Are there 67 votes in the US Senate to impeach any Supreme Court justice?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Are there 67 votes in the US Senate to remove any current Supreme Court justice from office (aka impeach)?

[ddeclue]

1. Don't be ridiculous - there probably aren't 2 votes much less 67.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Yes, which is the point.

The recent popularity of nonsensical arguments about how we are going to impeach and convict some Supreme Court Justices for treason are worthy of the 9/11 forum.

[ddeclue]

8. How about a sarcasm smilie then?

Otherwise we're taking you at your word.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. It is a POLL. There is no word to be taken at.

Since hundreds of folks recommend posts about how we're going to impeach these guys (the only two females on the court are liberals) it is reasonable to ask whether DUers actually believe this is possible.

Asking the question is not advocacy.

Perhaps there is a widespread DU belief that we DO have 67 votes. You and I know that's absurd, but that doesn't mean everyone accepts that analysis.

That's what a poll is about... what other people say.

[ddeclue]

37. Actually YES -asking the question IS advocacy and any politically astute person knows that.

It's push polling.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

42. You are utterly wrong. sorry.

A push poll is a poll whose purpose is to offer information in the questions, not really to measure opinion.

And asking a question isn't advocacy.

You might want to stop digging.

[ddeclue]

47. YOU are the one doing the digging - your framing of the question clearly identifies an agenda and

tries to convince the poll taker to go along with it.

It's called "leading the witness".

[cali]

16. for some reason this crap is really pissing me off.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. My crap or the other crap?

I logged on and the first thing I read was 120 recs for a delusional post redefining almost every word used to reach the conclusion that we're going to impeach a bunch of SC justices.

Meanwhile, any 5 justice majority can overturn the offending decision any time it wants.

So we need one more justice. That seems more likely to me than doing something utterly impossible.

If Obama can somehow serve two terms we might get a fifth justice... it's not sure, but it's possible.

Unlike some things.

[cali]

24. the other moronic crap.

the only thing stupider than david's post is the number of recs it's received.

[ClassWarrior]

34. It seems like all you ever do is call other DUers names. Never Rape-Publicans. Never media whores.

Just other DUers.

Hmmm...

NGU.

[cali]

40. I'm not calling anyone a name. I'm saying a post was stupid.

and I've had plenty to say about the MSM. As for the idiots so many of you breathlessly follow. I don't. I don't watch Morning Joe or Tweety or any of that crap.

[Bitwit1234]

23. We know that but, just the threat would show them we the people

are looking for a way to get rid of them. And there are a lot of resourceful Americans out there. That's why republicans don't like lawyers. I say threaten or go ahead. Then look for constitutional ways to block the S.O.B.'s What does it take to get a constitutional amendment to add two more.

[ddeclue]

38. Um NO because it would fail utterly and actually strengthen them.

[kenny blankenship]

27. Sure. But putting them ON RECORD would be a corrective aimed at the Senate itself

even more so than aimed at the criminal Court.

Let the people see.

[ClassWarrior]

36. Bingo!! It opens up the debate. There's no better disinfectant than sunlight.

NGU.

[ddeclue]

39. It would utterly fail to even happen - it is delusional to even waste time discussing it.

[ClassWarrior]

50. If it's a waste of time, why are you even bothering to post??

:eyes:

With attitudes like this, how can we expect our Dems to stand up for anything??

NGU.

[Cosmocat]

44. There sure as heck are the votes ...

if the Rs got hot to fire a "liberal" SC justice ...

Every stinking R, and if the fire got hot enough they could cave enough Ds ...

[FreakinDJ]

2. talking about Scalia?

[Bluzmann57]

3. Not only no

But Hell no! They quite simply don't have the cajones for something like that, even if there is a clear case for impeachment. I mean bush "served" two terms without so much as a peep from the Senate.

[fascisthunter]

5. these political careerists don't give a shit about this country...

if they did, they'd utilize what power they had at their disposable, instead of making excuses. They just don't care as much as they should.... frauds.

[11 Bravo]

6. Not even close.

[spanone]

7. you're asking congress to turn off the money spigot?? bwahahahahahaa

[bemildred]

9. That would require courage and integrity.

You might find one or two, maybe.

[kudzu22]

10. My guess is you can't even get ten

to vote for it. The case for impeachment is extremely weak, and to try it would just make Dems look petty and pathetic. Understand the emotion, question the tactic.

[kenny blankenship]

25. Sure, but let's put them on record.

[Richardo]

11. 67 Senators to convict. The House impeaches.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. I am aware of that, but wanted to phrase the question for inclusion. It's a poll.

I said it correctly--remove from office--then added the parenthetical "aka impeach" for the benefit of folks who routinely conflate impeach and convict.

It's a poll, not a lesson. One cannot poll very well without including the popular (incorrect) usage.

[Richardo]

20. The 'popular' usage made for a lot of embarrassingly uninformed posts on DU from 2001-08

I'm afraid I take every opportunity to point out the difference. CArry on.

[JSK]

28. And the Chief Justice presides over a Senate impeachment trial! n/t

[lefthandedlefty]

12. Repugs won`t turn their on own kind

and seriously do you think any politition would bite the hand that feeds it?Why don`t we face the ugly truth polititions are only in it for the money they don`t care about us never have never will.

[NorthCarolina]

46. It isn't JUST the Repugs. The DLC/Blue Dogs are right there with them. eom

[old mark]

13. You would probably get the most votes to impeach Ginsberg or Sotomayor,

one for being "liberal", the other for being Puerto Rican. But not enough to actually do it.

You would probably never be able to impeach any of the conservatives, no matter what.

mark

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. very true

[lazer47]

15. It would not matter anyway, The Justices would just throw out the case

before it came to a vote anyway..

[adamuu]

26. Article Two, Section Four

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_4:_Impeachment

[adamuu]

21. Let's wait to see what the polling shows. This decision may be so distasteful to the public

that it cannot be ignored
Remember, the Republican party includes many libertarians

[madamesilverspurs]

22. Nah, they're all too busy

shopping for suits with bigger pockets.


---

[elocs]

29. It would be nice if DUers would stop indulging themselves in the "impeach" fantasy world.

It didn't happen with Bush and it's not going to happen with any Supreme Court justices. Impeachment is not conviction, sadly as everyone here should know by now. Clinton was impeached but not convicted, but it's not going to even go that far this time. Just as with Bush there is absolutely no way that 67 Senators will vote to convict.

There are doubtless a big chunk of the American electorate who are not regular Republican voters who look at Democrats as having 2 songs: "Election Fraud: We Was Robbed" and "Impeach, Impeach, Impeach".

We heard the Impeach Bush drumbeat for years and now it will be the Impeach SCOTUS drumbeat. I imagine maybe someday in the future when there might be a Liberal Supreme Court then it will be the Republicans' turn to cry "impeach", but then we won't like impeachment at all, will we?

[ClassWarrior]

33. It's conviction in the court of public opinion. If it wasn't, why would folks like you get...

...so worried when it's brought up?

NGU.

[anonymous171]

30. "How can we get the votes" is the question that we should be asking ourselves

The amount of votes we have now is completely irrelevant.

[ClassWarrior]

31. Doesn't matter. Just bringing it before the Senate will raise enough questions...

...to boost the vote count.

NGU.

[MadBadger]

32. LOL, who are the three who think yes?

[michreject]

35. No nt

[MercutioATC]

41. Umm...they kinda have to be charged with something first.

What charge(s) do you suggest?

[karynnj]

43. No

[gleaner]

45. I said no ...

Not only is there a shortage of intestinal fortitude in the Senate, the Supreme Court just handed the piggy bank of unfettered campaign money. Why should they get rid of such wonderful gift givers?

[Vidar]

48. No, but it would be heartening to see a few make an effort.

[depakid]

49. LOL- the hapless Democrats couldn't even muster the votes to block the most extreme ideologues

ever appointed to the federal bench!

Much better to be "bipartisan."