Democrats, still boiling over the recent confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, are considering going with a nuclear option to go after the female SCOTUS if she doesn’t do this.
The Democrats are reportedly reaching into their dirty bag of tricks, pulling out one of their favorites – threatening impeachment – if Barrett does not recuse herself from contentious election cases.
The Dems threat is based on a lie that President Trump discussed said election cases with her.
Media outlet, The Hill, published an op-ed revealing the left’s familiar plans to go after an enemy by attempting a baseless impeachment:
“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.”
The Hill piece continues:
“Since they hold the highest judicial positions, Supreme Court justices do not submit to the review of lower court judges on conflicts. It is rare for justices to recuse themselves from merits cases although, for the 2019 term, the nine justices recused 145 times from the review with possible cases for argument. This is done for a variety of reasons, from financial interests in the underlying claims to personal interests in the parties or litigators. New justices are the most likely to recuse on merits cases due to past involvement in the litigation or decisions, as Justice Elena Kagan did after she served as solicitor general under President Obama.”
“The recusal standard is in the federal code of law, which details grounds like personal bias or prejudice, prior representation, or financial interests of a justice or her spouse. Democrats have been unable to find any direct conflict and instead count on a weak claim of an appearance of a conflict.
Should the desperate Democrats move forward with another one of their overplayed impeachment threats, the process for the impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice is the same as it would be for the president.
A simple majority in the House is required, but a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required to remove.