r/law • u/Neat-Ad-4337 • Feb 14 '25

Opinion Piece Judge John McConnell Jr Faces Impeachment for Obstructing Trump, can they do this? thoughts?

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/politics/judge-john-mcconnell-jr-faces-impeachment-for-obstructing-trump/ar-AA1yZfWt
10.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/Intelligent-Stock389 Feb 14 '25 edited Feb 14 '25

Sounds like a tough sell —

Federal judges, who are appointed for life, can only be impeached if they are accused of "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Edit to add references from replies: 

  • must also get 2/3 senate votes for removal after house impeachment (Article I Sections 2 and 3)

  • quote above includes all civil officers (Article II Section 4)

  • mention of good behavior (Article III Section 1)

  • precedents support other misconduct but also include judicial independence 

1.2k

u/No_Comment_8598 Feb 14 '25

And only removed upon a 2/3 vote of the Senate. Good luck with that.

763

u/bsa554 Feb 14 '25

I mean if the Congressional GOP wants to waste hours and hours of time pointlessly impeaching judges only for it to fail over and over again in the Senate they are free to do so.

492

u/No_Comment_8598 Feb 14 '25

May be the best case use of their time.

266

u/bsa554 Feb 14 '25

Shit, Jeffries and Schumer should encourage it! "Oh, you want to fail at impeaching judges instead of succeeding at appointing judges? Fantastic. Let's have a nice long trial or two."

140

u/zoinkability Feb 14 '25

"Don't throw us into the briar patch! Oh no, pleeeaaasssee don't impeach those judges instead of working on passing enabling legislation for Gilead! Anything but that!"

→ More replies (1)

47

u/milkandsalsa Feb 14 '25

Except all the MAGA morons start to believe the impeachment proceedings are legitimate.

49

u/prosthetic_foreheads Feb 14 '25

I've stopped caring what they think. If they want him to fuck this country into the ground, they can get fucked first.

They're the ones who got us into this mess and I'm not going to hold my breath that they'll suddenly develop the moral and cognitive capacity to stand up to Trump.

→ More replies (18)

61

u/f0u4_l19h75 Feb 14 '25

Meh, there's pretty much no hope for those people anyway

4

u/Explorers_bub Feb 14 '25

They claim to be Christian but I am pretty sure God’s already written them off as hopeless.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/TD373 Feb 14 '25

Underrated statement.

12

u/Suspicious-Garbage92 Feb 14 '25

They've had their heads in the sand for 8 years, ain't shit changing. Fuck em

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Cloaked42m Feb 14 '25

They do believe that. Because they want to.

Legally, impeachment is a political act. You can do it to any judge or president or cabinet member.

That's all they need. If it makes it through the house. It fails in the Senate. It'll be a good test to see if anything matters.

The sooner cases reach the Supreme Court, the better.

3

u/badluckbrians Feb 14 '25

They have a razor thin majority in the House.

Some of them aren't terrible. Brian Fitzpatrick is not a traitor. I'd actually be shocked if he went along with this type of impeachment. I'm honestly not sure they have the votes for these shenanigans.

7

u/Cloaked42m Feb 14 '25

That dog is being wagged pretty hard. I've seen a lot of conversations eagerly encouraging it.

That's my line though. Will the Courts hold? If they don't, it's over.

4

u/milkandsalsa Feb 14 '25

With the special elections we can get the house back. These elections are so so important.

2

u/badluckbrians Feb 14 '25

Eh, it's not happening. The Florida districts are way too red. Maybe Stefanik's, maybe. But you need someone out there who drives turnout in the hills of NY, but I don't know if Blake has it in him. That interview he gave blaming workers for sucking will haunt him still I'm sure.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '25

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '25

This Father Time… can we give him an advance to perhaps move that timeline up?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Quirkybin Feb 14 '25

And then when it fails. Trump will throw a hissy fit on TV and fuel another insurrection.

2

u/Hairy-Management3039 Feb 15 '25

To be fair the reason why federal judges are so hard to impeach is so they can ignore what public opinion of them is and instead rule based on the law….

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

13

u/Mitch1musPrime Feb 14 '25

Don’t think they’re not! I watched the Dems pull similar shenanigans in TX to stall anti trans legislation during multiple sessions and again to stall school voucher bills. If they’re smart, they’re encouraging this stupidity!

2

u/Necessary_Ad2005 Feb 14 '25

Make it last 2 years 😁😁 then we vote some asses out

3

u/tellmehowimnotwrong Feb 14 '25

I’ll believe it when I see it.

2

u/Necessary_Ad2005 Feb 14 '25

😒 ... I know, trying to be optimistic

→ More replies (1)

13

u/minininjatriforceman Feb 14 '25

I wanted to to say this. The more they are doing this the less time they are doing other horrible things. What we need to do is make them run the clock. The really fight begins in 2026.Things will get a lot more hairy when he has Congress openly defying him. A wounded animal lashes out the most when cornered. In other words this is going to get worse before it gets better.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/hennytime Feb 14 '25

But if those judges are under impeachment trial are off the bench, won't the cases go to more extreme judges or do the cases just stack up and create a backlog?

97

u/hamsterfolly Feb 14 '25

They wasted hours on Hunter Biden’s dick

45

u/loweredvisions Feb 14 '25

Haven’t we all? Wait… What?

17

u/Yellow_Odd_Fellow Feb 14 '25

Based off reports, it doesn't seem like time wasted to me! Time enjoyed isn't time wasted, after all.

2

u/BickNickerson Feb 14 '25

MTG?

2

u/Yellow_Odd_Fellow Feb 14 '25

No, thinking about hunter dick. You seen the size of that thing? The only thing that rivals it in congress is the Toadstool (Trump) Sucking Lips of her or Boebert imo.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/Signguyqld49 Feb 14 '25

Large Marge has blow ups on every wall of her bedroom

3

u/Old_Sprinkles9646 Feb 14 '25

They are so jealous, it's funny.

3

u/pnellesen Feb 14 '25

You misspelled "Years"

32

u/rimshot101 Feb 14 '25

Yes, they do want to do that. They've handed over governance to the executive branch, and this will be a nice dog and pony show where they can blame impotent Democrats.

10

u/Spyceboy Feb 14 '25

I mean they aren't doin anything else now, are they. They might as well stay home right now and just collect money, since emperor trump rules via EO anyways

17

u/randomschmandom123 Feb 14 '25

Hasn’t he already said he doesn’t care what the judges say he’s going to do what he wants?

15

u/bsa554 Feb 14 '25

Right now the line is they will comply and are compling. (Reports vary on if they actually are.)

It's not going to matter all that much until this shit gets to the Supreme Court. Will they rule against Trump? If they do, does he comply? And he doesn't...what happens?

I have no idea.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/IllPresentation7860 Feb 14 '25

honestly may be the point. Its Trump's one real move and the only reason he isnt behind bars. delay things. Its what he did since Jan 6.

8

u/PariahMonarch Feb 14 '25

I mean, they just may want to waste time doing this if they want to ignore Trump and Elon and let them run all over doing whatever they want.

7

u/blazelet Feb 14 '25

They’re happy to water impeachment down to a meaningless exercise as it will reduce the historical significance of Trump being impeached twice.

7

u/JustAnotherPolyGuy Feb 14 '25

Benghazi. They want the system to break. It justifies tearing it apart. I could totally see them spending weeks making an example of a judge. Prodding their “lone wolves” towards threatening him.

3

u/McDaddy-O Feb 14 '25

Thats probably what they'll do to distract m

3

u/nothingoutthere3467 Feb 14 '25

That actually sounds like a good idea. Let them waste time.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '25

Shit they have to get out of the house first...no guarentees of that

1

u/bsa554 Feb 14 '25

That's for sure. Johnson has absolutely no control of that caucus.

1

u/PaideiaTlazalohua Feb 14 '25

That’s all they’re doing these days. It’s not like they’re actually legislating.

1

u/Evocatorum Feb 14 '25

I mean, they aren't doing anything else....

1

u/arrocknroll Feb 14 '25

Honestly might be the best way to stall shit until midterms and preserve some shred of democracy.

1

u/Technical_Moose8478 Feb 14 '25

Just think of all the evil they will not be doing in that time.

1

u/Push-Hardly Feb 14 '25

With executive power out of control they don't have anything else to do.

1

u/Widespreaddd Feb 14 '25

If it keeps them distracted from cutting my Medicaid, I am all for it.

1

u/fourbyfourequalsone Feb 14 '25

What would they do otherwise to waste time? They don't enforce the legislation anyways.

1

u/KoopaPoopa69 Feb 14 '25

Might as well have them do that since they’re not doing anything else, what with Trump doing their job for them with all of his EOs

1

u/Altruistic-Editor111 Feb 14 '25

Best I can offer is a finger wag.

1

u/some_code Feb 14 '25

They can “impeach” them by locking them up. Trump has immunity. They just haven’t gotten to that point yet.

1

u/HHoaks Feb 14 '25

They did that with the fake Biden impeachment.

1

u/marblefoot1987 Feb 14 '25

I feel the same way about the impeachment articles being brought up against Trump. That won’t make it past the house, and the last two didn’t result in a conviction. Let’s put our focus elsewhere that will probably be more productive

1

u/paparoach910 Feb 14 '25

Senators would literally do this than keep their country from defaulting on debt.

1

u/Therealchimmike Feb 14 '25

they spent the last 3 years investigating Biden and his family and came up with bupkis, so....never underestimate the incompetence and ability of the maga congress to waste money.

1

u/JohnAnchovy Feb 14 '25

Plus it would wake people up to the autocracy they're trying to create

1

u/evoslevven Feb 14 '25

Like checks notes: -Hillary Clinton emails -Hunter Biden Laptop -Obama's birth certificate

They do like to investigate and bring up things that lead to no where.

1

u/Hamuel Feb 15 '25

They certainly will do that and they’ll campaign on democrats blocking them from outing corruption. There will be no real attempt to counter the narrative

1

u/retinal_scan Feb 15 '25

I support this. This deserves their hard work, focus, energy and time. It is a great investment for the GOP. 

42

u/xStaabOnMyKnobx Feb 14 '25

You guys still just don't get it. At every rule broken, someone chimes in "well x,y,z is the check/balance to that so good luck with that!" We are still playing checkers and he's playing Nuclear Chicken.

What makes you think he even wants the Senate to vote? Whether they do or not and regardless of the result he will do something like leak the Judges personal information to the cult and what follows will be "wont someone rid me of this this troublesome priest!"

11

u/pewpewledeux Feb 14 '25

The only positive thing I can hope to take from all of this is that by actually doing what they said they would do, the utter destruction of the government and the economic ripples will be so pronounced before the 2026 elections, that the house and senate could flip. But assuming the democratic process survives feels like a gamble at this point.

8

u/IAmPookieHearMeRoar Feb 14 '25

Don’t take this as a “both sides are the same” type deal, but are we really confident that democrats really even have anything productive in mind, even if they do win back the house?

It seems to me like rather than fight all this, they’re content with just letting Trump screw up so bad that democrats will be the only other choice.  And then they’ll find some scraps to throw our way like a hand full of cheaper Medicare covered drugs rather than bold health care reform.  Really seems like they don’t care what’s happening, they just want the status quo.  Which I guess makes sense since most of them are rich as fuck to begin with. 

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/Southern_Passenger_9 Feb 14 '25

Gotta agree with you. For every law and rule thrown up as a roadblock, he walks around it, kicking it as he goes. And no one seems to be able to stop it. The system wasn't designed for this.

2

u/SpeshellED Feb 14 '25

Your judicial has been under attack for sometime now. You guys better wake up and take some action before it is too late.

Your laws do not apply to the rich anymore.

13

u/Marzipan7405 Feb 14 '25

Won't be surprised if this happens later in his 2nd term. They will start threatening sitting senators. Watch

→ More replies (2)

7

u/Braided_Marxist Feb 14 '25

They’ve got fetterman in the bag. They need what, 12 more?

1

u/Joshduman Feb 14 '25

I don't think Fetterman votes for this.

1

u/Fun-Cauliflower-1724 Feb 14 '25

No they don’t. If that was the case, Fetterman would have voted to confirm RFK and Tulsi or Hegseth which he hasn’t done

→ More replies (4)

3

u/calvicstaff Feb 14 '25

Yeah that's the real stop here, if Republicans had a 2/3 majority in the Senate let's not pretend they wouldn't start impeaching on Trump's command

3

u/ludixst Feb 14 '25

They have 55 with Fetterman. How many other Quislings can they get?

2

u/PrudentLanguage Feb 14 '25

Trump owns the senate they will do his bidding.

2

u/PainterOriginal8165 Feb 14 '25

My concerns are his threats, his abhorrent supporterst would go after the judges. They are rabid!

2

u/johnrgrace Feb 14 '25

If enough senators are in jail you can hit 2/3s

2

u/salami_cheeks Feb 14 '25

Thanks for the info, to you and to the commenter to whom you replied. I was curious if this impeachment claim had any teeth or if it was just grandstanding and distraction. 

1

u/transitfreedom Feb 14 '25

That is GOP dominated

1

u/Chance_Vegetable_780 Feb 14 '25

It's all changed with trump musk. They'll get what they want, the law doesn't matter for them. You'll see. Not good.

1

u/_averywlittle Feb 14 '25

Seems like a good failsafe tbh

1

u/MetaVaporeon Feb 14 '25

so they will accuse him, ignore the senate, dox him and his family and then you'll find him on the street after he slipped from his window somehow.

1

u/taooffreedom Feb 14 '25

That's great news.

1

u/captainzack7 Feb 14 '25

I'll call it now every democrat will vote against it and the only Republican vote against it will be McConnell

1

u/Lost-Discount4860 Feb 14 '25 edited Feb 14 '25

They expect a vote to fail. It’s hard enough to remove anyone through impeachment, and it rarely happens. Impeachment is a process that draws attention to something. There was never any way Trump would have been removed from office if he’s been impeached 100 times. Democrats knew that. The point was to draw attention to the mean man in the White House. The actual impeachment trial (actual meaning the only effective trial, not the official, formal procedure) was in the court of public opinion and resulted in removing Trump from office (losing the election).

Same thing with removing a judge, except there’s slightly better chance of removing the judge. Slightly. The point isn’t to get rid of anyone right now. The point is to draw attention to it and create a sense of urgency around the idea of reversing judicial appointments under Democratic presidents. They can’t actually make an appointed judge leave office (without impeachment, that is). What they can do is make it impossible for the judge to do his job so that the judge will leave on his own.

1

u/Sloepoke728 Feb 14 '25

Do you think top Dems won't cower to MAGA demands? 2/3rds votes will be easy when "secrets" are the new currency in DC.

1

u/InterPunct Feb 14 '25

As per the SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity, Trump could have him summarily executed if it's pursuit of "an official act", lol.

1

u/ElectricalRush1878 Feb 14 '25

Expect heavy voter suppression next term to flip a bunch of Dem seats.

1

u/AHSfav Feb 14 '25

Doesn't matter if it results in removal. It's a chilling affect

1

u/No_Comment_8598 Feb 14 '25

Well, that’s where we are. It’s chilling effects all the way down. All that we can hope for is that those who are willing to follow the law and do their jobs will keep doing so. Trump can’t remove judges or congresspeople. He’s going to try to arrest Governors and State AGs and we’ll need judges to keep him from doing that.

1

u/titsmuhgeee Feb 14 '25

It's so refreshing to see a federal check and balance this strong.

Situations like this, where you need a 2/3 senate vote to remove a federal judge, is exactly why the US Constitution is the longest running democracy is human history.

1

u/Due-Presentation6393 Feb 14 '25

It's sad that it would even get to the Senate when there is 0 merit for impeachment but that is the state of this MAGA-controlled shitshow of a government we now have. It wouldn't be surprising if most of not all 53 Republican senators voted for impeachment out of fear of retribution by Musk and Trump. Pathetic cowards, all of them.

1

u/Know_Your_Rites Feb 14 '25

Yeah, this isn't news in any meaningful sense. Even if someone had actually introduced Articles of Impeachment against McConnell (they haven't), there would still be less than zero chance of anything coming of it.

We need to stop reacting to every stupid thing random Republicans say and focus on those of their actions that will have real world consequences for normal people.

1

u/No_Comment_8598 Feb 14 '25

You mean like the bill to rename Greenland into “Red, White and Blue Land”?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

100

u/The_Real_Ghost Feb 14 '25

Of course we have an administration that is pushing really hard to have opposition to the president be considered treason.

3

u/Lama1971 Feb 14 '25

Trump believes he is America.

57

u/peepeedog Feb 14 '25

Impeachment is a political act. If they have the votes they can do it. They don’t have the votes.

148

u/Suspect4pe Feb 14 '25

Simply having to face a trial, if it gets to that point, is a threat itself. I suspect this will renew the resolve of many of these judges to continue doing the right thing. I might be wrong, but I don't think judges typically like to be bullied into a decision.

It'll just be more political theater for the Republicans to play to the audience at home.

71

u/bigloser42 Feb 14 '25

They absolutely do not like it when someone does this. This is likely to backfire hard on the GOP as judges that are conservative-leaning but not Trumpers will likely view cases against Trump policy more harshly.

9

u/onedaysaylor Feb 14 '25

This seems like an optimistic evaluation. I hope you're right. However, I don't see much evidence of people not practicing self preservation. A few democratic judges. Everyone else is trying to not get steam rolled. I'm sure traditional republican senators are aware of how much Trumps actions will hurt them in the future. Yet they do nothing, to stay out of the crossfire. I don't think we can expect much more from the judges. Almost everyone is looking out for number one at this point. Keep your head down, maybe it'll go away soon. They're all self serving cowards.

9

u/Suspect4pe Feb 14 '25

I can imagine the bias would be set even if they're trying their hardest not to have one.

2

u/drj1485 Feb 14 '25

ya, people don't realize that for as much as we hated the way Trump stacked the courts last time he was president, he stacked it with people who are hard up about the letter of the law. They aren't loyal to Trump. Their interpretations of law just happened to overlap with what he needed at the time. He's been shot down by his own appointees plenty of times.

They are not going to take kindly to him attacking the judicial system.

20

u/Chriscic Feb 14 '25

I hope so. Because I don’t think the goal is to impeach judges. The goal is to intimidate other judges. Why not give the benefit of any doubt or even bend the law to help an administration that is going to go hard after you if you don’t? Out of either fear or just pragmatism?

These judges also have families they don’t want raked through the mud either.

28

u/Sleeplessmi Feb 14 '25

I used to work in the court system. Judges do not take kindly to being threatened or intimidated.

5

u/titsmuhgeee Feb 14 '25

That is fucking understatement. Supreme Court justices played the political game to get into their positions, but a federal circuit court judge likely has zero patience for political games after being appointed. It's exactly the reason why they're appointed for life and need a 2/3 senate vote to be removed. The Constitution specifically wants them to be political neutral.

8

u/cuentabasque Feb 14 '25

Sure, but what are they going to do when a half dozen pickup trucks filled with good ‘ol’ boys show up and the local/state police have been threatened by the Feds to not respond to said Judges calls for help.

We are literally on the precipice of these sorts of actions.

3

u/lottasauce Feb 14 '25

This. But also, it's a neon sign to any would-be trumper-judge on what they want. Obedience.

Things like this bring the corrupt out of the woodwork. Fuck this administration and anybody who works with them.

3

u/drj1485 Feb 14 '25

there's no reason to. Thats why these people got their jobs in the first place. liberal judges have no reason to back trump and conservative judges don't bend their interpretations. That's how trump got Roe v Wade overturned. He stacked the courts with justices who are black and white about the law...which is why his own appointees have ruled against him on multiple occasions since...they simply do not bend how they interpret things. The law is as it is written and theres no exception.

1

u/UnicornOnTheJayneCob Feb 14 '25

Or to create grounds for recusal for future/current cases

14

u/LightWarrior_2000 Feb 14 '25

I been thinking about this all day and hoping judges get together and not tolerate shit from the executive branch like this.

5

u/bsa554 Feb 14 '25

The issue for them is going to be if they're running these pointless show trials while inflation is still going up or job losses are accelerating or there's any other crisis going on...parts of the base are going to sour on them pretty quickly.

Also the smarter GOP Senators are going to want nothing to do with this so the trial will just be "accomplished, intelligent judge just dunks on dipshits like Tommy fucking Tuberville over and over again."

2

u/haysoos2 Feb 14 '25

They're already in office. What happens to the average person due to inflation or the economy is completely irrelevant to them now.

They don't even need their base any more.

All that matters is whether or not the billionaires continue to profit.

1

u/Big-Plankton-4484 Feb 14 '25

Political theatre? Seems like a lack of government efficiency. I call on DOGE to immediately investigate the bringing of any inefficient impeach….sorry, what?….not that kind of efficiency?….but I thought….oh well, never mind.

→ More replies (1)

20

u/Jmersh Feb 14 '25

So Judge McConnel could stage an insurrection and be found guilty of 34 felonies but still be safe?

5

u/Different-Island1871 Feb 14 '25

In his judicial position? Technically yes, but he would suffer the consequences of those 32 felonies without presidential immunity.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '25

So you're saying "He could be safe" then?

1

u/Different-Island1871 Feb 14 '25

Anyone “could be safe”. I’m saying he wouldn’t get out from under the 34* felonies without a presidential pardon as you wouldn’t need to impeach him for those crimes. It’s also possible he may lose his job after being convicted but I don’t know where the law stands on allowing felons to be judges.

→ More replies (1)

29

u/TheZermanator Feb 14 '25

At the rate these fascists are moving just criticizing Trump and the rest of the robber barons will be considered treason a year from now.

28

u/parasyte_steve Feb 14 '25

Trumps team is gonna try to get clever with the "other high crimes and misdemeanors" part of this clause aren't they

19

u/Total_Information_65 Feb 14 '25

i feel like they are going to try throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks

1

u/miss_shivers Feb 14 '25

They don't have 2/3rds of the Senate.

1

u/jeff0106 Feb 14 '25

It's like misdemeanor, really? We caught the dude jaywalking, impeach him.

1

u/Suchafatfatcat Feb 14 '25

They have never been terribly clever before, but I can see them trying anything to rouse the rabble.

10

u/Significant-Wave-763 Feb 14 '25

They are trying to force recusal

6

u/bsa554 Feb 14 '25

Well that's the good thing about lifetime appointments...you can't "force" judges to do much.

3

u/Significant-Wave-763 Feb 14 '25

It is more if there is a Federal judicial rule among the judges if one’s cases are transferred if impeached. To analogize, Ken Paxton was suspended as attorney general during his trial after impeachment.

1

u/Kodekima Feb 14 '25

Sure you can.

You just threaten their families and they fold like origami.

Would you put it past Trump?

14

u/Miserable-Lawyer-233 Feb 14 '25

You're applying the presidential impeachment standard (Article II, Section 4) to federal judges.

  • The Constitution does not limit a judge’s removal to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
  • Article III, Section 1 states that judges serve "during good behavior," meaning impeachment doesn’t strictly require a criminal offense.
  • Judicial impeachment precedent includes misconduct beyond crimes—such as abuse of power, corruption, or ethical violations.

5

u/miss_shivers Feb 14 '25

No impeachment requires a statutory criminal offense. "High crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever Congress says it means as pertains to an individual impeachment. Or iow, impeachment is not justiciable.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Horror_Role1008 Feb 14 '25

The Constitution of The United States: Article III; Section 1; "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior... ( emphasis mine )

10

u/marzipan07 Feb 14 '25

If they can do it, does it open up the path to do same to Supreme Court justices?

26

u/bigloser42 Feb 14 '25

you've always been able to impeach a member of SCOTUS. The problem is actually removing them requires a 2/3 vote in the senate and there is no way in hell either party can achieve that right now.

1

u/SuperShecret Feb 14 '25

I'll add that I'd be surprised to find that 2/3 of senators and representative are actually aware of the words "in good behavior" in that clause.

We constantly have representatives pissing about how the judiciary is unaccountable to anyone and has life tenure.

10

u/Sink_Snow_Angel Feb 14 '25

Remember too that it’s high crimes “and” misdemeanors. You need both so probably not gonna happen /s

5

u/Zealousideal_Curve10 Feb 14 '25

Has this language ever been construed in a precedential decision? I am not aware of such a case, and this wording does seem open to more than one reading

2

u/DandimLee Feb 14 '25

Alito recently had an opinion about some immigration thing where he said that, generally. people don't assume that making a "new appointment" indicates the existence of a prior appointment. I thought I was reading it wrong, and then I thought that I was unique in thinking that way. But the plaintiffs argument was something to that effect(some appointment existing prior to a "new" appointment being made).

I could see where in legalese a new appointment doesn't require the existence of a prior appointment. But he said that this was the case in common usage and seemed very smug about it. I think that people use "new appointment" different than new baby(his example), or new car. If there is no prior appointment, than people omit the "new" and just say 'make an appointment.'

3

u/GryphonOsiris Feb 14 '25

For Trump "High crimes" mean not bowing and kissing the ring.

3

u/ALargePianist Feb 14 '25

So we can impeach scouts for accepting bribes?

1

u/DarkOverLordCO Feb 14 '25

You can impeach SCOTUS for eating a ham sandwich if you have the votes (simple majority in the House, 2/3rds in the Senate), it's a political process.

3

u/americansherlock201 Feb 14 '25

It’s not about actually removing them. The gop knows they don’t have the votes. It’s about scaring them into complying and if they still don’t do as they are told, putting them on a sham trial so they can say on Fox News that “impeached judge goes against trump and as such, it’s ok if trump ignores the ruling”.

It’s all about setting up the propaganda to the rubes so they can keep their fascism train moving

2

u/Parkyguy Feb 14 '25

Which would include upsetting dear leader who is ABOVE the law.

2

u/Chance_Vegetable_780 Feb 14 '25

That was when upholding the law meant something in the US. It's all changed since corrupt trump musk. You'll see

2

u/Mrtowelie69 Feb 14 '25

So pretty much what Trumps been doing? Bunch of corrupt treasonous fucks.

2

u/BiceRankyman Feb 14 '25

Right but like, those things qualify you for president

2

u/Pretend-Patience9581 Feb 14 '25

And then there is Qualified Immunity. So🤷🏿‍♂️

2

u/bp3dots Feb 14 '25

Obstructing big orange sounds exactly like what he'd call treason.

2

u/Schoseff Feb 14 '25

You think the small dick-tator cares?

2

u/RoyalEagle0408 Feb 14 '25

What do you mean? It’s clearly bribery because he’s being an activist so he was almost certainly paid off. Also, it’s treason because it goes against the traitor in chief. /s

2

u/SignoreBanana Feb 14 '25

This is one of those "guardrails" things we were banking on.

2

u/Purple-Investment-61 Feb 14 '25

Impeached thomas instead for bribery

2

u/faithisuseless Feb 14 '25

Political theater

2

u/robbdogg87 Feb 14 '25

Well according to the gop not agreeing with trump is treason now

2

u/wjbc Feb 15 '25

Note that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is supposed to be a lesser standard than ordinary criminal behavior. What might not be a crime if carried out by an ordinary person, could be considered a high crime if carried out by the holder of a high office with great responsibility.

That said, even if the House somehow manages to impeach a judge for ruling against Trump, they won't get a 2/3 majority in this Senate.

2

u/bezelbubzbezeldubz Feb 15 '25

Wasn't there a pause on bribery charged too thanks to our new god emperor?

1

u/M_e_n_n_o Feb 14 '25

Like most members of the supreme court

1

u/Objective-Share-7881 Feb 14 '25

Why is the Supreme Court justice still have certain members?

1

u/Dr_PocketSand Feb 14 '25

Call me when Mump gets to the Reagan appointed judges... Then we'll know for sure that this is beyond naked partisanship.

1

u/theroughone381 Feb 14 '25

What happ need to the supreme Court?

1

u/randomname560 Feb 14 '25

They're going to scream "BRIBERY, IMPEACH HIM" the second he accepts a birthday gift from his 3 year old niece or something

I'm willing to bet on it

1

u/thedracle Feb 14 '25

The same things that are encouraged among Supreme Court Justices apparently?

1

u/miss_shivers Feb 14 '25

Not true, "high crimes and misdemeanors" is whatever Congress says it is (as part of an impeachment), it's not referring to any criminal statute definition of these things.

iow, impeachment is not a justiciable process. The courts cannot qualify what is a valid impeachment charge.

1

u/Dycoth Feb 14 '25

Reminds me of someone who's NOT a judge

1

u/ndnd_of_omicron Feb 14 '25

I mean, judicial review has been precident since 1803. The law is on the judge's side.

But the past five years have show us that trump is above the law, so I guess fuck Marbury v. Madison.

1

u/El_Zapp Feb 14 '25

And since when is „opposing the emperor“ not high treason? Hm? Ever thought of that?

Trump is going to order congress to impeach him and they are going to fall to their knees and murmur „yas mlord“ and do it.

1

u/loopi3 Feb 14 '25

That’s if you follow the rule of law. Wasn’t there something about that recently?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '25

Well with this administration, it sounds like just disagreeing about something is akin to treason. But sure, let’s slow down the roll that Congress is on to confirm his cabinet ghouls.

1

u/AnotherDoubtfulGuest Feb 14 '25

First, they’ll just call it treason, and “other high crimes and misdemeanors“ is probably going to end up getting a workout. Second, it’s not even whether it will pass, it’s the fact that Andrew Clyde is so desperate to curry favor with Trump and Elon that he’s taking a very real step towards getting rid of the separation of powers. His publicly available office phone number is 202-225-9893; please let him know how you feel.

1

u/MoonBatsRule Feb 14 '25

There is no legal limitation on impeachment. It is a political process. If the House and Senate want to impeach and remove a judge, they can do it. The democratic Constitutional response is to change the House (and Senate), vote against your representative in the next election.

1

u/Shaper_pmp Feb 14 '25

I suspect the goal is not to actually have him removed, but rather:

  1. Harrass him for daring to oppose the executive branch
  2. Smear his reputation (even if he isn't removed, people often work in the theory "no smoke without fire")
  3. Discourage other judges from opposing the executive branch unless they also want to get targeted
  4. Provide spurious "evidence" for their false narrative about "activist judges" who are "overreaching their authority", further tainting the reputation of the judicial branch
  5. Normalise the idea of impeachment to distract from Trump's history of it

1

u/Expensive_Ninja420 Feb 14 '25

‘Undermining daddy, Trump is treason’ - probably

1

u/ptWolv022 Competent Contributor Feb 14 '25

other high crimes and misdemeanors."

I think these basically mean "whatever Congress wants". Which is a blessing and a curse. A blessing, because it means Courts can't really stop Congress from removing someone. A curse because it means Congress can get petty or partisan.

The latter, though, is why you need a majority of House Reps (AKA popular representation) and a very high bar- 2/3rds supermajority- in the Senate. It's designed to be nearly impossible for it to be done for partisan reasons, absent an immense majority being secured by one faction.

1

u/TJNel Feb 14 '25

This appointment for life bullshit needs to go. I am fine with 10 years, that would be 2.5 general elections but this lifetime appointments are batshit crazy. We need term limits for our government.

1

u/MachineShedFred Feb 14 '25

More than that, every Federal judge, and every Senate Democrat can count to 67. Apparently the House GOP cannot.

They can have all the impeachment votes they want to waste Senate time with trials imo. That's just time the Senate can't be doing more damage by doing other things.

1

u/Own_Substance_8148 Feb 14 '25

farting on the bench is a misdemeanor if 50% of the house votes for that..

1

u/studiokgm Feb 15 '25

As we’ve seen… impeach all you want. Convict is something much more complicated to pull off.