• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Federal judges can only be removed by impeachment by the House of Representatives

    You obviously have no problem insisting you know more than me, but are you going to say you know more about it than Yale?

    Well, . . . no. Contrary to the orthodoxy, nothing in the Constitution mandates that impeachment be the exclusive method for removing misbehaving judges.

    https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/removing-federal-judges-without-impeachment

    Just because you don’t know something, doesn’t mean no one else does.

    • TheLadyAugust@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      To my knowledge there has never been a federal judge removed in anyway other than impeachment. You would have to take an untested claim to court, prove it, then still to apply that process to remove judges case by case after. Unfortunately, it’s not us that gets to decide whether or not something is legal, it’s up to the “supreme” Court. I just can’t see us convincing 6 of those justices to accept consequences for their and their party’s actions. This would be a hell of a legal long shot.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        To my knowledge there has never been a federal judge removed in anyway other than impeachment

        And on 1/5/20, to my knowledge no sitting president had organized a coup to keep power…

        The difference is this would be legal.

        it’s not us that gets to decide whether or not something is legal, it’s up to the “supreme” Court.

        Add 6 justices, that goes to SC and they rule expanding the SC is fine and has happened before.

        Kick out the lower judges, if it goes to the SC, that’s fine. Because we’ve already taken back the majority.

        I know you’re arguing against fixing stuff, but your arguent basically boils down to:

        If we just try to fix part of the problem, it won’t fix everything

        I agree.

        Where we disagree is I want to fix everything, so it’s all fixed.

        And you think we should fix…

        Nothing?

        • TheLadyAugust@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          The difference is this would be legal.

          There’s no difference with a broken court and we can’t fix that with our current Congress.

          I know you’re arguing against fixing stuff,

          What the hell are you on about about? Like actually what. You need to call down with that nonsense. Why are you being so combative? I’m not even the person you were first talking to.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            There’s no difference with a broken court and we can’t fix that with our current Congress

            We dont need congress to expand the SC court…

            https://journals.law.harvard.edu/lpr/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/

            Just like Obama didn’t need Congress to approve his last pick, they have to give Congress a chance to vote, but there’s nothing saying they have to.

            So the absence of their decision should have resulted in Obama sitting someone anyways during his last year.

            Why are you being so combative? I’m not even the person you were first talking to.

            Because explaining the same thing over and over gets frustrating…

            Which is why I’m probably going to give up on explaining this in a way you can understand pretty soon.

            If you want ignore that link from Harvard and just keep arguing…

            I view slapfights as a waste of time, but feel free to keep trying. What’s weird is after I block one of them, it’s common to get accounts with almost no activity immediately taking up the arguement, even in day old threads that aren’t getting any other new replies.

            Could it be a giant coincidence?

            Sure but I just don’t think it’s likely.

            • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              We dont need congress to expand the SC court…

              Literally all four of those options require legislation to move through the halls of Congress. Did you even read that source?

    • fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      IV. Conclusion

      Congress clearly can adopt measures to help the chambers impeach and convict. But Congress can go further and adopt statutes that remove judges upon proof of judicial misbehavior.

      Unfortunately Congress adopting statutes to hold hearings on bad behavior still requires the cooperation of Congress according to “Yale”.

      And unfortunately being appointed by Trump does not immediately constitute “bad behavior”. I prefer not your plan.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Before I keep going (because honestly I’m losing faith I can explain this in a way you’ll understand) do you agree that you were wrong?

        If you can’t do that, then there’s no point in me putting more effort into helping.

        • fluxion@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I stated the current process for removal. So no, I don’t agree that the idea of passing a law through Congress so that Congress can make it easier for Biden to remove federal judges in any way whatsoever works around the issue of needing to control House seats before any progress toward these goals can be made.

          You can ignore me if you think that is unreasonable.