Reply #67: Come on now.

[Vattel]

Your argument is unconvincing. You say:

"He didn’t specifically use the word “impeach” – But what else could he have meant when he said that “the best thing to do is get new justices”? One possibility is that he meant that we should wait for the current justices to retire or die of natural causes and then “get new justices”. As John Bonifaz said in criticizing Feingold’s statement, “Based on the age of some of the justices in the majority, that’s suggesting that we wait a very long time”. A very long time, indeed! I’ll be long dead by that time, and so will many tens of millions of other Americans, as well as what’s left of our democracy. That would be a very passive way to address “one of the most lawless (decisions) in the history of the Supreme Court”, as Feingold described it. Feingold could not have meant that."

The flaw in your reasoning is this: Since the decision was 5-4, in theory only one of those five would need to retire to change the opinion of the Court on corporate speech. Thus, Feingold could have meant that we wait for at least one of the current justices to retire or die. You have no basis for saying that he was recommending impeachment.