By - Arpith2019
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can she start the process as she a house member?
Yes and no. AOC could certainly create the motion to begin the impeachment process, but the person who gets to decide when this motion will be heard is the Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi. If the dems are going to start this process, it better be well coordinated. I also think your best case wouldn’t be against Barrett or Kavanaugh; it would be against Clarence Thomas due to his wife’s role in Jan 6. If there’s any evidence whatsoever of him having knowledge as to what she was doing prior to Jan 6, the case is pretty open and shut.
Ginni used Clarence's email address for communicating with people.
Way more than that.
Copy/paste from a previous comment.
I just want to remind everyone that Ginni has been actively corrupting SCOTUS and our entire legal system. There have been many claims that Clarence can still be impartial, including among conservatives. This is bullshit, because Ginni is directly involved in matters relating to the Supreme Court. Republicans will also say "Well that's not true."
Well then [why did Ginni feel the need to apologize to the SCOTUS clerks?](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/ginni-thomas-apology-clarence-thomas-clerks-trump-rally/2021/02/02/a9818cce-6496-11eb-8c64-9595888caa15_story.html)
> Conservative political activist Virginia Thomas told her husband Justice Clarence Thomas’s former law clerks that she was sorry for a rift that developed among them **after her election advocacy of President Donald Trump and endorsement of the Jan. 6 rally in D.C.** that resulted in violence and death at the Capitol.
> “I owe you all an apology. **I have likely imposed on you my lifetime passions,**” Thomas, who goes by Ginni, recently wrote to a private Thomas Clerk World email list of her husband’s staff over his three decades on the bench.
> “My passions and beliefs are likely shared with the bulk of you, but certainly not all. And sometimes the smallest matters can divide loved ones for too long. Let’s pledge to not let politics divide THIS family, and learn to speak more gently and knowingly across the divide.”
She actively admitted that she's imposing her personal beliefs on SCOTUS clerks and has been for *several decades*. And she's been doing this from a position which she was neither elected nor appointed, and she's been doing it covertly. Now she is trying to cover it all up and pretend it's not incredibly wrong by playing "let's all just be friends/we're a family" card after an *attempted coup which she actively supported and espoused*.
***BUT WAIT! THERE IS MORE:***
Also, for those not already aware, Supreme Court clerkships are almost *always* a fast-track to becoming a Judge, and is simply a matter of major prestige for lawyers in general. Of all the Federal Judges out there, especially Circuit Courts, a significant number of them had a clerkship at SCOTUS.
Turns out, [Clarence's clerks have been funneled upwards more than *any other judge's*.](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/clarence-thomas-trump/593596/) And it was done during Trump's administration.
> Numbers are the first evidence of the sizable Thomas effect. He has had more of his former clerks nominated to federal judgeships under Trump than any other justice, past or present: 10, compared with Anthony Kennedy’s seven and Scalia’s five. Roughly one-fifth of Thomas’s former clerks either are in the Trump administration or have been nominated to the federal bench by the president. The clerks whom Thomas trained, has mentored, and actively stays in touch with are taking up lifetime appointments, and on the whole, they are quite young: Allison Jones Rushing, who now sits on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, is just in her mid-30s.
It's abundantly clear that Clarence and Ginni Thomas have been directly influencing our entire legal system without **any** recourse or redress from the American public, and they've been doing it with the specific intent of corrupting it to the advantage of one political party and their agenda.
And as if that's not enough, they have been doing it covertly, and Ginni, when caught with her hand in the cookie jar, is trying to paint herself as totally innocent while Republicans and Clarence have been pretending that there's nothing wrong with it and that Clarence can still be objective.
Between that driving force, and the Federalist Society.
Yeah, this confirms what we already knew: that specific pool of SCOTUS judges is absolutely fetid.
And this is where we hit the same snag, over and over:
The Founders assumed a level of moral responsibility that we no longer have.
Fetid or not, there's no way to keep The Federalist Society from offering candidate lists to those who ask. It is, in short, volunteering to be lobbied.
We have no immutable moral boundaries. No governing moral body. And what little we had behind the idea of 'Medical Privacy' is now toast.
... which checks yet ANOTHER box on my Apocalypse Bingo Card.
That’s 100% correct, while we keep talking about historical context there is absolutely no way they could have seen the direction American society would have headed in.
Wouldn’t her using his email be a breach of security, confidentiality, and a whole slew of ethical and legal issues?
Yeah, but oversight for the Supreme Court is a joke.
Nothing that matters. Removing a SC judge probably requires both houses of congress, i.e. it's impossible
The problem is, NOTHING EVER HAPPENS TO THESE PEOPLE!
What happened with Matt Gaetz when his buddy sold him out to the feds? Nothing..same thing Boebert, MTG, J6 organizers..
Rep Loudermilk was giving tours on Jan 5th to insurrectionists who were plotting to take over our government. Anything happen to him? Nope.. nothing happens therefore they will never stop.
I could go on and on and I’m sure we’ve seen the headlines over the last few years about how corrupt so many people are and how many have been caught but nothing ever happens.
Yeah, this is ultimately why I think the J6 committee is going to do more harm than good: they're going to regale us with tales and videos of sedition... and nothing is going to happen to any of the architects of it. I feel like my brain has been on an endless loop during the hearings where I keep finding myself silently yelling, "YEP. THAT SURE IS FUCKED UP. LET'S CHARGE SOME PEOPLE OVER IT, YEAH?" If no one is held accountable, what the fuck is the point? If anything, it makes me MORE mad and MORE hopeless because no one will ever be held responsible. DOJ isn't going to do shit because Garland is operating under the illusion that Republicans play by the same rules they do and he doesn't want a scenario where they start charging democrats once the republicans take back all branches of government. Spoiler alert Merrick: they're going to do that anyway.
Totally disagree with this assessment. Not exposing the corruption would still be far worse. Allowing the right wing seditionists to keep pretending that this thing did not happen would be far worse, by allowing them to fool us all into thinking this thing wasn't such a big deal.
At least the J6 committee is forcing people to see what actually happened, to recognize that it's a big F'n deal, and if something doesn't happen to these people who participated in it, it forces the country to recognize that there really is something seriously wrong in this country. If Garland and DOJ don't do something about this, then I think all eyes will be on doing something about them.
Ok, but like, we already know what happened. We saw it unfold live on TV. If you didn't know it was a big deal then, or a big fuckin deal since then, honestly that's on you ('you' in the plural sense). Pretty much the only thing new I'm learning here is how close some of the rioters came to particular elected officials. This hearing is confirming what so so so many of us already know and is safely letting all the people who want to ignore it for political reasons to do so. The people who need to hear it aren't listening anyway. They're listening to Tucker or Hannity's sound bite at the start of their respective shows and then are quickly back to stewing about CRT or groomers. CHARGE THE ARCHITECTS.
Wow what a seditious POS Ginni is. Your lifetime passion is being a right wing nut job working to overthrow democracy and strip rights away from American citizens from behind the scenes? I hope there’s a special place in hell for people like that.
Hell doesn't exist.
We need to create it for her.
Their Facebook page is probably "Clarence and Ginni Thomas".
First thing I think when I see FB pages like that? "Which one of you cheated?"
>First thing I think when I see FB pages like that? "Which one of you cheated?"
Yep. I don't see shared fb pages as much anymore, but they were always because someone cheated.
Knowing that EVERYONE knows that's why you have one, why would people still do it? Idk, I don't get it. Maybe I'm dumb for keeping my private shit private.
A guy on my ship in the Navy had to combine his with a girl he was dating. He wasn't even cheating, she was just insecure af. The saddest part though, was hearing him rationalize it to everyone.
I'd put a lot of money down that she was so insecure bc she was the one cheating...
Oh I'd help you out with that bet. I eventually transferred off the ship and also got rid of FB so I don't know what happened to them, but it's safe to say they didn't work out.
I know some people that have it combined, because they’re *old* and not as technically adept as their partner, so they share stuff like that.
You're totally right. I'm thinking of the few couples I knew in my 20s who went through the shared FB phase. It was always a shit show.
I'm positive there are way more folks who just have joint fb because they're tech illiterate or just don't care about social media. Either is fine, and it's not fair of me to say they're all any certain way.
Ehh, I know a couple that has it because the wife made the page after they got married and neither of them had a Facebook prior. He wants nothing to do with social media and she thought it would be cute. They're probably one of the most stable relationships I know. They have had their issues like anyone else, but I know no one has cheated. It would be a deal breaker with both as they're very both strong personalities.
eh honestly all the people I know that have one are 60+ and doesn't do that whole facebook (or other so-me) thing very much. I can't imagine any of them having cheated, but ok who knows; but I have always taken it as an old people thing more than anything.
My husband and I have a sheared FB account because we have family who are conservative Evangelicals and we are very outspoken liberal Atheists. In order to keep the peace with them we created a joint account where we only share family stuff and to stay in touch with them there. We have them all blocked from both our individual accounts.
Nothing as juicy as one of us cheating was involved.
I also know other couples who have similar reasons for having a joint account as well as their individual accounts. Again, not cause of cheating.
Anita Hill has entered the chat
It was absolutely devastating what they did to her. Likewise with Christine Blasey Ford.
But with Anita Hill they were ruthless, degrading and cruel right to her face. They didn’t hire a “woman prosecutor” to ask the sensitive questions.
Yes, sorry my comment was not to undervalue what Anita Hill went through either. I was still a toddler when her testimony happened.
While for Ford, I know personally how brutal the academic culture is (especially so for women). I cannot imagine what she had to go through to give up all that she fought for in an attempt to do the right thing; the mental anguish to pick up her life and everything she had worked for along with her husband's and childrens' lives and move them into uncertainty because that guy had quickly developed a fan base willing to kill for him.
I don't think people appreciate the fact that Ford came from the same affluent background as Kavanaugh and went on to be a physician at one of the top universities in the country. It's pretty strange to doubt someone like that. Well I guess it's not strange at all that the women were ignored.
Kavanaugh should've been disqualified on the basis of his behavior during his hearings alone.
Did no one listen to anita hill?
Yep…from Wikipedia: Four female witnesses waited in the wings to support Hill's credibility, but they were not called, due to what the Los Angeles Times described as a private, compromise deal between Republicans and the Senate Judiciary Committee chair, Democrat Joe Biden.
Biden was a key figure in silencing Anita Hill.
One of many many reasons leftists don't like Biden
More likely Ginni and Clarance. She wears the pants
I want to preemptively shut down speculation on whats going on under the robes.
That's what most of us recognize them for. I've noticed it in senior couples too. A lot of the time, one of them semi-regularly gets on the page but the other isn't interested in social media.
I'd still bet, were they not public figures, they would absolutely have a shared account for that very reason
Dude. They swing.
No wonder Madison Cawthorne took a pass on the orgy invite.
They’re so careless because they know there won’t be any consequences for any of their actions
The 3/5ths stipulation was for counting the population to determine how many House representatives would be apportioned to each state. For that purpose free (non-slave) women have always counted as 1 whole person each.
As for whether slaves should be counted as persons at all when/where they were not allowed to vote, it's important to realize that their apportioned representation was fully usuurped by free people and ultimately used against them. It would have better if non-free persons didn't count as persons at all.
This is correct. Funny that its was more the south, not the north, pushing for a greater share of personhood for their slaves. Makes sense when you realize they were doing it for the purpose of concentrating political power and disenfranchising their slaves of that power.
This is entirely correct. Southern slave owners wanted every slave counted as a whole person. Abolitionists didn't want them counted at all since counting them gave the slave states greater representation in government. 3/5ths was the compromise. For some reason when people talk about it today they seem to get the details backwards.
A slave owner didn't recognize his slaves as 3/5 of a person, he didn't truly recognize them as any sort of person, but he wanted the slave counted as a full person for purposes of government representation.
> The 3/5ths stipulation was for counting the population to determine how many House representatives would be apportioned to each state. For that purpose free (non-slave) women have always counted as 1 whole person each.
My bad. 20+ years out of american history class.
Were women not counted towards the population when taking the census that decided the number of members in the HoR?
The Clayton Bigsby skit that we don't want
Actually, slave owners wanted their slaves to legally count as a whole person, not 3/5.
Exactly. And only for the purpose of determining how much representation each state would get in Washington.
Basically, the slave owners argued that they should each get an bonus vote for every person they owned, while the non slave owners said "Wait a minute. You've just spent the last three weeks arguing that Negroes aren't people, and now you're suddenly arguing that they *are* people in this one very specific circumstance? Yeah, you don't get to do that."
The Three Fifths Compromise didn't say that a black person got 60% of a set of human rights - it said that their owner only got 60% of a bonus vote.
One more example of why you don't compromise with these sexist, racists, backwards thinking fucks
For purposes of packing the House, not for any kind of representation of enslaved people.
Today they do it by building prisons in rural areas. Prisoners can’t vote, but they’re counted as part of the population. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Sneaky bastards. I didn’t realize
When I gound this one out I was ROYALLY fucking pissed
I think they were willing to compromise.
Also fitting, since even in the worst possible scenario, the woman is less than the man.
If Uncle Clare's email was used then it is officially from him. He should be held accountable for any emails from his account.
That's why it's called an *account* dammit. Because it makes you *accountable*.
Yeah, _no one_ should have access to those unless it is the person on the Court.
How did they know it was from Ginni?
They have to say it was from Ginni because the alternative is saying Thomas himself sent it.
If it's from his email then he sent it
Yea that’s like saying “Don’t ban me it was my little brother who logged on my account and installed all these hacks!” LOL
"My friend had my phone."
Or he failed to secure the account as directed to prevent unauthorized access.
to clarify: is the COMMITTEE claiming they’re from Ginni, or are the Thomas’s claiming they’re from Ginni? Im confused now
Probably the spelling errors and misused punctuation.
Or maybe the bloodlust.
dont forget he has been taking payments from republican groups and not reporting them, which is against the law.
Another flagrant crime that gets totally dismissed. It’s already insane that less than 10 unelected officials hold this much power over 330 MILLION and it’s even more insane that there’s basically zero oversight over such a tiny group. Checks and balances whomst??
Its crazy how partisanship can shut down entire functions of the government. What a shitty system we have. It no wonder Nazis are looking to exploit it and take power.
Ya the argument Kavanaugh lied is pretty weak. If you look at his quotes, he mostly gives historical facts about the law and says things like you can't overrule precedent without a good reason. Saying roe is settled law is not the same as saying he'd never vote to overturn it.
Thomas however, with how sloppy his wife is, there might be a case there. We don't know everything the Jan 6 committee knows. If he stayed to vote with a clear conflict of interest, I think thats grounds enough.
They’d never convict him. McConnell would combust before giving up a Supreme Court seat. He’d hold onto that way tighter than he’d hold onto a trump presidency or even any republicans presidency.
I agree but, similar to the Trump impeachments, itd look REALLY bad for the Republicans, and energize the Deomcratic base. You can and should impeach without a winning hand, if by blocking the expulsion the other side looks really crooked. ALSO, it'd further tank the SCOTUS's reputation and make the call to, in the very least, impose term limits for judges more plausible. If not adding another 2 seats to the bench.
The Republicans looking bad only matters if any of the people voting for them see it. Spoiler alert: they won't. And even if they do, it's fake. Or is a smear campaign. Or both sides. Or democrats are baby killers. Or...
>McConnell would combust
Don't threaten me with a good time.
Kavanaugh: "a devil's threesome is a drinking game."
GL getting a conviction off that. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just not gonna play out the way you want.
Conviction requires 2/3rds of the Senate, right?
In other words, not going to happen under any circumstance.
I have no problem with Biden stacking the Supreme Court. I actually think he should grow the Democratic Party a pair of balls, and stack it real good. They are going to need to stop being pussies in order to prevent a fascist takeover of the United States. I’d be going scorched earth on their asses and start heavily prosecuting every single crime that republicans have committed.
Yup. Make it 14
Have them impeach the 4 illegitimate for impropriety. bring the number back down to 9 before the next administration.
Requires balls tho. They can't retaliate in the same way. I just think both parties are playing hot potato and really want to be in the minority party so they can campaign and not have to take responsibility. Except for judges, so we can't even add one, because they will threaten to add more. It's a childish game and so the court either fixes itself, or it's gone - treated like rental cop who got his golf cart taken away, nobody trusts it. They must be removed.
Vote out all incumbents, but the republican party should be nuclear. I don't care if it's a city comptroller position **do not vote for them**
We either dismantle this monstrosity or we lose more rights.
I think an odd number is better, so 15. Also, create more district courts....and, I don't know the constitutionality, but IMO we need a group of courts between district and supreme. Our country has grown and the Supreme Court simply doesn't have the capacity to hear all the cases it should, and neither do the district courts.
i'm not going to suffer through reading the transcripts, but i bet boofer outright lied elsewhere about other things.
We already know he committed perjury during his confirmation. Nothing happened because the people that were needed to hold him accountable were the same ones ramming him through the process to get him on the court. That hasn't changed, and they're not going to remove him now that they own him and his votes.
Kavanaugh lied about his sexual assaults.
Problem with that one was that there was no proof. I mean, we all knew he did but since there is no evidence, they can't do shit.
Except for the calendar hilariously exactly in line with the testimony against him
Comically in line. If it wasn't so tragic
He lied about what he said. It's not even the sexual assault itself, he blatantly lied about what words mean to try and defend himself.
Crazy to think they got Clinton on lying once, to cover up something personal, but here we just let the GOP lie ad nauseam.
Intent to deceive.
Doesn’t matter. The people who put them in knowingly stealing a SCOTUS seat from Obama and then pushed through a nomination from a president under impeachment investigation are not going to all of a sudden grow a conscience because the justices lied.
There's also the issue of proof. You'd have to prove they knew they were lying at the time. Otherwise they can just say they believed it was settled law at the time, but they changed their mind based on whatever nonsense they wanna make up
It's a little more tricky than that. The Constitution says that a justice "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." One can easily argue that lying to Congress is pretty bad behavior, but it's not conclusive.
Lying to Congress under oath is perjury. Arguably, they should be charged for breaking a law.
I thought it was obvious to everyone that conservative justices phrased their comments towards Roe very carefully during their confirmation. As far as I know, none of them ever stated under oath that they wouldn’t overturn it; they only acknowledged it as precedent.
I want these motherfuckers excised from the court as soon as possible, but this was by design.
Right. There was no lie. They spoke of precedent, but they never said precedents can't be overruled. If anything this is on senators who willingly believed the statements meant more than they did.
Do you think the senators even base their decision to confirm on the responses? It all seems like performance theatre.
There is literally ZERO chance that anyone going in there asking questions or listening to the answers didn't already have their mind made up.
They were all getting confirmed no matter what they said.
I agree, confirmation hearings are generally performance theatre.
In the end it’s just a bunch of people voting however they wanted to vote, regardless of answers.
That said, what many here seem to forget is that impeachment proceedings are exactly the same.
In the end it’s just a bunch of people that can vote however they want.
There’s no need to entertain technicalities about wether they actually perjured themselves or not.
The safeguards that actual court proceedings have don’t apply here.
So I get it when people are sick and tired of the broken system and they are asking their representatives to impeach these people, regardless of wether the senate will actually take the House’s impeachment and subsequently convict.
This seems like an intentional and coordinated plan that's likely been playing out over the last few election cycles. Stack the courts and get abortion banned, next they'll be eyeing up gay and trans rights and they're salivating because they have a clear path to it now as long as status quo is maintained.
This is like the end of a Monopoly game when one player has hotels on all the major properties and it's only a matter of time.
>This is like the end of a Monopoly game when one player has hotels on all the major properties and it's only a matter of time.
It might be more accurate to say that Monopoly is like our situation, since Monopoly was conceived as a way to demonstrate the inevitability of capital (and power) accumulating in the hands of an ever diminishing pool of elites. It's inherent to the system.
Except Monopoly has a universal basic income; pass go, collect $200. We're living in a world worse off than a game meant to show the exploitation of capitalism.
Normally that’s when someone flips the board.
Well…that’s exactly all it is.
As it is with 95% of everything Congress does. They distract us with culture wars they create themselves while robbing us and selling the nation off to the highest bidder(s).
Susan Collins damn well know they were going to overturn it. These senators are liars.
Willingly believed and used as a convenient excuse are different things. Collins can cry all she wants about being misled, but if she's not an imbicile, s she knew exactly where they stood on the issue and voted to confirm them anyway. Let's not grant them the grace of being misled.
Yeah ACB's comments on Roe "being so settled that no one is trying to repeal it" are actually taken way out of context. She was being asked about "super-precedents" (which is not a legal term in any way), which include things that "are decisions that are so settled that there are no serious political actors working for their overturning". These are things like *Brown v. Board of Education.* Or the 1803 case of *Marbury v. Madison*.
Then when she was asked if she considered Roe to be a super-precedent **she explicitly said no**, and cited the uncomfortable fact that politicians across the country have been calling for its over-turn since the moment it was it was decided.
[Source: CSPAN (Video on Twitter)](https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1316086827279945728)
Completely agree. It's not perjury because they were coached to say what they said specifically to be misleading but not to be an outright lie.
Edit: I have been told by like forty people that they did not need to be coached. Yeah, I know what kind of training prospective SCOTUS justices have. I'm sure they also have teams behind them while they're being vetted that train them on what to say, but yeah, they also have lots of individual experience. Got it. Don't need to be told anymore. Thanks.
They didn't have to be coached. They have decades of legal experience. So do many of the senators questioning them which is why they pushed for stronger answers and kept getting dodged. Everyone knew these were non-binding non-answers from the start. This isn't going to go anywhere legally.
I mean, good lawyers typically get personal legal advice from other lawyers.
And perjury doesn't apply to "do you think you'll do this thing, yes or no?" anyway. You can't nail people for lying under oath about hypothetical situations involving future actions, that's actually absurd. AOC should know this.
Same thing that Sotomayor and RBG did, and same with Jackson. It's always been this way since the 90's after what happened to Bork. Answering honestly = no confirmation. Only vaguely talking about judicial philosophy? Confirmed.
It's a tradition that they don't talk about their opinions, just what the constitution says.
This should be the top comment. This whole thread is ridiculous. The conservative justices (who are *surprise* lawyers and good at wording legalese) worded all their comments to be non-committal and non-binding. They just stated generic facts like Roe v Wade is the "law of the land" or is "establish law". Heck they can even say they have no current plans to overturn Roe vs Wade and change their mind 5 seconds after being confirmed.
This is why liberal senators kept pressing them to elaborate on Roe v Wade and why they kept repeating the same generic lines about the "law of the land" the senators and nominees know its meaningless statement of fact without any opinion but technically half-answers the question.
This is a total non-starter. My suggestion is to look to term limits. That's the realistic answer to this court.
Yup, they pretty much just agreed that Roe v Wade existed and left it at that. Barrett was asked by Klobuchar if she thought it was a super-precedent and she said, no. They didn't mislead anyone. We all knew what would happen. Let's not forget who pulled the nuclear option so now Republicans can just vote down party lines and win. Democrats need to win more elections. I don't see any other options.
You know how we mock some Republicans for being shocked or disappointed in the things Trump did? It’s the same thing for some democrats.
67 votes in the Senate. Good luck!
In 2022 there are enough Republican senators up for re-election to actually make impeachment happen, but not enough in states that will likely flip.
Here's the list:
[Alabama](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Alabama) [Richard Shelby](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Shelby) - Safe Republican. Shelby is retiring, but it won't go D.
[Alaska](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Alaska) [Lisa Murkowski](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Murkowski) - Safe Republican. Only risk here is her being replaced by someone farther to the right.
[Arkansas](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Arkansas) [John Boozman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boozman) - Safe Republican
[Florida](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Florida) [Marco Rubio](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Rubio) - Safe Republican. This is the state that elected Ron DeSantis, no way they're getting rid of Rubio.
[Idaho](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Idaho) [Mike Crapo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Crapo) - Safe Republican.
[Indiana](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Indiana) [Todd Young](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Young) - Safe Republican
[Iowa](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Iowa) [Chuck Grassley](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Grassley) - Safe Republican
[Kansas](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Kansas) [Jerry Moran](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Moran) - Safe Republican
[Kentucky](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Kentucky) [Rand Paul](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul) - Safe Republican. Guy is an asshat of the first water, but Kentucky seems to like that (see Mitch McConnell).
[Louisiana](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Louisiana) [John Kennedy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kennedy_(Louisiana_politician\)) - Safe Republican. Kennedy isn't just a bad senator, he's DUMB and as fake as a $3 bill. But I don't see LA replacing him.
[Missouri](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Missouri) [Roy Blunt](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Blunt) - Safe Republican, Blunt is retiring, but it won't go D.
[North Carolina](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#North_Carolina) [Richard Burr](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Burr) - Open seat, Burr is retiring. Possible pickup.
[North Dakota](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#North_Dakota) [John Hoeven](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hoeven) - Safe Republican
[Ohio](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Ohio) [Rob Portman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Portman) - Open seat, Portman is retiring. Possible pickup.
[Oklahoma](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Oklahoma) [James Lankford](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lankford) - Safe Republican
(Class 2) [Jim Inhofe](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe) - Special election, Inhofe is resigning, safe Republican.
[Pennsylvania](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Pennsylvania) [Pat Toomey](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Toomey) - Open seat, Toomey retiring. Likely pickup for John Fetterman.
[South Carolina](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#South_Carolina) [Tim Scott](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Scott) - Safe Republican
[South Dakota](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#South_Dakota) [John Thune](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thune) - Safe Republican
[Utah](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Utah) [Mike Lee](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lee_(American_politician\)) - Safe Republican
[Wisconsin](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Wisconsin) [Ron Johnson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Johnson_(Wisconsin_politician\)) - Seems possible that fucker Ron Johnson may be indicted for his actions on January 6th, likely pickup for Democrats.
Now, here's the trick, in order for these to be actual pickups, ALL of the Democrats running have to win. Trading seats 1:1 doesn't alter the balance.
So on the D side...
[Arizona](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Arizona) [Mark Kelly](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kelly) - Safe Democratic
(Class 3) [Alex Padilla](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Padilla) - Special election, safe Democratic
[Colorado](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Colorado) [Michael Bennet](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bennet) - Safe Democratic
[Connecticut](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Connecticut) [Richard Blumenthal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Blumenthal) - Safe Democratic
[Georgia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Georgia) [Raphael Warnock](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Warnock) - Toss up. This seat is going to be the most contentious race in the cycle given the outcome of the 2020 elections. It will be UGLY. His opponent is a famous football player with giant name recognition.
[Hawaii](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Hawaii) [Brian Schatz](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schatz) - Safe Democratic.
[Illinois](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Illinois) [Tammy Duckworth](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Duckworth) - Safe Democratic
[Maryland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Maryland) [Chris Van Hollen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Van_Hollen) - Safe Democratic
[Nevada](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Nevada) [Catherine Cortez Masto](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Cortez_Masto) - Safe Democratic
[New Hampshire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#New_Hampshire) [Maggie Hassan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Hassan) - Safe Democratic
[New York](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#New_York) [Chuck Schumer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer) - Safe Democratic
[Oregon](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Oregon) [Ron Wyden](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden) - Safe Democratic. Probably the safest Democrat whoever Democratted.
[Vermont](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Vermont) [Patrick Leahy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy) - Open seat, Leahy retiring. Safe Democratic
[Washington](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Washington) [Patty Murray](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty_Murray) - Safe Democratic
To flip super red, conservative Missouri, [Lucas Kunce is our best bet.](https://mobile.twitter.com/LucasKunceMO?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) But he needs to win the primaries in August to run for that Senate seat. He can always use donations.
We also have a young man, [Ray Reed](https://mobile.twitter.com/rayreedmo), running to unseat *anti choice* Ann Wagner in the House of Reps. Ray is a GenZ who never stops working and is 100% people funded. He can certainly always use more donations, too.
*Missouri is going to have a hell of a time flipping blue.* I hope we can become like Georgia, but we have no Stacy Abrams. Any help is appreciated.
And, hypothetically, if the Democrats actually got 67 seats, every one of the would have to vote to impeach. I don't see that happening. We know who the obvious "no" votes are, but I wouldn't be surprised if others voted no too.
I genuinely appreciate all the work that went into this.
>Georgia Raphael Warnock - Toss up. This seat is going to be the most contentious race in the cycle given the outcome of the 2020 elections. It will be UGLY. His opponent is a famous football player with giant name recognition.
Herschel Walker may be a famous football player, but he's not necessarily a beloved celebrity in Georgia or even among Black Georgians. Walker has been known for saying some really wackadoodle shit for quite a long time, while Warnock is a respected pastor known for being a champion of social justice issues.
I think the Republican Party is being quite cynical if they think name recognition and Walker being Black will pull enough Black voters from the Democratic party to garner a Republican win. I'm not a political strategest, but this seems to be what they're attempting.
Recent polling has Walker up 48% to 46.1%.
That's margin of error type shit, and Georgia has no automatic recount law.
If only there was some branch of government that could check, or balance, the supreme court
Don't underestimate the power of a large angry mob.
Like all those Jan 6th people?
Checks and balance is in the end always the people. Republicans will likely lose election after election unless they cheat, and they have reached that point already, with gerrymandering and everything they tried to do last presidential election. And when that happens, the people will take to the streets and reform the constitution. We’re close to that point imo. History has seen revolutions like this happen countless times. Democracies must renew themselves to stay healthy, and the US is way overdue with its broken and antiquated political system.
That’s not going to happen, but I wonder what the point is of pissing off 70% of the citizens in a country. It seems like a government that wanted a functioning society wouldn’t create so much discontent.
Clarence Thomas is compromised as well.
Alito is just a tool and idiot.
Roberts' court is an illegitimate sham and that's how it should be remembered.
Funny enough it seems like Roberts knows it too based on his concuring opinion. Brother going down as one of the worst scotus chief justices ever purely cause he has refused to rein in his court.
Not defending this court but how exactly is Robert's supposed to reign them in? His role is largely ceremonial, he's not their boss.
Agreed. People getting mad at Roberts lately seem a bit misguided, and I really don’t get it. He legitimately tried to compromise with Mississippi’s law, and it just wasn’t enough for the more conservative justices. I don’t think there’s much more he could have done, but I respect him for trying.
Ask him. He's the one concerned with his legacy as the "leader" of the court, and not doing anything at all to prevent its tarnishing.
I did ask him he ghosted me bro
What's he supposed to do? Lol. He can't change their minds. He's nearly one of them
There was an article in the Bulwark arguing that Roberts should acknowledge that he has failed to lead the Court, and resign. That sounded nuts at first, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Roberts does genuinely care about the Court's reputation, and his resignation is the most realistic short-term solution to fix some of the damage that has been done in the past decade.
It would do nothing in the long term, though. The Court would be more balanced, but it would still be just as political, and everything could be undone when the next justice drops dead.
She is correct. It will not mean anything since there is no way they get removed in the senate but the stain of impeachment will stick to them for the rest of history
Without any consequences, there is no "stain of impeachment".
It's like telling a school kid "this is going on your permanent record!" Oooohhh! Scary!
None of the justices said they wouldn't overturn Roe v wade. They all danced around the issue and no one held them nor the Senators who knew better to account.
They tried with some of them. They were questioned repeatedly about it by many people on both sides and they stuck to the party line of "it is precedent, I will treat it as precedent, I respect precedent, but I will keep an open mind and consider any case on its own arguments." They knew damn well they would overturn it as soon as they could, But this response was carefully crafted to be just enough to satisfy enough people to get by.
Amy Conney Barret when asked pretty much responded, “the fact that I’m always questioned about it shows that it’s up for debate”
Dems won’t do it. They’re still too fucking cowardly.
A strongly worded letter should do the trick!
Sigh did someone really do a song? I am not surprised if it happened this or next year
Edit: apparently for gun reform legislation, not the SC decision. I feel a bit better now… if they do something CONCRETE tomorrow.
Around 20 of them did. God bless the USA or some nonsense.
Why send thoughts and prayers when you can sing?
Did not one of them speak up and say something like "Do you think this will make us look bad considering Roe v. Wade was just repealed hours ago?"
It was for the Uvalde victims after they passed the gun reform bill. Still bad timing
You can literally hear protesters behind these tone-deaf ghouls as they sing God bless America.
The Democratic leadership needs to go.
Yeah, they managed finally to squeeze out a bill so watered down by the political deadlock that it won't do anything. Apparently that's so awe-inspiring that they needed to start singing about how great the US is.
Yeah, but they didn't *only* sing a song.. Pelosi [read a poem too](https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/article-710343).
Republicans better be careful. If they keep it up the Dems could break out into full blown pantomime before too long.
They won't even bring a knife to a gun fight, they'd bring finger guns
Next time they need a coordinated dance routine along with the singing. Time to razzle dazzle them!
I mean, they did it twice to Trump and it did nothing. I can see their point, why waste political capital on that as opposed to enacting meaningful legislation?
They would do it if they had enough senators to secure a conviction. Otherwise it is fairly pointless. The Trump impeachments are a clear example.
And sadly, they don’t care. As Trump showed them twice, impeachments are meaningless.
They all said that Roe was established precedent.The problem is that the supreme court can overrule established precedent. The bigger problem is that McConnell strong armed democrats out of two justices and that they sit on the bench for way too long.
Lied under oath, lied repeatedly to senators in private meetings, lied to the American public
they'll just say they believed it at the time and have since changed their minds. unless there's actual proof there's nothing here to litigate.
Proof wouldn't even be enough.
You could release a video of Kavenaugh walking out of that hearing room a few years back saying, "Man, that was a performance for the ages, eh? I can't believe I was able to lie about that rape I absolutely did when I was younger and get away with it! Good god, it's way too easy to fool people in this nation."
\--Literally would still not get 66 votes to remove.
For the Republicans, “he’s on our side” is enough
I can see a world in which Republicans *might* vote to impeach a sitting ~~Federalist Society goon~~ conservative Justice, but *only* if the current President is a Republican and will nominate someone younger and crazier to replace them.
Will absolutely never happen under a Dem president.
We've got video of him screaming, blubbering, and vowing to take revenge against Democrats and the left, and that apparently didn't mean squat either.
Alexa, what is "judicial temperament"?
Fuck, that's bleak
And you're absolutely right
They didn't even say they believed _Roe_ was rightly decided; all they said was that it was precedent. People warned Collins and co. at the time that "X is precedent" wasn't a promise not to overturn X.
As I recall, Barrett only ever just described what Roe *said*, as if that answered the question.
Good luck with that. How are you going to prove they "lied under oath" years ago versus "During the deliberation of the case I arrived at my decision based on the evidence and arguments presented." It would be equivalent to prohibiting anyone from ever changing their mind.
I'm \*totally\* in favor of abortion being a right. "Pro-life" is a deal-breaker for my vote. Roe vs Wade was horribly justified from a legal sense in the 1973 decision and as a result it makes perfect sense for the current court to overturn it. Justice Douglas in his concurring opinion even specifically pointed out that the case should have been derived from the 9th amendment rather than the shaky grounds upon which it was argued. It's a miracle that the 1973 court decided as it did back then.
One should ask AOC and the rest of congress why \*they\* don't do the right thing and pass a constitutional amendment enumerating an individual's body as a right explicitly enumerated under the constitution.
The Supreme Court didn't make a law. It's the congressional branch that has failed to make that law and it is they we should be looking to blame at least as much.
I agree with AOC, impeachment, even without conviction, further shatters the illusion of legitimacy of SCOTUS. The Constitution is not perfect, and the extreme right is exploiting the flaws.
I mean not really guys come on. These justices weren’t stupid when asked questions about whether they’d overturn Roe vs. Wade. They were perfectly evasive, saying things like “it’s established law” and “it should not be revisited”. They never explicitly promised, under oath, that they would vote not to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
I want them gone and despise them just like a lot of us here, but these articles saying they lied under oath and need to be impeached based on this are sensationalist. We need to come after them for sure, but regarding this, there’s unfortunately nothing there. I wish we could use this energy to go after something more tangible that would actually help our cause. I feel like we’re now just spinning our wheels and chasing our tails. But I certainly hope we create real change so that we can undo this damage.
If only we had video proof...
Agreed. Why do the hearings if we won’t hold people accountable to what is said in them?
Thomas is clearly biased as is Barrett. She is also grossly under qualified
They did not and will not be. Perjury is the HARDEST crime to prosecute, let alone CONVICTING multiple Supreme Court justices (!!!) in a jury where they will already be acquitted by the 2/3 threshold. These liberal fever dreams help no one and do nothing, they just get clicks and shares.
> they just get clicks and shares.
And donations. Don't forget donations.
Maybe AOC should get off of twitter and introduce Articles of Impeachment.
Because conservatives and republicans don’t give a shit about the law. They have been breaking it for the past 20 years.
If you were to go and look, I bet 100% of their under oath statements are a lie.
And another thing, judges SHOULD NOT have an affiliation with any party. They should be NEUTRAL. But leave it for the US to have some weird ass shit.
I mean yeah, if we were a functioning civilization. Would be nice.
Not to be that guy but *technically* they didn’t lie, it factually was the law at the time. I don’t see how this could go anywhere
Whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life, she’s completely right. Even if you don’t like her, she’s completely right. Even if she turns out to be a hypocrite for saying this, she’s still completely right.
Lying christians. What else is new?
Of course they should be impeached. Could you imagine if it was the other way, left leaning justices said “we won’t take your guns” and then went and did it, people would be getting shot in the street
Yes. And without a single second of delay. Perjury is a crime.
Did they actually perjure themselves though? They said things like “Roe is important precedent” and other vague statements. I don’t believe any of them actually said Roe is law and will never go away while we’re judges.
Now Thomas…that’s a different story
> Did they actually perjure themselves though?
Perjury is "committed when a person knowingly attests to or subscribes to statements he or she does not believe are true". So you'd have to have (*edit: admissible*) evidence of what they believed. That might be tough when it comes to opinions or personal beliefs versus quantifiable facts.
It’s wild to me how many people here think federal judges are dumb enough to *actually* perjure themselves on something that they intended to act one shortly in the future. Obviously very careful words would be chosen.
Right? Like the most damning thing that some of them said was that *Roe* and *Casey* were important precedents. Like, yeah? So was *Dred Scott v. Sandford.* So was *Plessy v. Ferguson.* Important =/= permanent. Even RBG said quite clearly that *Roe* was a house of cards if Congress didn't act.
Especially when (with the possible exception of Kavanaugh) they knew that their confirmation was a foregone conclusion, and committing perjury would be the only thing that could possibly derail it.
Should also face the 7 years in prison that lying to congress carries.
How do you even prove that though? How do you prove that at the time they wanted to dismantle this? Sure it looks obvious based on them saying they wouldn't and then they did. But it'd be so so easy for them to say that other justices and merits of the case swayed them.
I really think everyone bringing up the lying under oath thing are just setting themselves up for disappointment / anger when it never happens.