By John Q. Hosedrinker 
US Senate hopeful Graham Platner advocates for Democrats to “deal with” the Supreme Court if they regain power, suggesting oversight and potential impeachments to remove justices. He believes holding Supreme Court justices to the same ethical standards as federal judges could lead to the impeachment and removal of at least two. Platner also proposes expanding the Supreme Court’s size when a Democrat is in the White House, emphasizing the need for senators willing to wield such power.
Read the original article here
The idea of impeaching Supreme Court justices is gaining traction, with some suggesting a “compelling case” exists if Democrats regain control of Congress, potentially targeting at least two justices. This sentiment arises from a perceived departure from established legal standards and ethical conduct expected of those holding such a significant position. The conversation centers on instances where justices may have potentially misled during their confirmation hearings or have made rulings that are seen as overly partisan and disconnected from constitutional text.
One particular justice frequently cited is Clarence Thomas, with accusations of accepting undisclosed gifts and benefits raising questions about his impartiality and adherence to ethical guidelines. Another justice whose name frequently appears in these discussions is Samuel Alito. The possibility of Brett Kavanaugh also facing impeachment proceedings is raised, notably in relation to his confirmation hearing. A specific point of contention is his response to a question about the legal drinking age during his high school years, where his answer was reportedly inaccurate, especially given his reported involvement in social activities that heavily featured alcohol.
While some might dismiss such inaccuracies as minor oversights, the argument is made that any lie, particularly when given under oath during a vetting process for a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court, is significant. The expectation is for a high degree of integrity and truthfulness from individuals being considered for such a powerful role. The desire for genuine and principled individuals on the bench is palpable, with a wish for justices to embody values that foster trust and respect for the institution.
Beyond specific individuals, there’s a broader concern about the direction of Supreme Court rulings, with some believing that several justices have made decisions that directly contravene the plain wording of constitutional provisions or statutes. This perspective suggests that these justices are not merely interpreting the law but are actively pursuing a political agenda, acting as a functional veto on legislation they personally, or their perceived benefactors, dislike. This leads to calls for a comprehensive review and accountability for those seen as complicit in undermining the court’s integrity.
The practicalities of impeachment and removal are, however, a significant hurdle. Achieving the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate for conviction is a formidable challenge, often requiring bipartisan support that is rarely present in today’s polarized political climate. Historical precedents, such as the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase, show that while impeachment by the House is possible, removal by the Senate is much more difficult to secure. This reality tempers the enthusiasm for impeachment, suggesting that even if Democrats win majorities, the path to conviction remains exceptionally steep.
Furthermore, there’s a strategic consideration regarding the timing of any impeachment efforts. Some argue that impeachment proceedings should ideally be pursued in conjunction with a Democratic presidency, to prevent a scenario where a Republican president could then appoint replacements, potentially exacerbating the perceived imbalance on the court. The concern is that if conservative justices are removed, they might simply be replaced by other conservative nominees, perpetuating the existing ideological makeup of the court.
Beyond impeachment, there are discussions about other avenues for addressing concerns about the Supreme Court. The idea of expanding the number of justices is sometimes floated as a more achievable way to shift the court’s ideological balance, although this too is a politically contentious proposition. There’s also a question of public trust and the court’s standing. While the Supreme Court often enjoys relatively high public approval compared to other branches of government, the current controversies surrounding its legitimacy could potentially erode that support if not addressed.
The effectiveness of impeachment proceedings is also debated. Some commenters express skepticism, believing that “Corporate Democrats in Name Only” will not take decisive action, citing a perceived lack of courage and a desire to maintain the status quo. The argument is that the powerful economic forces that benefit from the current court’s rulings will ensure that any challenges are ultimately unsuccessful. This leads to a call for Democrats to adopt a more assertive stance and to focus on policies that directly address the concerns of the electorate.
Ultimately, the discussion around impeaching Supreme Court justices reflects a deep dissatisfaction with the current state of the court and a desire for greater accountability. While the path to impeachment and removal is fraught with political and procedural obstacles, the very conversation itself signifies a growing willingness to consider bold actions to address perceived injustices and to restore faith in the judiciary as an impartial arbiter of the law. The challenge lies in translating this sentiment into tangible political action that can overcome the entrenched resistance and achieve meaningful change.