• The Pantser
    link
    fedilink
    145 months ago

    Can’t they just make it a law they can’t be impeached? Can’t they just say the rulings and bribes are official acts?

    • @pineapple_pizza
      link
      395 months ago

      No, the court interprets laws. Congress writes them.

      • @xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        305 months ago

        “We think the intent of this ‘Impeach These Clowns Act’ was actually to permanently enshrine our positions - so said with a 6-3 majority.”

        • @pineapple_pizza
          link
          155 months ago

          I mean, at the end of the day, the SC only has power if we allow it to. The two other branches could decide to ignore them and pick a new supreme court. Aka the supreme Court has no army

          • @Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            55 months ago

            at the end of the day, the SC only has power if we allow it to. The two other branches could decide to ignore them and pick a new supreme court.

            One party that agrees with the majority of the court about almost everything.

            The other respects rules and norms (and the delicate sensibilities of their owner donors) much more than the will and even LIVES of the people they’re supposed to represent.

            While technically accurate, you’re making the mootest of points.

            • @pineapple_pizza
              link
              45 months ago

              If the impeachment passed Congress, like in the situation described by the comment I’m replying to, then that would imply the majority of Congress is on board.

              I agree that Republicans likely wouldn’t go along with this today in real life. One can dream

        • @_g_be@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          65 months ago

          Yes, this could happen. Then checks-and-balances would dictate that Congress and/or executive should step in and impeach or otherwise handle them

          • @Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            15 months ago

            Congress and/or executive should step in and impeach or otherwise handle them

            …for annulling an attempt to impeach or otherwise handle them. You don’t see the flaw in that plan?

            • @_g_be@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              15 months ago

              Impeachment of the judges is not the only way Congress has power over the judicial branch. Congress literally sets the rules about how the whole court functions, the number of seats, etc. One would expect Congress (regardless of which party is in power) to respond against the court if it feels threatened or subverted. But this scenario assumes just the court vs congress, it doesn’t assume an effort by multiple people across multiple branches to subvert the government as a whole.

      • @BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        They can interpret the law any way they want. Nothing in the constitution restricts it in any way. They can literally decide that whatever existing law they want actually says that SC justices can’t be impeached, and that would be the official interpretation of that law. There is no higher court to say otherwise.

      • @SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15 months ago

        In theory. In actuality the court takes the laws Congress passes than reinterpretsbit to allow ridiculous things that weren’t intended; like corporate personhood.

        This is where the phrase ‘activist judges’ stems from

      • @Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        15 months ago

        So the law is that the sc presides over impeachment hearings in the Senate, once the house sends it over, can’t they just dismiss the case with prejudice?

    • @Questy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      85 months ago

      That’s not necessary, as far as I understand there’s a 2/3 majority required to carry an impeachment (not American, so could be wrong). That’s not possible with roughly 50% republican votes. The impeachment can’t succeed, but it’s their job to try, and it also puts the evidence on the record.

      • @kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        And ensure that we align those who voted “the president should have the power of the king” and “I can be bought and sold” are at least written in history for their deeds. There’s far more that needs to happen, but this is a good thing