AOC launches effort to impeach Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

Why wouldn't it get anywhere?

It's a good reminder before a big election that one side is actively attempting to govern, while the other side is blocking any and all actions so as to curry more favor with their billionaire backers.

Johnson has not allowed this near the floor and never will because hes a corrupt sack of fucked up rotten eggplants

There's a very good chance that Democrats retake the House after November. Any idea whether Hakkem Jefferies will allow this proposal to advance?

No, who are you calling a weird timeline? this timeline is extremely solid. It's a very solid timeline. When we're talking these kinds of numbers, then we tax countries when they ship stuff here, and they will not like it, but we can see how solid the timeline is...

I feel like I should have left out all punctuation in that paragraph.

Weird timeline we’re in.

neoliberals and conservatives are flip sides of the same coin to be spent in the same vending machine of american hegemony; whether or not they select the same flavor makes little difference compared to the very real choices available in some other vending machines rich enough to effectively defend itself from the american machine.

Literally 0% chance to change for good if all that happens is bearing witness to corruption and wrongdoing.

This is doing something. It’s hitting on the root of so many problems which have arisen in the US since the corporate takeover of government began in 1978 in partnership with the Supreme Court. I applaud AOC for this!

This is literally AOC trying to impeach them, which isn't going to be successful in a republican controlled house anyway. It's more just for principle and show.

Court packing isn't really an option right now for the same reason...if dems get firm control of the house and senate then it would be possible. For those who don't know Manchin and Sinema are two "democratic" senators who won't abolish filibuster or expand the supreme court so the current 51 - 49 democrat control of the senate isn't real control either.

So annoying that Democrats propose something, the Republican majority opposes and entirely quashes it, and the "take" is that we should blame Democrats for not getting it done.

See also, filibuster and gerrymandering.

Republicans absolutely will do something if it benefits them. We can safely assume current filibuster rules benefit them otherwise they would have removed them themselves already. Dems do actually stand on tradition (which is why they haven't eliminated the filibuster even though it would greatly benefit them), often to their own detriment and I would say it's far more likely that they are actully concerned about norms (I would say overly so) when they're hesitant to do something like impeach justices.

"Moderate" Dems have been trying to appear palatable to an increasingly unhinged conservative voter for decades now, so they won't push for anything too controversial

They love complaining about it. And saying that’s why they can’t fix anything.

Should be noted how many conservative Democrats are genuinely happy to have a SCOTUS do the dirty work of deregulation, dismantling of the administrative state, and legalization of bribery at all levels of government.

People say “if we do it, trump will do it” which is just insane to me because why the fuck would any republican not do something unless a Dem does it first?

The Republican strategy, to date, has been to rely on liberal apathy and "norms" that favor their reactionary policies in order to ratchet their way into a judicial permanent majority. But for policies that this ratchet effect won't work fast enough - funding of Trump's Wall, illegal surveillance under Bush, police harassment of minority groups in Texas and Florida, police harassment of women's health clinics, police harassment of GOTV efforts by liberals - the Republicans simply do as thou wilt and leave it to the Democrats to pound sand in response.

To the idea of court packing, I do have to ask... why are we afraid of more SCOTUS judges? What happens if the court swelled from nine to nineteen over the course of a couple of D/R/D/R administrations? Is that actually a problem? Will court rules be meaningfully worse as a result. I've yet to hear how a larger court with a more diffuse power base would be bad for the American public.

the Supreme court justices have exempted themselves from prosecution for accepting gifts through previous decisions and C. Thomas was not required to recuse himself in the Jan 6 cases involving his own wife so let's go with no policing at all.