AOC says conservative justices lied under oath, should be impeached

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) on Sunday said conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who “misled” Americans during their confirmation hearings about whether or not they supported overturning Roe v. Wade should be impeached and face “consequences” for lying under oath.

Ocasio-Cortez told NBC’s “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd the Supreme Court “dramatically overreached its authority” and created a “crisis of legitimacy” that President Biden should address.

“If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land and then issue — without basis, if you read these opinions — rulings that deeply undermine the human civil rights of the majority of Americans, we must see that through,” the lawmaker said.

“There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and the hostile takeover of our democratic institutions,” she added.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ocasio-cortez-says-conservative-justices-lied-under-oath-should-be-impeached/ar-AAYSZKk

[dflprincess]

1. Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress

Why shouldn't it happen to these jerks?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

2. Actually it was lying to the special counsel

But your point remains.

[dflprincess]

3. Thanks

I had forgotten that!

[Demsrule86]

13. It is a waste of time because you can't convict them and they will remain Judges.

Why should we waste time and money doing things that will have literally no effect except possibly hurt us in the midterm?

[patphil]

16. How many times did the Republicans try to repeal the Affordable Care act?

At least 100!

https://howmanytimeshasthehousevotedtorepealobamacare.com/

It was a waste of time in terms of actually being able to do it, but it kept their base churned up. Political theater that worked, but not directly.

I think it's worth considering, depending what happens in November.

[in2herbs]

30. The J6 hearings can't convict Trump but they are not a waste of time! Impeaching

the justices is doable, sentencing them to kick them out of office is something else but, just as the premise for the J6 hearings is public exposure, the premise for impeaching certain justices should also be public exposure. These justices need to be held publicly accountable for their lies and hypocrisy. In doing this we, meaning the older generation, will show the generations coming after us that we are trying to do everything in our power to correct the course of power that has been abused.

But, I agree. Wait until after midterms. I think the info/facts coming out of the J6 hearings is as much info as most of the public can digest. But waiting does not mean not discussing. This must be part of the Ds mid-terms campaign platform. Unless Ds have bullet points for what they intend to address/correct if given their majority I don't see enough voter enthusiasm to put us over the top. IMO there are a lot of Ds disillusioned in the D party's decades-long "let's get along with the Rs" attitude.

[Demsrule86]

32. Unless we get the votes to convict them in the Senate...I don't see the point. But we can

agree to disagree.

[Demsrule86]

88. Impeachement is not the same thing as the January 6th hearings...impeachment is a

constitutional remedy...but no person will be tossed out without conviction...this includes all branches of government.

[FBaggins]

58. It's worse than a waste of time

Not only can we not convict them... we can't even effectively make the point.

They were asked about many cases and (just like progressive SCOTUS nominees) refused to hint at how they would rule.

Of course, AOC wasn't on the committee, but pretty much every democrat who was is on the record as believing that they would overturn Roe and that was a primary reason why they voted against them. And pretty much every republican said that they thought the three would overturn Roe and that's a big reason why they supported them.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

60. +100. nt

[Demsrule86]

89. +1000

[LonePirate]

4. Hearings should begin the first day lawmakers are back from break

[Demsrule86]

14. No impeachment before midterms...political madness. If we could remove them that would be one

thing but we can't. And with the other issues today gas, inflation (fake though it is) we should not have a hearing period on the justices.

[wnylib]

25. I agree. They will not be convicted and

there is no political theater value in an investigation or hearings. In fact, the political theater route would work against us. MAGAts will never be swayed by hearings and e anyone else will be put off by them. The rest of the country outside of MAGATs does not get riled up over theatrical politics the way that MAGATs do.

[mjvpi]

24. I agree. Get them under oath again. Document the hypocrisy.

This is the first step towards Biden expanding the court. The reasons have to be laid bare to the American people.

[COL Mustard]

29. The Court needs to be expanded.

It needs to happen now. There are 12 Judicial circuits so each Associate Justice could oversee one, and the CJ makes 13. Do it now. Then use McConnell's tactics and ram through three young, liberal justices just like he did. Do it before November if possible, but do it after November if needed. Keep the Senate in session as long as it takes, up until Jan. 3 if need be. Just f***ing do it!

[MagickMuffin]

5. And might I add, Anyone that participated in J6 doesn't get a vote on this issue, Cruz, Hawley, etc

Anyone who participated in the attempted coup does not get a vote since they don't believe in our form of democracy. They instigated a coup to overthrow our government. No vote for you.

Now let the impeachments begin!

[Demsrule86]

15. It is a foolish idea and will gain us nothing.

[Demsrule86]

34. What constitutional method will you use to stop them from voting?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

37. Ok.

Now, kindly point out where in the Constitution this would be allowed.

[RestoreAmerica2020]

6. She's right. They should all be impeached for perjury..quick

..article (s) of impeachment can be typed, printed today, Pelosi has vote ..off to it goes to Senate where Manchin and others are sad bc justices lied to them..suprise surprise--NOT! Yet, will probably vote with Republiklans bc..?

Yes, yes I know it's only been done once or twice before. In 1804/05 SCJ Samuel Chase was impeached by House, yet acquitted by Senate. However, his legacy was tarnished int the public domain or record for all to see--same should happen to 6 who purjured themselves to Congress. Thomas should have an extra article for obstruction re releasing ffg documents to congress, documents that would implicate his wife.

[brooklynite]

73. Prove perjury.

Seriously. How do you prove a Justice lied in a Senate Confirmation?

[RobinA]

91. Really

I doubt any of them said anything definitive. Just a lot of weasel words.

[Beastly Boy]

7. They could probably be impeached but not removed.

But they should definitely carry the stigma of impeachment for the rest of their careers and into history books.

[Farmer-Rick]

8. Yeah, that would be a little something since the optics for Dems is so bad

The GOP and the Supremely Religious Court did this under the Dem's watch on purpose. Dem's will historically be associated with this taking away of the right to bodily automony. Like guilt by association, in the minds of sleep walking voters.

So, if we can take a few of the real culprits to take some of the historical blame, it will be a good thing.

[in2herbs]

33. +1000000000000000000000000 nt

[in2herbs]

31. +1000000000000000000000000 nt

[Hortensis]

9. Agree with her. She needs to work to improve her standing among her

colleagues to develop some influence, though, and to become productive in congress. Others who were elected after her have turned it into achievements. She can and should also if she wants to make a difference.

As it is, if the house does eventually move forward with impeachment (yes!), others will make it happen. Of course.

[NewHendoLib]

10. I hold those 6 asshole SC justices at lower regard and respect than a big pile of dogshit.

What a joke - "supreme court" my ass.

[malthaussen]

11. Well, she's right of course, but good luck getting the Senate to convict. n/t

[triron]

85. They're almost as corrupt.

...

[cloudboy07]

12. If impeached, they will be dead weight , they can -

senser'd from their vote counting , just like congress if not removed !

[Amishman]

45. Censure doesn't work like that in congress or for justices

A member of congress who is censured must give up a committee chair if they hold one. They still vote and are counted.

I am not aware of a specific censure process for justices. The only external discipline process is impeachment, which means 2/3rds in the senate for any punishment.

[cloudboy07]

61. ok, must have mis- read something - thank's !

never to old too admit when ya goof !

[MarineCombatEngineer]

48. Wait, wut?

[bucolic_frolic]

17. Glenn Kirschner made a similar point last night and promised more in the days ahead

The Republican Supreme Court Monsters have committed FRAUD!!

[Mr. Evil]

18. Don't impeach them.

Arrest them.

https://www.findlaw.com/state/dc-law/district-of-columbia-perjury-laws.html

[questionseverything]

27. IKR

Thomas first

[Demsrule86]

35. I wish people would take Civics classes that is not possible under our laws.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

38. Yeah. good luck with that.

Now, take a Civics 101 class and then get back to us on how it's possible.

[Mr. Evil]

39. Then indict them.

Instead of being condescending and rude maybe you'd like to educate me since I'm nowhere near as perfect as you.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

41. Indict them for what exactly?

Perjury?
All they've got to say is that their views have evolved since their confirmation hearings, which they are allowed to do.

They're POS's for sure, but they're covered as far as perjury.

Instead of being condescending and rude maybe you'd like to educate me since I'm nowhere near as perfect as you.

Perfect? Yeah, uh, no.

[inthewind21]

80. Impeach! Indict! Sign an EO! Arrest!

THIS is exactly how we ended up here. Damn near the entire country need a civics 101 class. Or at the very least a Saturday morning of school house rock!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

92. +100. nt

[czarjak]

19. "It's rigged, folks"?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

20. They can't be impeached. The votes aren't there. We're stuck with them.

If only Clinton had become president ...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

22. They can be impeached

The votes aren't there for removal.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

44. True, they can be impeached. And, we're still stuck with them. nt

[lefthandedskyhook]

49. Not according to the 14th amendment's enforcement clause section 3

They clearly can no longer be in office. The process is painfully slow, but there can be no question about holding federal office under that clause

[MarineCombatEngineer]

51. And this applies how?

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits anyone who has previously taken an oath of office (Senators, Representatives, and other public officials) from holding public office if they have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.

Where is the insurrection or rebellion against the US.

I mean in legal terms?

[lefthandedskyhook]

53. Stay tuned and you'll find out

.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

54. So, IOW,

you don't know and are just guessing.

[lefthandedskyhook]

57. Untrue

The evidence is mounting. These people are part of the conspiracy. Haven't you been paying attention to the hearings?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

59. What evidence that the justice's are part of the conspiracy?

So far, all you're doing is speculating without providing any facts.

[lefthandedskyhook]

66. You don't pay me to do your simple research

Answer: ALL the evidence about Ginni Thomas after his refusal to recuse

Please stop trolling me

[MarineCombatEngineer]

68. You made the claim,

it's on you to provide the evidence.

Was C. Thomas bound by law to recuse himself?

He's a RW POS, but just where is the crime?

Again, you've got nothing.

[Demsrule86]

82. Ginni Thomas is not a member of the court. And whether she can be convicted of anything I

have no idea as knowing and proving are different things...but It will not lead to Thomas's removal. The only way to remove a sitting justice is to impeach and then convict. We do not have the super majority needed to do this. As for the 14th amendment, I fail to see how it makes any difference.

'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

[FBaggins]

69. "The process is painfully slow"?

Please link to "the process".

[lefthandedskyhook]

71. Wow

you win

[FBaggins]

62. The votes aren't there for impeachment either

Far too many Democrats are on the bubble in November. There's no way they're going to stick their necks out on something that can't possibly succeed but could easily blow up in their faces.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

64. My sentiments exactly.

Speaker Pelosi is a very savvy and experienced politician and she knows this would backfire on the Dems badly, she wouldn't even bring it to the floor.

[spanone]

21. She's absolutely right.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

23. not going to happen

votes are not there.

[Orrex]

26. They will claim that their views "evolved" and that will be the end of it

Don't mistake me: I'd like to see them strapped to a rocket and launched into the sun, but it's pointless to hope that they'll be impeached for this or anything else when we know that it'll never happen.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

42. +100.

I don't even think the votes are there for impeachment in the House, and it's my opinion that Speaker Pelosi won't even bring it to the floor, especially this close to the mid terms.

[sinkingfeeling]

28. I used to believe lying to Congress was a crime.

[Better Days Ahoy]

36. It's no surprise that lying to a Congress

That includes a fair amount of bold-faced liars was not seen as an issue.

[azureblue]

40. remember when

a man's word was his bond, and honor and integrity were the most important traits a person could have? If if you lied, no one would do business with or trust you again.

That is, before the Repubs decided that H & I were weaknesses to exploit.

[Buns_of_Fire]

43. (1) AOC is right. (2) But it ain't gonna happen. nt

[SWBTATTReg]

46. YES! There must be negative consequences to lying on the stand, when asked a ? by a house

member or Senator. The American people are expecting the truth upfront, especially when it comes to a lifetime appointment, which is a very very long time. Enough of this lying. Enough of these political hacks getting away w/ lying and pretty well anything else. I'm sick and tired of these types getting away w/ crap, such as tRUMP getting away w/ his numerous crimes, the lying by those now on the Supreme Court under false pretenses, the senators and house reps lying about what they were doing on 1/6/21, etc.

[gopiscrap]

47. totally agree

even if we don't have the votes to convict impeach them so they will have that stain on them

[lefthandedskyhook]

50. Start convicting them of crimes and see what happens

We could end up with the votes

[MarineCombatEngineer]

52. What crimes would that be?

[lefthandedskyhook]

55. You have to be kidding

Are you trolling here?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

56. Are you?

I'll ask again, what crimes did those justice's commit?
Specifics please.

[lefthandedskyhook]

63. Nope

Please look it up for yourself if you somehow missed the Tsunami of evidence we are in

Start with those who requested pardons and did not get them only because chump knew they would stab him in the back

[MarineCombatEngineer]

65. ....

Start with those who requested pardons and did not get them only because chump knew they would stab him in the back

And this has what to do with the justices?

You've got nothing.

[lefthandedskyhook]

67. I mistakenly conflated this with congressional misdeeds

PLEASE STOP TROLLING ME

[MarineCombatEngineer]

70. I'm not trolling,

I'm trying to get you to provide evidence of SC crimes.

[lefthandedskyhook]

75. More is needed

What Ginni did may well end up in one of many future convictions. Add to this Clarence Thomas's refusal to recuse along with any proof of his attempts to cover his tracks and you have ample reasons to investigate and possibly impeach

[brooklynite]

74. I'll answer the question you won't. The charge would be perjury...and you won't be able to prove it

Stating that a stated opinion was false is virtually impossible to prove. "We know they're guilty" isn't something you can say to a Jury.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

76. Thank You!!!!

That's the point I was trying to get across.

[lefthandedskyhook]

78. You are correct

Wrong thread, sorry

[MarineCombatEngineer]

97. Wait a minute,

you thought this thread was about members of Congress?

Now I see the problem.

We all have our brain farts here and there.

No harm, no foul.

[Demsrule86]

83. Oh please, I heard this during the multiple Trump impeachments and he had to be gotten rid of

by losing an election...no GOP types saw the light. We can add justices or wait for the old ones to die...that is about it...maybe we can put in term limits but if that requires an amendment, we can't do that either.

[lefthandedskyhook]

86. Hang in there friend

We have heavy hitters coming up to bat and I believe this is still the pregame show

The impeachments only failed due to deep and unanticipated flaws in our Constitution

[Demsrule86]

87. Impeachment is a waste of time...we can show the public what happened and I believe that has

an effect in terms of January 6th. But no Republican is going to vote to impeach those involved with the insurrection like Ron Johnson...hope that SOB gets prosecuted in Wisconsin. What he did is a state crime and proveable.

[lefthandedskyhook]

90. Yep

They have been a terminally corrupt political party in virtual lockstep for years. This can change. We must double down on democracy and fix these flaws. I'd be happy to see them go the way of the Whigs. Green Party anyone?

[Demsrule86]

93. NO I hate the Greens.

[lefthandedskyhook]

95. ...then you are in the right place!

Do you prefer repugnantcons?

[Demsrule86]

96. They are the same IMHO. Greens are out to destroy Democrats and so are Republicans...Greens

pretend to care about progressive issues but they don't really...actions speak louder than words. fuck and fuck Greens.

[brooklynite]

72. She can introduce an Impeachment Resolution any time she wants.

[booley]

77. Playing Nice hasn't really worked

and its not as if the GOP wouldn't do this if the tables were turned.

No, it probably wouldn't lead to any of them being impeached.

But for instance, seeing Clarence Thomas having to explain why he didn't want documents regarding Jan 6th released that could have incriminated his wife would be political gold.

[inthewind21]

79. Nothing like

stating the obvious. I like AOC. But come on... Making declarations like this comes across as either thinking WE are all stupid and didn't know it then or the one making the statement is waaaaay late to the party.

[Demsrule86]

94. Well she will be on all the shows...for certain. I guess that was the plan.

[Demsrule86]

81. Impeachment without conviction is a f'ing waste of time.

[malaise]

84. AOC will be on Colbert tonight n/t