Can Supreme Court Judges Be Impeached For

[WiVoter]

Lying in their confirmation hearings? I mean, there’s many and all types of documentation available. If they can be impeached, I’m sure the chances are infinitely low, but I’m just wondering if this is possible.

[LonePirate]

1. Yes but there does not seem to be any appetite to do so.

The lying will continue as a result.

[dchill]

9. Exactly.

[SheltieLover]

13. +1,000!

[Demsrule86]

21. No they can't be impeached because we don't have enough votes it requires a majority in the house

and is then sent to the Senate...where a 2/3 majority is required for conviction. It has nothing to do with appetite.

[LonePirate]

29. House votes to impeach. We have the votes. It's the conviction where we don't have the votes.

The point of the impeachment is not the conviction. It's to put those liars on trial and let them and future justices know that they cannot lie without repercussions.

[Polybius]

36. I doubt every Democrat would vote to impeach

It's hard to unite on such a big issue.

[Amishman]

31. Short of a confession, it's impossible to prove they lied

They are allowed to change their minds on issues, which is what they will claim.

We know it's a lie, but there is no way to prove it short of a confession

[LonePirate]

32. The Senate would never vote to convict even if we did prove it. That's not the point.

The point is to signal to them and future justices that lying during the confirmation hearings is not something we will tolerate. They need to be put on trial if only for us to air their sins for everyone to see and to embarrass them.

Doing nothing only enables future lies.

[jimfields33]

2. It will not happen

Regardless of whether we like it or not, the are allowed to change their minds especially when the case is brought forth to them.

[SoCalDavidS]

5. I Agree

But of course, it's 100% BULLSHIT that they changed their minds. Difficult to prove that, but anybody with a brain KNEW what side they were going to come down on.

[jimfields33]

7. Absolutely correct.

[LakeArenal]

10. Even Susan Collins?

[SoCalDavidS]

12. Susan's Brain Is Half The Size Of A Normal Brain nt

[drray23]

3. yes , its the same requirements you have for a president or another official

majority in house to impeach, 2/3 in senate to convict.

[Claustrum]

17. Exactly this.

We couldn't even find 2/3 in the Senate when TFG literally called for and lead a mob into the capitol risking some of these people's lives. Do you really think we can get 2/3 of the senate to convict a SCJ for lying? Lying is common practice in republican circles.

[drray23]

25. of course not.

i am just answering the question posting the requirements. Obviously we can not convict them. We will never get 2/3.

[SoCalDavidS]

4. No

It would have to be proven they were lying at the time.

As I've seen it explained, they could merely say that their beliefs have evolved once they got onto the court and studied the law further.

[spooky3]

8. A NY attorney on MSNBC yesterday said that

Stating they agreed that Roe v Wade was precedent or settled law was not the same as saying they WOULD NOT overturn it.

So, imho, they were being intentionally misleading but had been coached to word their responses very carefully so that they couldn’t be found guilty of outright lying.

[dchill]

11. And that would be another lie.

[madinmaryland]

14. Wasn't President Clinton impeached for lying about a consensual blow job?

He was impeached but not convicted, because it was strictly a bullshit political moves by hypocritical republicans.

[WiVoter]

15. I Figured That Would Be The Case

I’ve read about Judge Samuel Chase who was impeached but not convicted in 1805. Interesting. It seems his nonconviction insulated Supreme Court judges from future impeachments,not totally however. I’m going to do a little research and thinking on this. Not that it will change anything but it will help me to understand better.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm

[bucolic_frolic]

19. They didn't say their beliefs had evolved. Alito said the case was wrongly decided from the get go

[Frasier Balzov]

6. Though none will be removed, impeachment might be the only way

to get any of the gang of five to appear and answer questions.

Otherwise, they will probably just assert a separation of powers claim and stonewall.

[unblock]

16. nominally, the standard is the same as for the president -- high crimes and misdemeanors.

in practice, there's no way to enforce the reasoning involved. if the house impeaches and the senate removes, then the justice loses their job, whatever the thought process of congress might have been.

in practice, we'll never get 67 senators for that.

diluting their vote by adding more seats to the supreme court is far more practical. even that would be tough without something like 55+ democratic senators.

[Claustrum]

18. Honestly, keeping the senate and presidency and hoping nature does it's thing with

some of those republican justices seem much more practical.

[unblock]

26. By how long will that take? Republicans may have a dictatorship by then

And in any event, many women will suffer before this is fixed.

That said, I really hope they just killed the goose that laid the golden egg for them and democrats really start turning out in droves and we get a more functional majority in both houses and keep the White House.

[Claustrum]

28. We don't have to replace the younger 3 republicans.

If we could replace 2 of Thomas (74), Alito (72), or Roberts (67), we could gain back the 5:4 advantage. Though, I know full well that they have the best healthcare available to them so chances are low.

But at the same time, getting 55 senate seat seems like an impossible task as well.

[unblock]

30. Republican strategists have long feared that actually overturning roe would galvanize democrats

Which is why their strategy up until yesterday had been to kill roe by 1,000 cuts.

I really hope they end up ruing this day.

[Claustrum]

35. I truly hope it will happen and we definitely need it to happen.

I hope to see a big shift to democrat's advantage in the coming months with polling and on Nov. If we could gain seats despite having the presidency and high inflation (I know not Biden fault), then we know the anger to the SC is real and lasting.

And the only way for republicans to tempt down their far right policies is for them to lose seats nationwide for a few elections. I am with Pelosi that we need a functioning and strong republican party (that is reasonable and not crazy like they are now). Like it or not, we won't have democratic presidents forever. It just doesn't happen in a 2 party system. So if they can get back to a more moderate stance, it will be better for all of us.

[Polybius]

37. Probably not with this economy

We'll see soon, I'm sure there will be plenty of post-Roe polling.

[Mr.Bill]

39. If we don't hold our majority in the Senate,

McConnell will not let Joe Biden put anybody on the court. I am absolutely certain of this.

[Claustrum]

40. Yes. If you read my previous comment, I said keeping the senate and presidency.

I am sure McTurtle will block any future democratic picks as he was so successful with it before. Actually, at this point, I think any other republican senate majority leader will probably do the same.

[Mr.Bill]

41. And if the situation was reversed,

we should do the same thing.

[onenote]

20. They can be impeached for anything -- wearing brown shoes with white socks.

But they aren't going to be impeached, so why not focus our energies on electing more Democrats.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. Can?

Yes, they can.

Will they? No. We don't have the votes.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

23. Impeachment is a political process.

They can be impeached for anything Congress wants to impeach them for. But you're right that the chances are non-existent. It would require 2/3 of the Senate, which obviously won't happen with 50 GOP senators.

[PTWB]

24. They could be impeached for anything we want if we had the votes.

We do not have the votes.

[Calista241]

27. None of them said that Roe was settled law and that they wouldn't overturn it.

They gave a bunch of word salad about how they recognized precedent, but that’s not the same thing as lying.

Amy Coney-Barrett was pretty specific about how it was precedent, but that it wasn’t in the same category as other decisions that were “super-precedent” to use Feinstein’s term.

Each of them, if interrogated under oath, will be able to reasonably and believably say that they fairly considered the facts of the case before them, and issued an opinion based upon reasonable constitutional principles.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. They all were evasive, as you said

[H2O Man]

33. Yes.

[LiberalFighter]

34. Figure out a way to stress them out that they can't handle it.