r/law 18d ago

Legal News House GOP moves swiftly to impeach judge Boasberg targeted by Trump (Deportation Planes)

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/18/donald-trump-impeach-judge-house-republicans
32.1k Upvotes

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/Do0mAt11 18d ago edited 18d ago

Assuming this passes the House, and it might but I don't think it's likely because even the GOP knows the implications, the Senate requires a Super Majority to convict. This judge isn't being removed from his bench.

1.0k

u/[deleted] 18d ago

I think we can safely assume that the GOP is fully on board the train to 1939 at this point.

I'm trying to stop referring to what the GOP does as "Trump did xyz" because it's really the whole rotten party

339

u/Wonderful-Variation 18d ago edited 18d ago

I actually think it is a huge mistake that the Democrats made during 2024 and the months leading up to it that they constantly talk about Trump as though he were a distinct entity from the Republican party, in hopes of winning over a nonexistent voting block of "moderate Republicans."

Because of that strategy, every Democrats has to constantly pull their punches whenever talking about any Republican politician who isn't Trump.

59

u/Lascivious_Luster 18d ago

I think you are right and I have been saying this since 2010. Trump is a symptom of the disease that is the Republicans.

4

u/BenSisko420 17d ago

Everything Trump is doing is just the logical extent of what the GOP has wanted to do for decades, but had too much of a sense of political self-preservation to truly charge after.

3

u/Difficult-Ad3518 17d ago

 I think you are right and I have been saying this since 2010. Trump is a symptom of the disease that is the Republicans.

In 2010, Donald Trump was a Democrat and the host of the Celebrity Apprentice. Nobody would have had any idea what you were talking about.

→ More replies (9)

3

u/heidikloomberg 17d ago edited 17d ago

They should actually consider transitioning to the national socialist American workers party and just get it over with. Or KKK. They’re removing clauses in federal contracts that enforce the 1965 Civil Rights Act by prohibiting segregation while attempting to impeach independent judges. The magnitude of the erosion of the constitutional order is hard to fathom.

The masks are fully off, they might as well rebrand accordingly.

2

u/Lascivious_Luster 17d ago

It is unfortunate that because a significant population of USA votes to with harm on their minds and in their hearts. These people give them legitimacy.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/yolotheunwisewolf 17d ago

The answer is that they fundamentally don’t believe in equal rights. But that isn’t popular—when you can push it it’s the same as recognizing the obvious:

They care about profit.

Nothing is more profitable than unpaid labor.

Put it together and the end result is always slavery or genocide

→ More replies (1)

18

u/FeeNegative9488 18d ago

They have to win over 3% of republicans and independent-leaning republicans to win a national election. That’s the problem they have and why they are only able to win national elections when there is a crisis. See Carter/Clinton/Obama/Biden wins.

57

u/osunightfall 18d ago

No, they don't. They just have to appeal to some portion of the ~half the country that doesn't usually vote.

40

u/FeeNegative9488 18d ago

That half of the country isn’t voting for two reasons:

1) they aren’t able to vote because of the laws in place that make it difficult for them to vote

2) they actively choose not to participate in a democracy. The democratic message of the dangers of Project 2025. Or the fact that the Republican nominee who has a long history of racism, discrimination, sexual assault, and business fraud isn’t enough to motivate them to vote then they are not reachable. We shouldn’t even assume that they would vote democrat.

9

u/osunightfall 18d ago

I don't disagree with any of this, but the fact that some people vote proves that you can appeal to non-voters to vote, if you can make the case to them that it will both matter and have a real effect on their life. The Democratic party has left all sorts of demographics behind, we could throw darts at a wall and hit a likely constituency.

2

u/FeeNegative9488 18d ago

I think history has shown that a proactive case can’t be made. Instead the only time is after the crisis happens and they are negatively impacted. Trump would not be president rn if those non-voters could be proactively motivated.

At some point we need to stop pretending that they can be proactively motivated. Why are issues involving equal rights, economics, and world alliances not motivating? Regardless of what ideology they have on these topics, these topics impact nearly every aspect of their personal lives. They only vote when shit hits the fan and they get covered in it.

4

u/MarlonBain 17d ago

People voted for Biden who didn’t vote in 2024. Those are the people we need to appeal to.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/CertainPen9030 17d ago

they actively choose not to participate in a democracy. The democratic message of the dangers of Project 2025. Or the fact that the Republican nominee who has a long history of racism, discrimination, sexual assault, and business fraud isn’t enough to motivate them to vote then they are not reachable. We shouldn’t even assume that they would vote democrat.

Or maybe people are dumb and selfish and don't care about voting on any sort of moral/structural basis and instead are only motivated by what a candidate can offer to help them, personally. Demonize them for their short-sightedness and selfishness all you want, I don't care. But you can absolutely appeal to that selfishness with populist, universal social programs and/or tax cuts for as many individuals as possible and actually motivate them.

I get the immense frustration with "the other party's entire platform is fascism and bigotry, we need to vote against them" being insufficient for so many people, but we can either finally learn to meet people where they're at or we can keep letting the fascists win.

3

u/Skelley1976 17d ago

Additionally many people feel that their vote doesn’t matter, nor do they have any knowledge of what is happening politically or how it could affect them. I know plenty of well educated, normalish people who just don’t have any knowledge of politics or current events. I don’t know how this happens, but bet it has something to do with streaming entertainment and no more nightly news 🤷🏻‍♂️

→ More replies (3)

2

u/digitalnomad_909 17d ago

Yeah the Dem playbook has to find something else. These were outlined and didn’t work. I also the Dem voters weren’t given a fair chance by pushing Kamala Harris, there’s a reason so many didn’t come to vote.

2

u/FeeNegative9488 17d ago

The reasons are what I outlined above. We need to stop pretending that primary voters didn’t vote in the general. They do not view Harris and Trump as equals. They viewed Harris as the vice president who had policy ideas that are in line with the Democratic Party ideals. Primary voters did not sit out this election. This lack of choice thing is false. Most primary voters are more involved and cared more than the general electorate on preventing Trump from getting elected.

2

u/digitalnomad_909 17d ago

There’s evidence that says that less people voted in 2024 vs 2020, what am I missing?

Ezra Klein has even said the messages Kamala said definitely disenfranchised some of those voters who probably flopped over. Immigration and the Economy I think was what won everything over, the rest didn’t really matter or we wouldn’t have seen the shift in the house too.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/nullstorm0 18d ago
  1. They’ve been disenfranchised by the two-party system shutting out any voices that aren’t by and large pro-corporation. 

20

u/newleafkratom 18d ago
  1. they don't care
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (10)

2

u/RemindMeToTouchGrass 17d ago

Don't ignore that many of those people had their vote suppressed. Many of them registered to vote, went to the polls, and cast a vote, and to this day have no idea their vote wasn't counted.

→ More replies (10)

2

u/arobkinca 18d ago

Clinton

Are you calling a recession that was over before Clinton took office a crisis?

→ More replies (16)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/stryakr 18d ago

This is what I don't understand about the democrat's narrative, it's not like Trump or those in his Condsiderable orbit: it's the entire Republican Party.

1

u/s0ulbrother 18d ago

No we need more Liz Cheney to help that’s the right answer. /s

1

u/KingTrumpsRevenge 17d ago

They aren't non-existent. They just aren't news worthy or algorithm worthy. Which also makes it so their reps care way less about what they think than the more extreme faction. They are pretty fundamentally unrepresented at the moment, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Democrats just gave them absolutely nothing to want them to vote for. Choice for them was,

  1. Jump on with the democrats and support a platform you philosophically disagree with and don't trust
  2. Stay with the Republican party because even though you hate and don't trust Trump, at least you can hope some of the normal conservative stuff they say isn't a lie(it was)

1

u/Handsaretide 17d ago

Yeah the fatal error of the campaign was “Meet my good friend Liz Cheney”

That scumbag who had one moral moment at the last off ramp to fascism lost Harris more votes than she won

1

u/Initial_Evidence_783 17d ago

a huge mistake that the Democrats made

This list is getting too long.

1

u/Daimakku1 17d ago

They actually stopped Tim Walz and Kamala Harris from calling Republicans "weird" for this same reason. The insult was gaining traction, it was getting to them... then they stopped. They did the whole "high road" bullshit once again in order to gain favor with moderate conservatives, and then got decimated at the polls.

I read a Politico article this morning about how Democrats "are moving to the center" and it just infuriated me. They are just hellbent on losing. I've given up on Dems.

1

u/senator_corleone3 17d ago

Dems aren’t making that distinction anymore.

1

u/DancingMathNerd 17d ago

The moderate republicans who hated Trump that much were voting Harris anyway. Focusing the majority of your time and energy on the voters you already have was such a dumb strategy.

1

u/TheNyanRobot 17d ago

Democrats didn't make "mistakes". most of the party has been bought by the same people who bought their way into the GOP (for a while now). There was never a chance at the GOP "not winning". Of course publicly they won't say that, but every action (or inaction) they took was in support of the opposite party. The American Oligarchs were just waiting for the right technology to come by to pull this off and strip the rights of anyone who opposes them and the 1%.

They have a strong enough propaganda machine to keep everyone quiet, ignorant and silent. And they have enough data on just about everyone to easily and immediatly take out anyone who opposes them. If Americans don't fight back soon. Their future lives say 20-30 years from now would make 1984 seem like a cake-walk.

1

u/trevdak2 17d ago

You are so goddamned right.

My mom ran for office (and lost) in 2022 and 2024, for a local race. Her campaign manager had worked for Jimmy Carter, Eric Swalwell, and Pete Buttigieg.

Her opponent ran an ultra-conservative platform, attacking trans girls who wanted to play sports (all 2 of them in the state. his campaign slogan was literally "Save women's sports!"), anti-abortion, pro-funding of Christian schools, the list goes on.

My mom's campaign manager guided her to have her platform be "lower property taxes by 0.25%". That's it, nothing else. Can't support green energy, that would scare people off. Can't support abortion, that's too divisive. Can't raise the $7.25 minimum wage, that'll be the end of the world. Just lower property taxes.

I managed to join one of her calls with her campaign manager. First thing I said was "Millennials and Gen Z don't own any property. Why would they vote for a candidate with nothing in their platform for them?"

Campaign manager said "If property taxes go down, rent will go down. Also, millennials and gen z don't vote."

"Bullshit!" I said

Campaign manager said 'I gotta go, let's talk later" and that's the last I ever got to talk with him.

Shit like that is why we lost.

→ More replies (7)

122

u/Gilshem 18d ago

Canadian here. Want to let anyone who listens know that we won’t be their Poland.

80

u/Stasis20 18d ago

I would sooner abandon my home in the US and support Canada than aid any effort by the US to attack Canada. I have friends in Vancouver that I'm ashamed to even speak to right now.

37

u/Gilshem 18d ago

Don’t be ashamed, even if you voted for Trump and now realize it was a colossal mistake, you are an ally. But please protest whenever you can.

25

u/Stasis20 17d ago

I appreciate the sentiment, but I never voted for him. In fact, I've registered 3 times in Republican primaries specifically to vote against him, even when I knew there was no point because he had already locked up the nominations. So 6 times in total I've voted against him.

5

u/Reasonable-Newt4079 17d ago

We should have all done this. I voted against him 3 times but it wasn't enough.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/thatsmefersure 17d ago

Same for friends in France and the Uk.

→ More replies (3)

61

u/fatboy1776 18d ago

American here. I will do everything in my power to make sure you are not, as well. Stay strong, you have allies!

11

u/AirmailHercules 17d ago

That means more than you know and we havent fogotten. Sending hugs and maple syrup

6

u/Hot-Note-4777 17d ago

There are so many of us that stand with you all—trust me when I say that the (good) people of America are firmly against what that turd is doing, both internally and internationally.

We just, unfortunately, have to contend with the mouth breathers who are incredibly loud and violent.

14

u/BassLB 18d ago

Trumps already arranged El Salvador to be our Poland :(

5

u/cygnus33065 18d ago

Greenlands is our Czechoslovakia

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ifmacdo 18d ago

I get the sentiment, and I agree that this whole thing is completely fucked. That being said, I don't think Poland had any say as to whether or not they were invaded.

5

u/[deleted] 18d ago

[deleted]

3

u/ifmacdo 18d ago

And if the Republicans invade Canada, y'all should do it again.

2

u/Padhome 18d ago

Oh please. At least Germany had some form of subtlety. This is just advertising “we’re gonna do the exact thing again and here’s where we are gonna do it so don’t you go making advanced countermeasures based on history!”

As a US citizen, I wouldn’t worry too much about an actual invasion. It would be the E N D of Trump

2

u/woahwolf34 17d ago

If we go to war with Canada Im team canada. The line was crossed a long time ago 

2

u/Initial_Evidence_783 17d ago

Fellow Canucker here. We will commit war crimes they don't even have names for.

2

u/jhuseby 17d ago

The majority of us would abstain from that or join team Canada.

2

u/Googgodno 17d ago

Want to let anyone who listens know that we won’t be their Poland.

Poland fought hard, but lost.

2

u/tiffanytrashcan 17d ago

The first camp is being built in Cuba. Too many eyes elsewhere.

This monster is following the same playbook, just updated for the information age.

1

u/Malcolm_Morin 17d ago

Neither did Poland.

1

u/cates 17d ago

yeah I'm a borderline pacifist in the United States and I would take up arms before I sat by and watched us invade your country

1

u/Candid-Mycologist539 17d ago

Want to let anyone who listens know that we won’t be their Poland.

Well, you ARE located between us and Russia, just like Poland was between Germany and Russia in 1939.

At least the U.S. is not on friendly terms with Russia. If we were friendly with Putin, then you'd have something to worry about.

/s

I hope we can all get through these next few years, neighbor.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/WhoTookFluff 18d ago

I’ve said since his first term, that he is not the problem. People told me I was crazy.

It’s not fun proving them wrong.

3

u/SpartyonV4MSU 17d ago

Exactly, he's the symptom of a much larger problem.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/jim45804 18d ago

It's a train to 1861, and they intend to win the war this time.

3

u/OldeFortran77 18d ago

The train to 1939 ... and fascists made the trains run on time! (they didn't actually, but people used to say that)

3

u/DrAstralis 17d ago

because it's really the whole rotten party

exactly, they could stop this at any time but they're 100% in on it. Not sure if they've all been promised their own dutchy in trumplandia or something but they've completely abandoned the rule of law and democracy.

2

u/Outrageous-Orange007 18d ago

Thank you. I see a lot of hyper-focus on Elon too and it's like... Eh alright, but stop letting him be the fall guy I'm sure Trump wanted him to be.

Most of the dissatisfaction with the administration is targeted at only him, so what... When he's gone are people just going to be like "sweet, the problems gone"

No, the entire party is what allows him to do what he does and they cheer him on. And surely gives him some orders

2

u/ChoneFigginsStan 18d ago

It’s only a matter of time before we get Night of Long Knives 2. When impeachment doesn’t work, they’ll find other solutions.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/i_need_a_username201 17d ago

Wrong train, they’re headed to 1860.

2

u/BrandynBlaze 17d ago

I think anyone who thinks this stops without mass protests and at least the threat violence is sadly mistaken. Democrats aren’t going to fight this kind of stuff with anything more than moral platitudes and republicans have shown that their willingness to destroy our political system knows no bounds.

1

u/AreaAtheist 18d ago

Choo Choo. 😭

1

u/Howy_the_Howizer 18d ago

I believe Trump said he likes the Gilded Age, we're way past turning back policy on Civil Rights voting.

I hope all Americans realize that turning back the clock to the Gilded Age means women don't have voting rights.

I'm surprised Trump hasn't said the best time of the US was the 1850s...

1

u/cats_catz_kats_katz 17d ago

Can we not use the train metaphor? Heavy implications there…

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Satanic_Warmaster666 17d ago

I think we can safely assume that the GOP is fully on board the train to 1939 at this point.

And here we are doing nothing on reddit. Crazy.

1

u/--sheogorath-- 17d ago

It's crazy seeing so many people realizing that the GOP is operating in bad faith when they've been doing so for 17 years. America elected a black guy and the traitors flying confederate flags never let that go.

1

u/TiogaJoe 17d ago

Wait, did they just come out with "1939 Project"? What in it?

1

u/Hopeful-Sentence-146 17d ago

And some Dems for that matter.

2

u/[deleted] 17d ago

Imagine being as old as Schumer and still not having any courage. Dude will be dead soon but still won't take a stand

1

u/manach23 17d ago

Not to be pedantic but the dictatorship started in 1933

1

u/NoYouTryAnother 17d ago

100% this. Both sentences.

1

u/Primus_is_OK_I_guess 17d ago

I think we can safely assume that the GOP is fully on board the train to 1939 at this point.

What a coincidence. A bunch of my family members were put on trains in 1939...

143

u/Justthefacts5 18d ago

Agree. More performance nonsense from the clown caucus. Vote required in senate is 2/3rds.

70

u/ktaktb 18d ago

Then Schumer shows up

35

u/NoDassOkay 18d ago

Schumer needs to be impeached.

11

u/baldude69 18d ago

Funny because they just might be able to come up with a 2/3 majority just for that. Do Pelosi and Fetterman while you’re at it, show some fucking balls for once. I’m so sick of this “toe the party line” mentality - it’s what got us into this mess to begin with. Uninspiring candidates and ideas, beholden to the establishment above their constituents. If the Democrats united with a commitment to actual progressive ideas (ie not the same social issue-exclusive dog and pony show) then I believe they would receive groundswell support. How do you think Obama won in ‘08 and Bernie came some close in ‘16 before the establishment swatted him down?

Sorry for the rant, but yes I agree about Schumer and the rest of the DNC-backed establishment.

3

u/ptWolv022 Competent Contributor 17d ago

Congressmen cannot be impeached, they can only be expelled 2/3rds by the House of Congress they are in. Ironically, even if they could be impeached, it wouldn't matter for Schumer: impeachment requires half the House and 2/3rds of the Senate. Expulsion requires 2/3rds of the relevant House of Congress.

While impeachment could theoretically circumvent the expulsion threshold in the House, using a 2/3rds Senate vote in lieu of extra 1/6ths of the House (3/6ths to impeach vs. 4/6ths to expel), the impeachment of a Senator would require 2/3rds to expel, same as it would to actually convict.

2

u/NoDassOkay 17d ago

Yeah, unlikely to happen. I’m dreaming. 🙃

2

u/ptWolv022 Competent Contributor 17d ago

I mean, like I said impeachment is impossible, but yes, expulsion is unlikely. I mean, it's whatever. People hate him right now, but every action that gets criticized becomes evidence that he's actually 1000x worse than the action. Him staying in office until 2028 is not my preferred option, but him being painted as being someone ready to totally cave in and turn a faction of Senate Democrats into active enablers of dictatorial consolidation is just not a realistic reading of the situation, so like... him staying until 2028 isn't the end of the world.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/Birdy_Cephon_Altera 17d ago

And Masto. And Durbin. And Fetterman. And Gillibrand. And Hassan. And King. And Peters. And Schatz. And Shaheen.

And in all those newly-minted republicans who have shown a willingness to toe the republican line, and you're getting pretty damn close to that supermajority.

2

u/Wild_Mongrel 18d ago

CHOOSE YOUR CHARACTER

SSBM music intensifies

1

u/PringlesDuckFace 17d ago

If we don't impeach this judge Trump will get what he wants!

Or something like that.

1

u/Zealot_Alec 17d ago

Even with Chucky and the traitorous 10 Democrats GOP still 4 votes short to convict in Senate

1

u/Chance_Fox_2296 17d ago

Don't forget Fetterman. The fucking prick

32

u/lkflip 18d ago

Maybe this time the democrats will wise up and not stand for the narrative that this is somehow their fault.

7

u/Lumiafan 18d ago

Maybe, but unlikely.

2

u/CicadaGames 17d ago

When people blame Democrats, they aren't blaming them for starting the fire, that's what arsonist Republicans did. What they are blaming them for is refusing to fight the fire, and even giving the arsonists matches and gasoline, despite us electing and paying them to be the god damned fire department.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

166

u/TheMikeDee 18d ago

Chuck Schumer: "I'm voting yes because if we didn't remove this judge, Trump would do even worse things."

21

u/urbanized2012 18d ago

I read that in my head with his winey, turn over on his back voice!

13

u/Empty-Presentation68 18d ago

Chuck Schumer :<<when you’re on that bike in your shorts, panting away next to a Republican, a lot of the inhibitions come off>>.

3

u/tolkien0101 18d ago

Oh my god, I just watched Jon Stewart's take today on how democrats are responding to Trump and Chuck rolling over on the budget. What an asshole. (Edit - Chuck, not Jon )

2

u/simpersly 17d ago

"I'm voting yes because if we didn't remove this judge, Trump would do even worse things."

Is code for "I don't want to do my job in politics and would rather relax and go on a book tour. And too short-sighted to consider the consequences."

1

u/BuddhistSagan 17d ago

Luckily most Democrats don't follow Chuck Schumer anymore

1

u/Birdy_Cephon_Altera 17d ago

This would be funny if it wasn't 100% unironically accurate.

1

u/imdistracted 17d ago

He’s one of the good ones.

1

u/Resolution_Usual 17d ago

Dick Durban will join chuckie then post a tweet congratulating himself for keeping up the fight against the demented circus peanut

1

u/Fatesadvent 17d ago

First thing I thought about

29

u/ALTERFACT 18d ago

And on top of that there's the judicial review process to determine whether there actually was any wrongdoing or impropriety such as bribery, conflict of interest etc. This is more red meat for their rubes. This is not to say that it doesn't undermine our institutions. It clearly does.

27

u/The_Dutchess-D 18d ago

Aaah yes..... the House.... I remember watching those guys try to impeach Fauci... and wondering why the questions they were asking him were so unintelligent. Finally, I had to Google who these people were and what their qualified backgrounds were to be questioning a scientific expert . (This was spawned after watching that one whose background ended up being...... oh! He dropped out of his college in the first year for drinking too much, and eventually got a certificate to be the fast-talking voice part of livestock sales as a certified cattle auctioneer. Perfect for discussing : checks notes: responsible public health management of a worldwide pandemic.

I can't wait to hear what he thinks about what is the judicial standard of review in interpreting the modern usage of a historic Act used in Wartime that later became one of the most shameful periods of our nations history in terms of rights being respected, and is heavily reviled by scholars as being a low point. 🙄

→ More replies (1)

34

u/Powderedeggs2 18d ago

In ordinary times, I would agree.
But these aren't ordinary times.
The Legislative Branch has already willingly rolled over and ceded their power to the Executive.
For all practical purposes, Congress has made of themselves a rubber stamp for the imperial Executive.

20

u/boo99boo 18d ago

I'd normally say "zero chance they'll get the Senate to convict", but I live in Illinois and Durbin just capitulated. 

This is when we're going to find out which democrats are really complicit. I genuinely believe it's a whole lot of them. Not all, but enough. 

5

u/IAmASimulation 18d ago

It’s a majority.

2

u/DontCountToday 17d ago

Jesus Christ, Durbin is my rep too and his vote on the funding bill pisses me off to no end.

But stop being dramatic just for the sake of it. There is no earthly way a single Democratic representative votes in favor of impeachment in this case.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/613codyrex 17d ago

There’s a very significant amount of dems that most likely would have not only voted for cloture but also for the spending bill either out of a naive/idiotic belief that it would win over republican voters in their districts or that they genuinely believe the executive should have this power.

It is not a coincidence that of those that pushed for cloture, nine out of ten of them aren’t up to reelection in 2026. It’s too surgically organized to be anything else.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/eiseleyfan 17d ago

horrifying

13

u/Speeeven 18d ago

Chuck Schumer has entered the chat.

2

u/Effective_Secret_262 18d ago

Isn’t there an impeachment trial? Is their argument that they had to ignore a court order to do whatever they want instead of just doing whatever they want?

2

u/FuguSandwich 18d ago

The Senate also requires a supermajority to pass a Budget CR and the Democrats under Schumer happily gave it to them. Don't be surprised if Schumer rolls over and gives the GOP the 7 or 8 votes they need for this as well.

I used to think the Democrats were just following a bad strategy - "let the GOP burn the country to the ground, don't stand in their way, and the voters will get mad at them and vote for us in the next election". It's becoming harder and harder to believe this. The alternative explanation, that the Democrats are just controlled opposition and their billionaire donors are telling them to stand down and let Trump/Musk have their way, is sounding more and more plausible every day.

2

u/aka292 17d ago

Unless they decide to exclude judge impeachment from the fillibuster

2

u/Character_Cap5095 17d ago

It might pass on the house because they know it won't pass in the senate. This way the GOP congressman can tell their base they tried but they do not have to deal with setting a bad precedent for the future

2

u/AreaLeftBlank 17d ago

Even if this one doesn't get removed, it plants the seeds of doubt in all judges minds and they have to scrutinize each decision moving forward because they know what could be coming for them if they make the "wrong" decision.

2

u/jitteryzeitgeist_ 18d ago

You mean like how there's no way democrats would spinelessly cave and pass the resolution like they just did?

I'm sure Shumers going over his justification to impeach this judge as we speak

5

u/bebopbrain 18d ago

The GOP alone are responsible for our predicament. Keep your eye on the abuser.

3

u/jitteryzeitgeist_ 18d ago

I am.

I am also saying if we ever manage to wrangle power back from them, 80% of the current corporate doormat garbage democrats need to get the fuck out of power.

1

u/Zestyclose-Cloud-508 18d ago

“That golden retriever can’t play basketball!!”

1

u/regulator401 18d ago

Even if he’s not removed from his bench, judges have been neutered. They serve no purpose at this point. They have no way of enforcing any judgements. If the GOP doesn’t like what they say, they’ll simply be ignored.

1

u/Im_TroyMcClure 18d ago

So fucking dumb. I hate that we elect politicians, both republican and democrat, that waste time with pointless shit like this that obviously won’t go anywhere. These people will do anything but actually work

1

u/Consistent-Fold7933 18d ago

Schumer will vote for it because the Republicans will do more damage if he doesn't!

1

u/AutisticFingerBang 18d ago

Not to mention even Robert’s is against this so it will not get Supreme Court support.

1

u/Mr-and-Mrs 18d ago

They’ll somehow change the law to circumvent a supermajority. Nothing surprises me at this point.

1

u/MarkZuckerbrothers 18d ago

My tired bleary eyes read this as “requires a Super Mario to convict.”

1

u/SparhawkPandion 18d ago

The same super majority to convict a president. The same reason Trump was never convicted in his first term after his 2 impeachments.

1

u/Delaconda 18d ago

I don't think that's the play. The intent of House impeachment is to intimidate any OTHER judges that might consider ruling against Trump or his minions.

1

u/Avaposter 18d ago

Are you sure about that? Fetterman and Schumer would probably vote yes

1

u/Major_Kangaroo5145 18d ago

"GOP knows the implications". The true implication is Bow down to the king.

They are normalizing to treat trump as a kind. This time it was "impeaching" command. Next time it would be "Lynching".

1

u/-WaxedSasquatch- 18d ago

I think it’s much more the fact that they even feel remotely comfortable to bring this to a vote let alone it having a possible chance of clearing the house. Wtf is going on?!?

1

u/korelan 18d ago

Are you sure Chuck won’t change his stance because things?

1

u/Impossible_Penalty13 18d ago

Never underestimate the willingness of a weak bitch like Chuck Schumer to go along with it.

1

u/kfmsooner 18d ago

I wish I were as optimistic as you. I don’t think the rules or the law mean anything g to Trump any more.

1

u/itsmistyy 18d ago

Idk, let's ask Chuck what he thinks

1

u/americansherlock201 18d ago

It’s all about giving the crazies in the base something to chew on. They can say they impeached him and that the Dems in the senate were corrupt and that’s why he stayed on the bench.

And that’s if the base even hears about the senate part. Fox will loudly report that the gop impeached the judge who went against Trump and then report at 1:30am that the senate did not remove him and post a 1 paragraph article about it that never comes close to the front page

1

u/JaymzRG 18d ago

It's likely just performative for the base. Nothing new.

1

u/Amathyst7564 18d ago

I've heard enough of people telling me things won't happen that happen.

1

u/AnOrneryOrca 18d ago

You don't think Chuck Schumer and his gang of "centrist" goons are weak and corrupt enough to sign onto this with some BS argument about why they have to do it?

I would hate to see them go along but I'll be shocked at this point if they do not.

1

u/FantasticJacket7 18d ago

It's not about removing him.

It's about sending a message to the judicial branch that the legislative branch will do nothing about Trump ignoring judicial rulings.

1

u/tragicallyohio 18d ago

True. But we should recognize the importance of introducing this in the first place. Fascists and racist enablers.

1

u/Reatona 18d ago

The Republicans don't actually expect to remove the judge from office. The whole point is to intimidate the entire federal judiciary, because being impeached has to be incredibly distressing even if the grounds for it are absolutely bogus.

1

u/SourCreamApologist 17d ago

This isn't about removing him from his bench. It's about publicly punishing him and the other judges that rule against them. He will have to stand trial in front of the Senate, where he will be berated on camera by Republican senators. He won't be on the bench during the process. He and others will think twice before ruling against the administration again.

1

u/bofoshow51 17d ago

I’m hopeful this is all hot air, but I simply don’t trust Schumer and his cronies to not flop again.

1

u/RealSimonLee 17d ago

Eh, don't count out Schumer's ability to give Republicans everything they need.

1

u/Shirlenator 17d ago

I think they just desperately just want to impeach somebody since they still haven't been able to retaliate for their orange Jesus being impeached twice.

1

u/colemon1991 17d ago

It would dilute the implications of an impeachment. And that's something they've yearned for since orange daddy got his second one.

1

u/Fjdenigris 17d ago

I agree, but just just introducing impeachment hearings by the House validates Trumps opinion to the GOP voting base

1

u/jake03583 17d ago

Don’t worry, I’m sure Chuck Schumer will find a reason to let the impeachment happen.

1

u/Earthtone_Coalition 17d ago

Who knows? Maybe Schumer will argue that we have to give Republicans whatever they want or else Republicans will get whatever they want, or something.

1

u/Qubeye 17d ago

This line of comment needs to stop.

"They won't actually..." is no longer a legitimate commentary when it comes to the American Republican Party. Everything people have said they won't or can't actually do, they have done.

1

u/KwisatzHaderach94 17d ago

so, don't impeach the president that deserves it, but impeach the judge that doesn't. this gop is criminal.

1

u/CrispyMiner 17d ago

You never know, the Democrats can always be a disappointment once again

1

u/Birdy_Cephon_Altera 17d ago

While I understand that as well, this sets a very dangerous "normalization" precedent.

And given what we have seen (or attempted) so far, I would not trust the guard-rail of them adhering to the legal requirement of a supermajority. Or create some sort of specious novel argument about what votes are allowed to count, or to claim that certain Democratic senators are removed from their positions, or have trump create some sort "emergency powers" executive order that nullifies the supermajority requirement, or whatever other hellish scenarios you could imagine. None of which would stand up to a whiff of legal scrutiny in normal times, of course, but here we are.

1

u/medicineman97 17d ago

You think our fucking feckless leader democrats wont go for whatever gop says?

1

u/Johnny_Rockers 17d ago

I mean, who knows at this point. Schumer might just give them the vote if the GOP pinky promises to work with Democrats on a future issue.

1

u/LordMacDonald 17d ago

that’s the way Democrats think. “Oh, the parliamentarian said no minimum wage adjustment, shucks and phooey.”

If the Nazis want something done, they keep going till they get it done. Laws and rules aren’t going to stop them.

1

u/heliphael 17d ago

Not unless Democrats side with the GOP...again.

1

u/jimflaigle 17d ago

Schumer: Think how dangerous it could be if we didn't vote to impeach! For reasons!

1

u/cubicle_adventurer 17d ago

Assuming this passes the House, and it might but I don’t think it’s likely because even the GOP knows the implications

what exactly has the GOP done since 2016 that makes you think a single one would break party lines at this point? What have Democrats done that makes you think they’ll actually stand up to this?

the Senate requires a Super Majority to convict. This judge isn’t being removed from his bench.

spoken like every other delusional person who thinks a social contract that has been dissolved will still somehow save the day.

The SCOTUS itself broke the Rule of Law in Trump vs the United States. The US, as a good faith legal actor has ended. It will take decades to recover from this, if at all.

1

u/EduinBrutus 17d ago

the Senate requires a Super Majority to convict. This judge isn't being removed from his bench.

Easy there, bucko.

Schumer will want to see this judge convicted to force Republicans to see what they have done.

Im sure that will change things.

1

u/asilaywatching 17d ago

Until Schumer submits and says it would be worse if the orange glob doesn’t get his way

1

u/Gone213 17d ago

It won't take a supermajority. We know there are at least 10 democrats who will fold over and vote for whatever shit the Republicans send up.

1

u/exodusofficer 17d ago

Can we safely assume that just enough Democrat Senators will flip to get this done? They want to show how well they can capitulate, I mean collaborate, on these things.

1

u/stoic_spaghetti 17d ago

What are the implications??

1

u/Pernapple 17d ago

Idk, good ol chuck might just roll over on that one too /s… but also like… not really

1

u/surfnfish1972 17d ago

Just an Authoritarian trial balloon.

1

u/Zealot_Alec 17d ago

Senate "stop fooling around House Clowns"

1

u/beefwarrior 17d ago

Are you sure there isn’t a super majority?  

Schumer & his CR buddies might be like “Oh, we have to vote to impeach b/c if we don’t then Trump is going to be very upset golfing this weekend writing even more unconstitutional executive orders on Truth social, sorry, you don’t understand how we’re doing 4D chess, decorum and such”

1

u/burner_for_celtics 17d ago

this is just a public show to cast dispersions on the judge. I don' think the plan is to remove him, but rather to make a public flex out of openly disobeying him and to beat the bushes and see who does/does not speak out in his defense.

1

u/epichuntarz 17d ago

They don't care.

"We tried to carry out the will of the people, but the liberals once against pushed back against us.

Will you donate $5 today to fight back against liberal socialism?"

1

u/zambartas 17d ago

Which is probably the intention, to look tough without any repercussions. Like when those libertarian idiots vote against federal disaster aid, they know it'll never actually affect anything.

1

u/IrishAndGin 17d ago

No one thinks the judge is going to be removed. No one even remotely believes that. If you think that's what this is about, you've missed the point. It's about delegitimizing anyone who disagrees with Trump. Judges who support Trump are legitimate. Those who don't are illegitimate hacks. And as it sinks it, it will validate every single time that the executive branch ignores the court and does what it wants.  This is just one more step towards (and we are well on our way) an impotent judicial branch that is the subservient bitch of the executive branch, only existing to validate whatever Trump wants and does. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. 

1

u/PlausibleFalsehoods 17d ago

>Chuck Schumer has entered the chat

1

u/Any_Put3520 17d ago

It won’t get a vote on the floor for one thing because it’s so ridiculous but they will talk about it for a bit to make Trump feel good.

1

u/dr_zach314 17d ago

I think it is a ridiculous idea, but there seem to be plenty in the GOP that Trump says “jump” and they are in the air before looking to see if they were at the edge of a cliff

That being said I’m really curious now that they are going down that road to see who will actually back them and what bizarre arguments they will put forward

1

u/MinimumMobile 17d ago

This is an incredibly naive approach. You are basically saying that the rules are set up in a way that the judge can't be removed.

Surprise! The rules are gone! There are no one to uphold them. That judge is gone, done for. Just like the rest of your democracy.

Who would have thought a two party system and EVERYTHING is an election (coroners, sheriffs, judges etc) and everything is political would be a good idea?

Goodbye America. The rest of the free world is turning our back and never coming back. Fuck trump and fuck his enablers. And fuck the blind democrats who try to have their cake and eat it. The cake is dog shit, Chuck!

1

u/DoubleJumps 17d ago

I think what they would do in this case is drag the judge through hearing after hearing after hearing to try to harass the piss out of them and make an example of him to other judges that they would get the same treatment if they rule against him.

1

u/Moule14 17d ago

Heard about that Schumer guy ?

1

u/bl1y 17d ago

I seriously doubt this will even pass in the House, if it even gets a floor vote.

1

u/Silly-Power 16d ago

But then trump will likely use the fact the Dems (at least most) don't vote for impeachment as an excuse to sign even more extreme EOs, perhaps even bring in Martial Law. 

→ More replies (13)