defund the supreme court

[moonshinegnomie]

with the court showing an extreme parstisan bent and basically ignoring ethics rules its time to refuse to fund them until they refrom themselves.
cut off all funding. if they complain about it or issue an order to the contrary ignore it.

and for those that say it could destroy america that ship has sailed. the rethugs have already declared war on democracy and have already pretty much destroyed the american ideal. they have already done so much damage to the country that the destruction has already occurred. its time to fight back with any tool available

[jimfields33]

1. No defunding at all anywhere

Americans have some wanting to defund the justice department and now Supreme Court. Where does it end?

[Ocelot II]

2. The Constitution wouldn't allow that.

However, they should have to bring their own lunches.

[moonshinegnomie]

5. the constitution no longer matters

when i crokked insitution gets to decide whats constitutional or not they need to be reigned in. and defunding them is pretty much the only nonviolent wat we have.

the rethugs wont impeach in the house so thats out. so is expanding teh court. the only way is to refuse to funs them at all

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

10. The gop will control the budget

It still has to pass the Senate and be signed by the President, but what is included or not included is up to the House since all spending must originate from there.

[Ocelot II]

12. That is not going to happen anyhow, since the GOP will control the House,

and all funding matters arise in the House.

[Joinfortmill]

3. A few private talks about impeachment...

might cause one or two to retire.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

4. Doubtful

67 votes in the Senate are needed for removal. I'm not sure we'd even get to 50 votes.

[moonshinegnomie]

7. it wouldnt even get to the senate since a gop house will never pass it

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

8. Also true

N/t

[onenote]

6. In your imagination.

In the real world not a chance

[Ocelot II]

11. Only one Supreme Court justice, Samuel Chase, has ever been impeached,

and he was acquitted by the Senate.

The House voted to impeach Chase on March 12, 1804, accusing Chase of refusing to dismiss biased jurors and of excluding or limiting defense witnesses in two politically sensitive cases. The trial managers (members of the House of Representatives) hoped to prove that Chase had "behaved in an arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust way by announcing his legal interpretation on the law of treason before defense counsel had been heard." Highlighting the political nature of this case, the final article of impeachment accused the justice of continually promoting his political agenda on the bench, thereby "tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan."

On November 30, 1804, the Senate appointed a committee to "prepare and report proper rules of proceedings" for the impeachment trial. When they took up the case against the Federalist justice in January 1805, the Senate consisted of 25 Jeffersonian Republicans and nine Federalists. Chase appeared before the members on January 4, 1805, to answer the charges. He declared that he was being tried for his political convictions rather than for any real crime or misdemeanor and requested a one-month postponement to prepare a defense. The Senate agreed and the trial began in earnest on February 4.

Chase's defense team, which included several of the nation's most eminent attorneys, convinced several wavering senators that Chase's conduct did not warrant his removal from office. With at least six Jeffersonian Republicans joining the nine Federalists who voted not guilty on each article, the Senate on March 1, 1805, acquitted Samuel Chase on all counts.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm

[Gore1FL]

9. We cannot completely defund it, but we don't have to pay for staffing. nt

[Ocelot II]

13. Who is this "we" of whom you speak? Spending matters come from the House,

and since the House will be controlled by the GOP, do you seriously think that could happen? Anyhow, it would set a dangerous precedent.

[Gore1FL]

14. We are "the People" who elect our House who control the purse strings.

Do I think that could seriously happen? It's not likely at all.

The dangerous precedents have already been set by the court. I have no problem with the legislative branch using it's legitimate power to check the judiciary.

[Ocelot II]

16. "We the people" have elected a majority GOP House.

So it isn't going to happen.

[Gore1FL]

17. It is unlikely if we had the majority, too. There will be future elections, afterall.

Nonetheless, the congress is empowered to do what I stated. If I wanted to go down the betting-odds rabbit-hole I would have in my first post.

[moonshinegnomie]

18. the senate will still have to pass any spending too

and im not really worried about a dangerous precedent. they GOP has already shown they will go to any lengths to get their way and its time for the democrats to fight as dirty as they do.

[sarisataka]

15. SMH

If democracy is so far gone why not just declare Biden king?

[MichMan]

19. The lack of knowledge about how our government operates is depressing

[SYFROYH]

20. This may be one of the worst ideas I've head on DU.

Jesus H Christ. And I’m an atheist!