It was skipped.

There isn't a statute setting a time frame for action on nominees.

They found a loophole. Just because something was wrong doesn't make it illegal. For better or worse we need to follow the law.

There is no reason in law to impeach Mr Gorsuch.

-- Mal

Gorsuch will be easy to impeach.

And only one, Samuel Chase, was impeached, but he was acquitted by the Senate by wide margins. That was more than 200 years ago, in 1805. The reason he was impeached in the first place was because he was accused of political bias in his capacity as a trial court judge. All impeachments of federal judges since Chase have been based on allegations of legal misconduct such as bribery, not on judicial performance.

The way the GOP engineered the appointment of Gorsuch was unethical and slimy but it wasn't illegal. There's no way in hell he could be impeached or even censured for it.

mcturtle could have gone through the motions, dragged out the hearings, scheduled things at a very slow pace, and eventually had all the republicans agree to vote him down regardless of qualifications. and he could have done the same thing to any replacement appointment from obama.

it would have achieved the same effect and it would have technically been the same strategy -- keep the seat open despite the obvious intent of the constitution.

really all mcturtle did was avoid wasting senate time on a doomed nomination. i'm sure the rest of the republicans in the senate were on the same page on this.

And think of what it will do for the Democrats if we finally show some damn balls for once.

I think a really good lawyer could present a really good case for his impeachment. I'm not a lawyer at all but I know there are very smart Democrats who could make a good case.

I think his recent vote for the Muslim ban is enough. All they have to do is show how Muslims don't present a danger to our country by using statistics that show how it is white men, and mostly white Christian men who are the biggest terrorists that present the danger. Therefor the ban on Muslims was purely racist and political.

Five of the justices voted for the ban so all of them would have to be impeached, too, right? Gorsuch didn't even write an opinion. Impeach Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, if that's going to be the basis for it. A really good lawyer wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot-pole. I am a lawyer, though just a retired one and maybe not "a really good one," and I can assure you that there is no good case for impeaching Gorsuch as things stand right now. A supreme court justice has been impeached only once, more than 200 years ago, and he was acquitted. The few lower court federal judges who were impeached and removed were accused of crimes off the bench, like bribery and fraud. If you think a justice can be impeached just because of what we might consider to be bad decision (which, in this case, Gorsuch didn't even write but merely signed on to, along with four others), what do you think will protect the liberal justices from the same treatment, especially with a GOP-controlled congress? Why couldn't the GOPers try to impeach Sotomayor for her dissenting opinion? Same concept.

the GOP is in control and a DEM president presents a Supreme Court pick they will do the same damn fucking thing.

Do you want to OK this kind of behavior?

on his part. He didn't do that; he just accepted the job that was given to him. I'm not suggesting what McConnell and the Senate did to hold that position open is OK, but you have to find appropriate remedies. In this case, impeachment isn't it.

called "fruit of the poisonous tree". The election was stolen so actions that flow from that event are illegitimate and should be nullified. I agree that Gorsuch won't be removed but it's a pleasant thought.

president and that president put forth a Supreme Court nominee we would never block that nominee because it would be wrong. I could see a thread on it where suggested such a think and you would be lecturing me about how it should not or could not be done. And yet the Republicans did it.

At some point I think we should take a page out of their play book and hit them over their fucking heads with it.

Gorsuch was given that position by illicit means. He is illicit. I think he should not be allowed to continue to have the seat if we are in power again. That's it.

so there's no reason Democrats couldn't do it if they control the Senate. But they don't.

...for a Supreme Court Justice for close to a year.

unfortunately, we're not getting the 2/3rds in the senate needed to even slap him on the wrist, never mind actually removing him.

it would be easier for a democratic president with a simple majority in both houses to enact a law adding two justices to the supreme court and appointing liberal ones to restore balance (one for garland and one to offset gorsuch). well we need to go nuclear to get around a filibuster. in any event, much easier than getting 2/3rds of the senate.

in theory, a justice could reasonably be impeached even if they did nothing illegal, but if their appointment was improper. but that would be a tough sell, as you say.

imho, if we're going to play "constitutional hardball", we should just pack the court. two liberal justices to get back to proper balance. well, garland and one liberal justice to offset gorsuch....

for a hugely popular strongly liberal democratic president with overwhelming majorities in both houses. having the supreme court 5-4 against would bother me a lot less.

it was an unpopular idea, but the Court did back off and stop overturning FDR's initiatives. The Court can be responsive to external pressure; even Roberts (imo) backed off on his inclination to overturn the ACA because of public perception of an overly-political court (settling instead for what he hoped was the poison pill of optional Medicaid expansion).

The law currently sets the number of SCOTUS seats at 9.

You can impeach a justice for pretty much anything you can get the majority of the House to agree to.

But then you need 2/3 of the Senate to convict... and that isn't going to happen.

Elect Democratic Senators and fight the fascists.

67 Senate votes is not even close to plausible given the number of deep red states.

People took our Democracy for granted and the Susan Sarandon’s of the world thought they had the luxury of casting protest votes.

McConnell is a sleazebag who manipulated the rules of the Senate to prevent Obama's nominee from being submitted to a vote. But that wasn't illegal or even contrary to the Senate's rules. Furthermore, the Speech or Debate clause of the Constitution insulates members of Congress from legal consequences of acts done as members of Congress. Then the president appointed Gorsuch and the Senate confirmed him. There was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about either act. So whom would you sue, and for what?

Good questions, all.

in the DU Court of Appeals.

it isn't a good argument for anyone.

and didn't ignore centuries of precedent, Garland would be in the seat instead of Gorsuch. If the republicans are going to flout the methods of SC appointment we have used for centuries, we need to fight that.

Do you understand now?

Holding hearings wouldn't have guaranteed his confirmation.

up a SC candidate?

I'm not defending what McConnell did. But I am saying it wasn't unlawful in any way. And it wouldn't be unlawful for the Senate to reject every nominee a president put up. There are Constitutional duties and Constitutional expectations. Giving consideration to a President's nominees is Constitutional expectation. Obviously, a Democratic president, expected to make nominations, should do so. At that point the Republicans have to decide what the political risk is of not meeting expectations. With the Garland nomination, they concluded, correctly that there was no risk in stonewalling. How many times they could go to that well without paying a political price is unknown

People here forget how things were prior to the election. Lots of Democrats had no interest in confirming him because we all assumed that Clinton was about to become president and we might even take back the Senate. She would have selected a far more progressive nominee at that point.

I doubt that President Obama ever expected to get a vote - he just wanted to make sure that it became an election issue.

"Each House (of the Congress) may determine the Rules of its Proceedings....."

Gorsuch was illegitimate because the sitting president's choice was ignored.

Enjoy yourself.

presume it and protect it.

the Constitution.

The Constitution specifies that a Supreme Court Justice must be confirmed by the Senate. It provides that a Supreme Court Justice serves for life ("during good behavior&quot . And the Constitution provides that Justices may be impeached and removed upon conviction for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

While the Senate can provide in its rules whether a hearing is required or even whether a vote must take place, those rules can't be applied retroactively to remove a nominee who didn't get a hearing or a vote. Indeed, it is far from clear that the courts would enforce such a rule by directing Congress to hold a hearing and/or vote.

Look, we both know none of this is ever going to happen, so I won't argue any more. My main point, though, is that we got here because they were willing to do all the things we would never dream of doing. I would say we need to start considering doing those things, but the fact is that we will never again get the chance. So it's all moot.

This is a bad day. Here's hoping for some better ones in the future. Be well.

You can't unring the bell. You could put a rule in place that says in the future a nomination must be voted on in x number of days, but you can't retroactively put in rules.

for a nominee to be approved. Inaction or silence is lack of consent.

Which Article requires the Senate to hold a hearing within any specified period of time?

The way these things have always been handled is by following centuries of precedent.

If THEY are going to toss out those centuries of precedent, why shouldn't we?

And it worked. And here we are.

.......that requires the Senate to hold hearings for judicial appointments. You're trying to ascribe a requirement to hold hearings that simply isn't there. The only requirement is that a nominee must receive Senate approval before she or he can take the bench to which she or he was nominated. Precedent doesn't (you'll pardon the expression) trump the actual requirements (or lack thereof) in the Constitution. If the senate declines to hold hearings or give approval, the nomination dies there.

Which is what happened.

What is the Constitutional difference between the confirmation process of a Supreme Court justice and that of a federal appellate court justice?

And would fail to get the votes in the current Senate.

...before or after we impeach and fail to convict Trump?

Just to be clear: you want the Republican Senate that approved him to change their mind (by a 2/3 margin)?

Can you imagine if FDR just threw in the towel?

If we won every Senate seat up in 2018, we would have 58 Senators.

and then load it up with progressives. There's nothing in the Constitution that specifies 9 members and if the pukes won't play by the "rules", why should we?*


* FDR threatened something similar back in the 30s when the Supremes kept overturning everything he was trying to do to deal with the depression. The threat was unpopular, and caused an uproar, but it did succeed in making the Court back off. After the theft of a seat, I'm thinking the pukes have it coming.

(clearly this is a long-term solution; nothing can be done right now)

He lied during his confirmation hearings and more information came to light that vindicated Anita Hill.

There is a next to 0% chance of impeaching a SCJ, but if we did try to get rid of one, Clarence Thomas should be the target.

Thomas was simply confirmed.

I'm sure there are also illegal activities that he is tied to through his wife Ginny.

When Democrats regain the House, someone needs to open up an investigation into Thomas and follow the money that is flowing through Virginia's political action entities.

You don't "get sanitized" bc you go through "the REST" of a process according to the rules. His seat was unjustly filled and was only a result of pres that was chosen by a sham election. You can't "get clean' from the original injustice by using the process...after you've flaunted that very process.

...for the political activities of his wife.

Gorsuch can only be impeached for malfeasance in office, such as bribery.

And which 25 Republicans in the House would vote for a Bill of Impeachment?

Then pass a law increasing the number of Supreme Court justices to offset the evil. Kill the filibuster if need be. It must happen.

We have the idea, so the battle is pretty much halfway won. From here on out, it's just a matter of working out the details.

Now, all we have to do is get the republican majority to impeach their own guy, who's doing exactly what they wanted him to do.