Report: Democrats Consider Impeaching Justice Amy Coney Barrett if She Doesn’t Recuse Herself

[mystery-ak]

Report: Democrats Consider Impeaching Justice Amy Coney Barrett if She Doesn’t Recuse Herself

Joel B. Pollak 28 Oct 2020

Democrats are reportedly considering impeaching newly sworn-in Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett if she does not recuse herself from contentious election cases, based on false claims that President Donald Trump discussed them with her.

George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in an op-ed in The Hill on Wednesday:

    Feeling disrespected, Democrats are threatening acts of retaliation in changing the Supreme Court or the Senate. But the most unhinged was the idea to impeach Amy Coney Barrett after she takes her seat. This option was raised by columnist Norman Ornstein, who wrote that if she “immediately votes for voter suppression” after rising to the Supreme Court, “she should quickly be impeached” because President Trump “asked her openly to act to tilt the scales of the election.”

    It does not matter, apparently, that Barrett denied having such a conversation and that no one has an inkling of how she would vote on election challenges that have not even been filed. Ornstein is building on demands from various senators that Barrett promise to recuse herself from any election dispute. Others have demanded her recusal in pending cases like the challenge to the Affordable Care Act, to be heard Nov. 10. After Barrett declined to discuss her personal views on the environment, still others demanded recusal from any climate change-related cases … forever.

    The Supreme Court has been asked to block an extension of mail-in balloting in Pennsylvania and, on Tuesday, one party demanded Barrett’s recusal from the case. The recusal demand is legally and logically absurd. Justices are largely their own judges on recusal. While Blumenthal demanded in Barrett’s confirmation hearing that “you must recuse yourself,” doing so would raise countervailing concerns of impropriety and political influence. Democrats were demanding that she remove herself without any cognizable basis for recusal. Now, they’re trying to muscle her out with a “recuse or be impeached” ultimatum.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/10/28/report-democrats-consider-impeaching-justice-amy-coney-barrett-if-she-doesnt-recuse-herself/

[LegalAmerican]

Then. Kagan and Sotomayor need to be impeached too.   DEMON-RATS...just can't stop with their NONSENSE!  KAGAN, helped
create Obamacare, then voted FOR IT,  without her recusal.  Sotomayor is a member of LA RAZA, which supports illegals. Supports everything for illegals, like DRIVERS LICENSE,  however they don't need to pay for any car insurance with that privilege.  WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM.  "Uninsured motorist."  Too many drink & drive too.  One T-BONED ME.  Officer Chavez, just let him go, after talking to the drunk driver, with blood shot eyes!  My car was damaged. 

[Fishrrman]

Y'all knew this was coming.
As soon as she was sworn in.
IGNORE them.

[libertybele]

Y'all knew this was coming.
As soon as she was sworn in.
IGNORE them.

Yes, I saw this coming, but will she recuse herself??? As stated several times, the best case scenario is for Trump to win by a landslide, otherwise, they will indeed try to impeach Barrett and may succeed, if the GOP loses the Senate (not quite sure of the time frame as to win the new Senators would be sworn in).

[jafo2010]

F*&^ the Democommies.  She has every right to vote fully like any other member on the Supreme Court.  To use that logic, then all three justices appointed by Trump would need to recuse themselves.  Pure insanity, and all the more reason not to let Dems ever have power again.  EVER!!!  The Dems are not the Dems of 40 years ago.  They are full blown commies, only without the totalitarian force, which I believe would come with them taking power.

The American people best hope the Republicans win POTUS and the Senate at a minimum.

I listened to Glenn Beck today on Biden's first 100 days.  If anything he said today were to come true, I see the need for a revolution, French style where people are purged.  Otherwise, the Democommies will completely destroy this country in one year.  He mentioned they want to make not only Puerto Rico and Washington, DC states, but to divide California into five states to put a lock on power permanently into the future.  Should that nonsense happen, I see no recourse but war.  And the nation is certainly armed for one.

[sneakypete]

Democrats are reportedly considering impeaching newly sworn-in Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett if she does not recuse herself from contentious election cases, based on false claims that President Donald Trump discussed them with her.

That headline should read "Dims are looking forward to swinging from lamp posts."
 

[sneakypete]

I listened to Glenn Beck today on Biden's first 100 days.  If anything he said today were to come true, I see the need for a revolution, French style where people are purged.

 

@jafo2010

I don't WANT to agree,but have no other choice.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Big deal. Impeachment requires a simple majority in the House. The people basically recognize it as a political tool now, not much more.

[mountaineer]

The real reason Democrats are so bitter about Justice Amy Coney Barrett
By David Harsanyi
October 30, 2020 | 7:40pm

Nothing threatens the progressive project more than the existence of a Supreme Court that adheres to the Constitution. It’s really that simple.

That’s what the tantrum over Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation is all about. The notion that the same Democrats who shelved the judicial filibuster and now threaten to destroy the separation of powers with a revenge scheme to pack the Supreme Court are sticklers for process or decorum is simply ludicrous. ...

Once Barrett’s confirmation became a reality, however, Democrats began turning to the real problem. Originalism is the stick in the spoke of progressivism.

This crusade has the demagogues leading the idiots. The former are people such as Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, who alleges that “originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination.”
see also

The latter are the minions who regurgitate this kind of vacuous talking point because they lack a basic comprehension of legal philosophies or civic education that includes an explainer on “amendments.” ...

Read more at the New York Post