Yeah, he's got to do something worthy of impeachment, something that's not simply "following Supreme Court rules for justices as they currently exist".
His wife has a right to be a political activist.
Even if she crossed the line into being a political terrorist instead, that still wouldn't be an impeachable offense against him.
The Supreme Court has no existing set of ethical guidelines which it must follow. Each justice chooses for himself or herself whether they should recuse themselves or not.
A justice could literally be a plaintiff or a defendant in a case in front of the court and it would still be completely up to that justice whether to recuse himself.
We live in a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
If we'd wanted to install a code of ethics for the Supreme Court, we had effectively decades of control of the court in which to have done it...but deliberately chose not to.
====
As for impeaching him without any basis "just because" or in retaliation for being butt-hurt over something else, that's a terrible idea.
Bill Clinton got impeached because he was involved in business with some sleazy people who ended up going to jail over it. That was objectively bad judgement on Clinton's part. And at one point Clinton as governor vetoed a bill which would have stopped his partners' main way of ripping people off (Selling land without making the purchase agreement allow the purchaser to accumulate equity though payments over time. Foreclosing after getting a couple of years of payments whenever the purchaser was a little late. Then selling the property to the next sucker to come along. All profit and selling the same lots of land over and over.) What Clinton directly took part in might not have been illegal. But some of the things his business partners did went beyond "unethical" into "illegal".
You can make an argument for an investigation into a president (of either party) who has such shady business partners. I can't think of any valid arguments in favor of the government ignoring possible wrongdoing and not looking into it.
And the House's legal counsel (title?) at the time (a Democrat) looking through the Starr Report listed 13 (or 14) impeachable offenses out of the contents of that report. (I had a link to the legal counsel's list six or seven computers ago.) The House Republicans chose to look at four of the possible impeachable offenses and to impeach on two of them, without conducting investigation or calling witnesses.
The Senate Republicans chose to not have an investigation or witnesses. They also chose not to look at any of the other possible offenses though it was entirely their right to do so. And they chose to hurry up and finish their trial because the rape allegation against Clinton was going to go public on Sunday and the Republicans had no desire to get public pressure into looking into rape allegations.
In my opinion, the Republicans had no intention of finding Clinton guilty of anything. They certainly didn't try very hard to find him guilty of anything. They used the impeachment to try to damage the Democrats politically but didn't want the Democrats to be able to put it behind them by having VP Gore to take over "after Clinton left office in disgrace".
====
We chose not to impeach Trump over things which were proven, admitted, and were constitutionally a slam dunk because they were mundane items rather than being the sexiest things we could have tried to have nailed him for.
We could have impeached Trump, with valid evidence that was already in the hands of the government with no need of an investigation, in February 2017. But we didn't because nailing him for doing something rather mundane but completely unconstitutional (like receiving money from selling things to the government) wasn't sexy enough.
So we waited for the next impeachable thing to happen. And when that wasn't sexy enough, we waited for the next thing. And the next. And the next. And the next, all the while with him getting away with illegal things and becoming bolder in breaking the law because from his point of view "no one dared to hold him accountable" and from our point of view "this violation isn't quite sexy enough yet to give me complete satisfaction over nailing him".
(I've heard that syndrome referred to as "The Danger of Doing Cool Things" where people go after the impressive and flashy rather than the effective because they're more concerned with being impressive than being effective. The opposite of that was the FBI finally nailing Al Capone on tax fraud because he didn't explain his income and didn't end up nailing him for the murders and crime sprees which most everyone thought he was guilty of but couldn't quite prove.)
And that refusal to impeach Trump for things he was guilty of left him in position to commit his two big impeachable defenses. And left Republicans still willing to stand beside him rather than throwing him under the bus for the justification of "Trump just can't avoid publicly committing impeachable offenses so it's better to have Pence".
Even now, we find things in the news that are clear violations of law and I bring up, "Prosecute him and put him in jail now because sitting in jail will break his political power now", I get pushback from well-meaning Democrats who would rather nail him for everything he ever did and risk losing the country (by the delay that would entail) than to have him sitting safely in jail.
It's The Danger of Doing Cool Things.
====
I think if we could talk to one of the signers of the Constitution and tell them that we weren't impeaching a justice, high-ranking federal judge, or a president every thirty years or so that he'd think to himself, "Either every American has become a saint...or people don't understand the intended role of impeachment at all".
Do we want to have impeachment as a tool to deal with Donald Trump, Don Jr., Eric, or Ivanka next time one of them becomes a high government official?
If we do, we can't use it inappropriately to harass Justice Thomas now.
We couldn't win impeachment in the House right now even with a majority of Democrats there because there's too many Democrats who understand and honor the Constitution and wouldn't be part of using a knowingly-fake impeachment charge as a harassment tactic.
If we were to try, not only would the attempt fail but it would make it much, much harder to hold real criminals who are in office accountable for their actions.
And at some point we are going to have more criminals in office who we need to hold accountable for their actions.
/rant
= new reply since forum marked as read
