea
You anal?
ILovedUnicornsFirst
I Am Not A Lawyer
evilspock
Fortunately - impeachment don't care. They could, in theory, impeach you for all sorts of perfectly legal shit.
IUseThisToFavoriteAssnTitties
Unfortunately, the technicality of not outright lying will be seen as a virtue by the GQP, and def not seen as an impeachable offense.
MaybeIllDisappear
Deceptive, but not actually lies.
Goldensands
Good god you ppl can convince yourselves of fking anything.
heywoodjabme
Is it okay to have Supreme Court justices who are deceptive?
MaybeIllDisappear
No it is not, but we would be unable to convict them for being shady with the truth as opposed to outright lying.
heywoodjabme
Conviction isn’t required, just impeachment.
Thelrishlnquistion
Impeach them for sure.
Commentsaboutyourusername
Yeah and throw a pint of Smithwick's at 'em. No one will expect that
PacManDreaming
Who's gonna do it? You think the Republicans care that they committed perjury?
ninjafartball
Did y'all catch the size of AOC's finger?
Orcus424
There has been over 100 justices and only one has ever been impeached and that was in 1804.
cholito96
And? Does that mean we can't make it happen again?
Orcus424
Generally when a thing happens once in almost 250 years yes. They didn't even get removed.
Thelrishlnquistion
We live in unprecedented times
Orcus424
True. That one Justice who got impeached stayed a Justice. I hope they make history with removing someone from the Supreme Court.
Orcus424
I really want to get back to the boring times. The curse "May you live in interesting times." is real.
Soufange
Someone cursed the entire country with that.
desolatorx
Pack the fukin courts damn it. Dems need to grow a pair and stop playing second fiddle with these traitors.
AmbiguouslyPunny
Fucking this. ^
Biznakis
Running out of chances
highhiedyin
This. A thousand times this.
FartPoweredPogoStick
Yeah! Lets do that! It's so easy, and no way in hell it could be stopped! ITS FOOL PROOF!
casbott
Biden is waiting for the calls to become so overwhelming that he can push the fence sitters to vote for it. It's politics 101
takingupspace
Manchin and Sinema
kitenkatt
B.
BishlamekGurpgork
While I want to agree . . . I fear what will happen after we put ten left leaning judges on the court, then the Republicans win a majority,
BishlamekGurpgork
And they respond with fifteen more, or twenty, or fifty.
caerulakid
That’s fine. The SCOTUS is already a joke, why not a clown car too?
BishlamekGurpgork
It would be less hilarious if they weren't so capable of fucking over 300 million people, but we don't have the votes anyway.
diesel01
If only they had the actual majority they’d need to do that…
NonSequitarian
Back to the trolley problem again. FDR wouldn't have put up with this Manchin-Sinema nonsense.
STGxDante
Republicans don't need majority to play their games Dems taking the high road just leads to complacency with republicans.
STGxDante
The word I was looking for was complicit
mandy009
we could end the filibuster if not for Sinema. Even Manchin now is forced to admit he was wrong.
mandy009
which is why we need more Democrats, because there will always be a few that don't fall in line.
imoutofnames
I can't stand either of them but that is how it should be. Parties shouldn't be a homogeneous block. Also there isn't exactly a "line"(1)
imoutofnames
When democrats represent a spectrum from bernie all the way to manchin. There isn't exactly a party line that all agree on
mikekearn
Basic human rights shouldn't be political in the first place. The fact that Dems mostly hold that self evident is all the line needed.
SinxSam
Yes how it should be but not when the other side holds strong and will literally all vote the same.
wearsPantsOften
Stop playing by their rules. Who cares. Higher than place.
Iwontbeback
packing the courts is a terrible solution, it gets exponentially worse quickly. Democrats need to come up with a platform that can actually
Iwontbeback
win elections consistently.
Dandoch1080
How do they pack the courts without enough votes?
theedragonlady
Cheating via filibusters, gerrymandering, etc.
theedragonlady
That's what Republicans do
SupraLove
Can someone explain to me how US judges, can have overt political biases? Where I’m from, they’re *supposed* to be politically impartial.
Immaletchufinishbutno
The federalist society has been working for decades for this specific SC ratio for items like these. Dems are playing catch-up, NOW.
caerulakid
Here too. But the Republicans pervert literally every single fucking system they participate in.
theedragonlady
Per the SC site A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interes
theedragonlady
... interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism. Sorry, US Courts site but still, they failed at their jobs of being judges
theedragonlady
Illegal, highly. Will there be consequences? Probably not because our country does jack s**t when it comes to prosecuting high-seated people
RetrogradeLlama
Amy Conman Barrel carefully dodged the abortion question. The other two, however, directly said it was settled law.
bangbangbangbangbangbangbangban
Conman barrel
tzahtman
Impeachment isn't a criminal or civil trial. They don't need to prove lying they need to agree that they dishonor/harm the institution.
TejelPejel
She is a very intelligent woman, but equally corrupt. Those are the ones that are the most alarming. Plus her religious zeal only adds to it
DarthDrizzt42
Settled law still doesn't mean anything. Settled by previous jurists, whereas the SC has the power to decide what is settled
FormalWareBytes
It wasn't careful at all
CelestialSea
Doesn't matter. She swore to tell the whole truth. If she avoided telling the truth later, she lied in her oath.
chefsoda
True, but saying it was settled isn’t a promise not to unsettle it. They all dodged making any categorical claim, as they should. Of course,
chefsoda
impeachment is political, not legal, so they all be impeached at anytime.
EccentricNimoy
Isn't her religion basically a sex cult
xSquirrelly
Sadly they can easily say they had their opinion changed by compelling arguments
search4bigfoot
A lie of omission is still a lie. The fact remains that she lied under oath.
naughtyrev
Sadly she didn't. The others didn't exactly, but no one pressed them hard on their answers.
MyGreatestFearBoner
Not to be that guy, does saying its settled law, or any flavor there of, affirm a yes to the question? Or is it a dodge to sound like a yes?
INeverWaitForIt
Thing is, impeachment isn't a criminal trial. An official can be impeached for any reason or no reason at all. The crux of the matter here
INeverWaitForIt
is that the judges were asked a question. They knew what the question being asked meant. They chose to mislead or outright lie in their
INeverWaitForIt
answer. So yes, there are grounds for impeachment. Clinton didn't lie in his testimony but was still impeached for similar reasons.
diesel01
And it was. Saying that is not a promise to never reconsider the legitimacy of foundational argument.
WynnieFreeze
That's really deceptive and itself reason to impeach. Don't make excuses for them like that
diesel01
Not making excuses, pointing out facts: they didn’t lie. If being deceptive is grounds for impeachment fine, but I don’t see success there.
diesel01
I don’t like them, or their approach to the constitution, & I think more bad times are coming. But I doubt they are convicted if impeached.
TheBigBadBonerBiter
Bingo. Every single one of them gave "technically true" answers without outright saying they'd uphold Roe.
DukeDarkwood
Unfortunately true. What they said was true at the time they said it. This is the difference between competent liars and... not. They know
DukeDarkwood
when and how to use truth to mislead.
encrypteddecryption
Yep. All the justices dodged the question as to whether they would vote to reverse Roe in this manner. And everyone knew they would if able.
Quixus
And then the interviewers failed to get them to actually answer the question.
RetrogradeLlama
But ACB dodged answering. The others specifically stated it was settle precedent/law.
encrypteddecryption
Stating Roe is settled law is not the same as saying, "I will never vote to overturn Roe." It was a misdirect, not a direct lie.
RetrogradeLlama
Exactly. People are missing that.
PoliticalWanderer
I do have to give Coney Barrett that much, she was actually careful and clever in choosing her words. Many of the others were less so.
TheGriffin
She was trained and coached on how to answer
mrthewhitee
Had little to do with care really. They were not taking an oath to never touch it, only agreeing that at the time it was settled.
OffTheGrid99
Haha. With their fingers crossed. They knew they were going to change it. Hence the lie.
UnBobaLievable
Grounds for impeachment of SCJ are vaguely worded. They 100% could say that Kavanaugh et al lied to congress & move to impeach.
nicelyvillainous
Yes, but settled means they thought the decision was made, and while cases may amend it at the edges, it would not be overturned.
nicelyvillainous
So while it’s definitely possible that they would be acquitted, I think it’s valid to investigate/try them for if/when that opinion CHANGED
nicelyvillainous
Because if there is nothing indicating a change of opinion in the intervening time, and subpoenaed texting/social media records show nothing
RetrogradeLlama
Yes, "well it's a precedent... not a super-precedent".
Lethous
My follow up question would, what is? Is brown v board of education up for debate? How about Obergefell v Hodges?
Poopette
That's was Clarence's question too
TomQJ
I remember watching that and thinking wtf is a super precedent? Is it like animal house’s super secret probation?
RetrogradeLlama
It's one that's so ingrained that it shouldn't ever be changed. Like Roe v. Wade.
TheZommie
great example of a super precedent
CelestialSea
It really doesn't matter. They all swore an oath to tell the whole truth. If they dodged the question they lied during their oaths.
RetrogradeLlama
No, a dodge is not a lie. They could still be impeached, but not for lying / perjury... and those are better grounds.
CelestialSea
They swore to tell the WHOLE truth. They did not tell the WHOLE truth. How is this complicated?
RetrogradeLlama
The law is not about what you want it to be, it's about what the law says. What they did isn't perjury in an court in the USA.