Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s salvo seeks accountability over conservative supreme court justices’ ethics controversies
  • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    1905·
    7 days ago

    This article is from July. Johnson has not allowed this near the floor and never will because hes a corrupt sack of fucked up rotten eggplants; even if he does, it will obviously fail on party line votes. Non story.

    • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
      1111·
      7 days ago

      It’s a good reminder before a big election that one side is actively attempting to govern, while the other side is blocking any and all actions so as to curry more favor with their billionaire backers.

      • distantsounds@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1032·
        7 days ago

        Please

        Both ‘sides’ are blocking any and all actions so as to curry favor with their billionaire backers.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      192·
      7 days ago

      Johnson has not allowed this near the floor and never will because hes a corrupt sack of fucked up rotten eggplants

      There’s a very good chance that Democrats retake the House after November. Any idea whether Hakkem Jefferies will allow this proposal to advance?

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        141·
        7 days ago

        Knowing how absolutely fucking stupid our politicians are id imagine IF we win we’ll suddenly hear a whole bunch about needing to heal and show solidarity or some such bullshit that will just equate to “we aren’t going to do anything about Republican corruption.”

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        4·
        7 days ago

        I’m waiting to read that since they didn’t have a code of conduct, how could they have known?

        How could any suspect that accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes gifts would present a conflict of interest?

      • Laborer3652@reddthat.comEnglish
        3·
        7 days ago

        Dems will probably take the house but lose the senate, so in a way we’ll be right back to this situation.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          7 days ago

          Dems will probably take the house but lose the senate

          You don’t think Collier is going to win Texas in a historic landslide?

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        3·
        7 days ago

        Jeffries would have everything to gain by forcing the issue, and i would frankly expect him to. But unless a miracle happens in the Senate post-election, an actual conviction will of course not happen as Republicans will never sign on to get the 2/3rds majority there.

        • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
          5·
          7 days ago

          If the Democrats can keep their Senate majority then they can have an actual trial for these impeachments, something that didn’t happen for the Trump impeachments (since the Republicans had Senate control then.) There probably still won’t be enough votes for the removal to actually happen, but it’ll let the Democrats really rub the Republicans’ noses in the corruption going on in the Supreme Court and make their vote to protect Thomas and Alito more damaging in the next election.

          At any rate, Thomas and Alito are currently the two oldest justices on the court, and if Harris gets two terms then there’s a good chance that one or both of them will be dead by the next time there’s a GOP President. That, combined with some strategic retirements on behalf of some of the older Democratic appointees has a good chance of unfucking the court for a while.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
          23·
          7 days ago

          Jeffries would have everything to gain by forcing the issue

          I mean, I’ve been saying this about DC Statehood for two decades. Democrats should have made DC a state back during the Carter administration’s majority. All upside, save for the fact that it dilutes the power of the rest of the Senate by 2%. Bonus, because it gets you that much closer to doing things like a Senate conviction or a Constitutional Amendment passage via a liberal supermajority.

          But this is something Democrats have punted on over and over and over and over again. Even within the Dem Senate Majority, you can’t find enough votes.

          Republicans will never sign on to get the 2/3rds majority there

          If you can get a Senate Dem majority on record as saying these judges need to be removed, the case for court packing gets stronger.

          But this is another thing Dems can’t be convinced to pull the trigger on.

  • dugmeup@lemmy.world
    1842·
    8 days ago

    Good. It is a start…Won’t get anywhere but it is a start of a conversation

      • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
        58·
        7 days 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
          26·
          7 days 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.worldEnglish
            22·
            7 days ago

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

        • El Barto@lemmy.world
          9·
          7 days 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
            31·
            7 days ago

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

          • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
            19·
            7 days 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
          5·
          7 days 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
        10·
        7 days 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.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              3·
              7 days 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
        3·
        7 days 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.

  • Subverb@lemmy.world
    97·
    7 days ago

    This election is so seriously fucked up that Dick Chaney and AOC are voting for the same candidate.

    Weird timeline we’re in.

    • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
      21·
      7 days ago

      No, who are you calling a weird timeline? this timeline is extremely solid. It’s a very solid timeline. When we’re talking these kinds of numbers, then we tax countries when they ship stuff here, and they will not like it, but we can see how solid the timeline is…

      I feel like I should have left out all punctuation in that paragraph.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      1310·
      7 days ago

      Weird timeline we’re in.

      neoliberals and conservatives are flip sides of the same coin to be spent in the same vending machine of american hegemony; whether or not they select the same flavor makes little difference compared to the very real choices available in some other vending machines rich enough to effectively defend itself from the american machine.

      • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
        7·
        7 days ago

        This reminds me of the current French politics. After the previous legislative elections were won by the left, neoliberal president Macron nonetheless appointed a conservative as his prime minister.

        At the end of the day, it’s all about the bottomline.

      • Microw@lemm.ee
        6·
        7 days ago

        So, are you considering AOC to be a neoliberal or to be a conservative?

        • eldavi@lemmy.ml
          56·
          7 days ago

          how she contrasts with cheney has little impact on the genocide; future the cia induced coups; nor the continuing widening wealth gap; etc.

          cheney is an accelerant and aoc is an inhibitor to the same child bombing, rich guy party we’re calling a country since people like cheney hold all of he cards and the best people like aoc can hope for is play along and act surprised each time they re-discover that the game is rigged toward’s cheney’s side each time people like aoc fail and cling on increasingly rarer watered down victories to justify the relatively tiny distinctions between the two.

          <SARCASM> and even when they fail it’s simply because you didn’t vote hard enough and ABSOLUTELY NOTE because your vote is diminished or suppressed because only lazy non-voting americans are simply too lazy to overcome studied, coordinated, and court-busting-proven astro-turfed national conservative movements financed by unknown multi-milion/bilion dollar interests in coordination with most states and the federal governments since 1980, all intent on keeping them from voting…</SARCASM>

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    811·
    7 days ago

    At least there’s something. Agreed with sibling comment that nothing will come of it. But at least something is happening. The corruption is astronomical and a thumb in all of our eyes.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      33·
      7 days ago

      Literally 0% chance to change for good if all that happens is bearing witness to corruption and wrongdoing.

      This is doing something. It’s hitting on the root of so many problems which have arisen in the US since the corporate takeover of government began in 1978 in partnership with the Supreme Court. I applaud AOC for this!

  • zante@lemmy.wtfEnglish
    3·
    7 days ago

    Is there no method of self policing for the judiciary or legal profession?

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      51·
      7 days ago

      the Supreme court justices have exempted themselves from prosecution for accepting gifts through previous decisions and C. Thomas was not required to recuse himself in the Jan 6 cases involving his own wife so let’s go with no policing at all.

  • SSJMarx@lemm.eeEnglish
    36·
    7 days ago

    Better late than never I suppose, but If the Dems were serious about passing their agenda and protecting it, this would have been on the table as soon as Biden was elected, so I don’t expect this to go anywhere.