Aoc files articles of impeachment against Alito and thomas

[texassapper]

What I'd like is for the Republicans to take the houses, and then expand the SCOTUS to 59 seats... w/ 50 approved by state legislatures... that would remove the incredible political impact of 9 robes. It gives the state a say in the legality of what Congress passes. makes the annual SCOTUS retirement worries disappear. 59 seats just has less impact if one of them drops dead..

[winn dixie]

Or get rid of Thomas and not allow scotus judges to receive any gifts.
Thomas is the definition of corruption. Impeach him.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by texassapper

What I'd like is for the Republicans to take the houses, and then expand the SCOTUS to 59 seats... w/ 50 approved by state legislatures... that would remove the incredible political impact of 9 robes. It gives the state a say in the legality of what Congress passes. makes the annual SCOTUS retirement worries disappear. 59 seats just has less impact if one of them drops dead..

This only makes sense if you want the court to grind to a halt. Having 59 people argue over the constitutionality of every law. Good luck with that. That’s just another form of the United States Senate. We all can see how well that works.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Or get rid of Thomas and not allow scotus judges to receive any gifts.
Thomas is the definition of corruption. Impeach him.

So says dr. Jill. Of course she is the expert on corruption.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Or get rid of Thomas and not allow scotus judges to receive any gifts.
Thomas is the definition of corruption. Impeach him.

Real enforceable ethics rules are what are needed.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

This only makes sense if you want the court to grind to a halt. Having 59 people argue over the constitutionality of every law. Good luck with that. That’s just another form of the United States Senate. We all can see how well that works.

Not in the least. It doesn't take but a few minutes more to get the vote from 59 than it does from 9. I would also have the main 9 still doing oral arguments... the other 50 get conferenced in. The 50 Also would get a say in what gets heard.

The dems want to expand to 13 -17.. just so they get to seat more justices... okay if we're going to seat more justices lets do it fairly... every state gets one. It gives states a bigger say in the interpretation of the laws as well.

Federalism and Separation of powers at work.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Not in the least. It doesn't take but a few minutes more to get the vote from 59 than it does from 9. I would also have the main 9 still doing oral arguments... the other 50 get conferenced in. The 50 Also would get a say in what gets heard.

The dems want to expand to 13 -17.. just so they get to seat more justices... okay if we're going to seat more justices lets do it fairly... every state gets one. It gives states a bigger say in the interpretation of the laws as well.

Federalism and Separation of powers at work.

I respectfully disagree. I also disagree with expanding the court. We’ll just have to wait until Alito and Thomas kick the bucket.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Not in the least. It doesn't take but a few minutes more to get the vote from 59 than it does from 9. I would also have the main 9 still doing oral arguments... the other 50 get conferenced in. The 50 Also would get a say in what gets heard.

The dems want to expand to 13 -17.. just so they get to seat more justices... okay if we're going to seat more justices lets do it fairly... every state gets one. It gives states a bigger say in the interpretation of the laws as well.

Federalism and Separation of powers at work.

The Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/ Democrats would take one look at that vast sea of Red between New York and California and have a conniption fit.

The idea that Montana and South Dakota would have the same voice on The Supreme Court as California and New Your is intriguing.