Are Alito's Comments grounds for Impeachment?

[jaF0]

Justice Alito speech on polarizing issues prompts calls to reform Supreme Court

ABC|1 day ago

Justice Samuel Alito set off fresh calls for Supreme Court reform on Friday after delivering a highly-opinionated speech to a conservative legal group.


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jus...issues-prompts-calls-reform/story?id=74194553




Opinion: Alito's Federalist Society speech was bad for the Supreme Court

Los Angeles Times|23 hours ago

The present and future of the Supreme Court have become — disquietingly — a political issue. President Trump, who still hasn't acknowledged his loss to Joe Biden, is on record urging the Senate to confirm a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to help resolve any challenges to the vote count in the presidential election.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...-society-speech-was-bad-for-the-supreme-court


Samuel Alito Made Strong Case for Supreme Court Reform, Say Critics After Justice's Controversial Speech

Newsweek on MSN.com|2 days ago

Alito claimed that the Supreme Court's landmark same-sex marriage ruling was harming opponents' freedom of speech.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ter-justices-controversial-speech/ar-BB1aYFWR

 

[YDB95]

Regrettably, I don't see anything illegal here. Distasteful, bigoted, nakedly partisan, but not impeachable.

 

[KeithD]

The Constitution identifies "good behavior" as required for a Supreme Court justice to continue to hold that position. I suppose that if half of the House of Representatives decides a justice has engaged in bad behavior, he/she could be impeached, and if two-thirds of the U.S. Senate affirms a justice has engaged in bad behavior, she/he could be removed. It's sort of whether a required number of those in the House and Senate want to remove one for not engaging in "good behavior" and they have the votes, it can be done.

 

[NozeKnowz]

What was wrong with what he said?

 

[BrokenBarbie]

Do you lose your first amendment rights when you become a justice?

 

[NozeKnowz]

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...aw-his-remedy-is-to-curb-free-speech-n1144746

Biden Transition Official Believes the First Amendment Has a 'Design Flaw' -- His Remedy Is to Curb Free Speech


Alito is RIGHT!

 

[coati]

Do you lose your first amendment rights when you become a justice?

No, he is free to make highly politically partisan remarks, and we are free to impeach and convict him for those remarks if the votes are there in the House and the Senate to do so.

And, if he is removed from office, he has not lost his First Amendment rights to continue making highly politically partisan remarks.

So, short answer to your question is NO.

 

[NozeKnowz]

No, he is free to make highly politically partisan remarks, and we are free to impeach and convict him for those remarks if the votes are there in the House and the Senate to do so.

And, if he is removed from office, he has not lost his First Amendment rights to continue making highly politically partisan remarks.

So, short answer to your question is NO.

what was partisan about it?

did you say the same when RBG really DID make PARTISAN remarks?

 

[jaF0]

It's not a matter of criminal activity or 'free speech' which even the Supreme Court agrees has limits. It's a matter of bias, lack of impartiality and fitness for office.


Justice should be pillars of honor. There must be NO bias expressed.

 

[Lazaran]

No, he is free to make highly politically partisan remarks, and we are free to impeach and convict him for those remarks if the votes are there in the House and the Senate to do so.

And, if he is removed from office, he has not lost his First Amendment rights to continue making highly politically partisan remarks.

So, short answer to your question is NO.

Ohhhh.....

So that's how it works......

Who knew....

Obviously right wings morons didn't.

SAD!!!

 

[icanhelp1]

No, he is free to make highly politically partisan remarks, and we are free to impeach and convict him for those remarks if the votes are there in the House and the Senate to do so.

And, if he is removed from office, he has not lost his First Amendment rights to continue making highly politically partisan remarks.

So, short answer to your question is NO.

^^^^^^^^

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...ginsburg-doubles-down-trump-criticism-n608006

She told the New York Times in an interview published online Sunday, "I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president…For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” She told Times reporter Adam Liptak that it reminded her of something her husband, Martin, who died in 2010, would have said: "Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand."


I guess it all depends on what side of the isle you're on. RBG was the most politically active judge on the bench. You're all a bunch of hypocrites!

 

[Lazaran]

^
Too stupid to realize the same rules applied to RBG and she could have been impeached if she had stepped too far over the line. She apologized for her comments, though they were prescient, as history has demonstrated.

 

[NozeKnowz]

What was wrong with what he said?

 

[coati]

^
Too stupid to realize the same rules applied to RBG and she could have been impeached if she had stepped too far over the line. She apologized for her comments, though they were prescient, as history has demonstrated.

Most straight-forward procedural concepts fly right over the heads of Cult-45 members, mainly due to their obsession with being perpetual victims.

 

[KeithD]

Do you lose your first amendment rights when you become a justice?

I don't know if justices do, but I did when I became a federal employee. In order to have the job (it was my choice to try and get the job), I signed declarations of not engaging in partisan politics if I wanted to keep the job.

I'm willing to bet you only take the position you do for conservatives. Would be interesting to know what, if anything, you posted when Ruth Ginsberg was raked over the coals for her anti-Trump remarks (which she later said she regretted having made). Can you cite where you upheld her first amendment rights when that was being discussed on the board?

 

[icanhelp1]

^
Too stupid to realize the same rules applied to RBG and she could have been impeached if she had stepped too far over the line. She apologized for her comments, though they were prescient, as history has demonstrated.

Degrading a presidential candidate is not just judicial activism but interference in a presidential election campaign.

Alito was just pointing out the progressive's intolerance to the 1st amendment, religious freedom and the progressive left's continual attacks on conservative values. Basically defending the constitution which sent every progressive socialist atheist into a meltdown. By all means go ahead and impeach.

 

[icanhelp1]

I don't know if justices do, but I did when I became a federal employee. In order to have the job (it was my choice to try and get the job),

I signed declarations of not engaging in partisan politics if I wanted to keep the job.

Federal employees may not seek public office in partisan elections, use their official title or authority when engaging in political activity, solicit or receive contributions for partisan political candidates or groups, and engage in political activity while on duty.


I'm willing to bet you only take the position you do for conservatives. Would be interesting to know what, if anything, you posted when Ruth Ginsberg was raked over the coals for her anti-Trump remarks (which she later said she regretted having made). Can you cite where you upheld her first amendment rights when that was being discussed on the board?

There is nothing about participating in partisan politics on your own time!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Degrading a presidential candidate is not just judicial activism but interference in a presidential election campaign.

Alito was just pointing out the progressive's intolerance to the 1st amendment, religious freedom and the progressive left's continual attacks on conservative values. Basically defending the constitution which sent every progressive socialist atheist into a meltdown. By all means go ahead and impeach.

I have not read what he said, nor do I care. The point though, for people in these roles is to not appear political, or show support to any political party.

Even if they are 100% correct in what they are saying, by doing so, this only seems to reinforce that your SCOTUS views laws through a political lens, instead of a constitutional lens.

Even though he is just as entitled as anyone else to "free speech", one wonders why he would say something that could be viewed through a political lens. He is also, from what I have read not the only SCOTUS judge to do that.

I know if that occurred in our SC, the judge in all likely hood would be shamed into retirement. Judges should know better, and act better.

 

[jaF0]

I don't understand why he would even agree to appear at such an extremely biased organization's function.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I don't understand why he would even agree to appear at such an extremely biased organization's function.

Yep...

 

[icanhelp1]

I have not read what he said, nor do I care. The point though, for people in these roles is to not appear political, or show support to any political party.

Even if they are 100% correct in what they are saying, by doing so, this only seems to reinforce that your SCOTUS views laws through a political lens, instead of a constitutional lens.

Even though he is just as entitled as anyone else to "free speech", one wonders why he would say something that could be viewed through a political lens. He is also, from what I have read not the only SCOTUS judge to do that.

I know if that occurred in our SC, the judge in all likely hood would be shamed into retirement. Judges should know better, and act better.

I believe in a neutral court, SCOTUS should not engage in political banter that could affect a particular ruling or which could force a recusal upsetting the balance of the court, stick to just ruling on what's in front of them. However they can enjoy freedom of speech rights like any other american.

 

[icanhelp1]

I don't understand why he would even agree to appear at such an extremely biased organization's function.

AGREED!

 

[NozeKnowz]

Hmmm, no answer?

What

Did

He

Say

That

Is

Controversial

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I believe in a neutral court, SCOTUS should not engage in political banter that could affect a particular ruling or which could force a recusal upsetting the balance of the court, stick to just ruling on what's in front of them. However they can enjoy freedom of speech rights like any other american.

No they can't, these are 9 people who have agreed to be the final deciders of law for 323 million people. They need to show that their only views surround the law, and the interpretation of your constitution are about the interpretation, not a personal political view point.

Anything else just leaves the door open to have people cast stones of doubt...which I see all the fucking time in the US about how political the SCOTUS is.

There are third world countries who's Supreme Courts have less political influence claims against it than the US has...

 

[icanhelp1]

Hmmm, no answer?

What

Did

He

Say

That

Is

Controversial

He was showing a conservative bias, everything he said was true, should have been said by a politician not by a SCJ. RBG did the same thing, was irresponsible then and is irresponsible now ( NOT ILLEGAL ).