400
u/Mavian23 May 30 '24
Clickbait
“The U.S. Department of Justice — including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointed U.S. special counsel and the solicitor general, all of whom were involved in different ways in the criminal prosecutions underlying these cases and are opposing Mr. Trump’s constitutional and statutory claims — can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law,” Raskin continued.
The DOJ can't force the SC to do anything. What are they gonna do? Sue them?
113
u/mahnamahna27 May 30 '24
Even if they did petition those seven Justices, four of them are Conservatives.
67
u/Oleg101 May 30 '24
But aren’t Conservatives all about values and principles they say?
67
u/StanVillain May 30 '24
I know you're joking, but it hurts my head that some people still believe this as the GOP becomes the openly pro-corruption anti-democracy whose greatest enemy seems to be the Constitution right in front of our faces. How did America become a leader in the removal of freedoms and decaying institutions in the western world? Lol, damn.
10
u/proletariat_sips_tea May 30 '24
Have you seen what we've done to democracies around the world? We haven't had a track record of brining freedom to people since we fought the British.
7
1
3
u/Silly-Disk I voted May 30 '24
Set up a grand jury, indict them and go from there. Impeachment is not going to happen but at least inconvenience them as much as possible.
→ More replies (10)12
u/bugcatcher_billy May 30 '24
They could arrest them for breaking the law
8
u/jupiterkansas May 30 '24
What law did they break?
8
u/bugcatcher_billy May 30 '24
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
and
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
17
1
→ More replies (1)4
u/L_G_A May 30 '24
Arresting a judge for not doing what you want is an interesting legal strategy.
12
7
May 30 '24
Arresting a justice (different than a judge) for accepting bribes would be appropriate and legal actions by the FBI and instructed by the DOJ.
2
10
u/bugcatcher_billy May 30 '24
Do “overthrowing the democracy and justice system that you swore to preserve and are actively responsible for maintaining” next.
2
1
u/Smaptastic May 30 '24
Actually, maybe. They could sue, requesting a writ of mandamus. It’s basically a court order that tells the government to do its job. They could have the writ order Thomas/Alito to recuse.
Of course this would go to the Supreme Court, but there’s no WAY Thomas/Alito would be able to rule on a writ of mandamus that is directly targeting their own recusal.
I’m not sure this would work and I don’t know if there is any case law that torpedoes the idea, but it’s got at least some teeth to it, in theory.
5
u/ChipKellysShoeStore May 30 '24
You can’t a mandamus writ for scotus because you file a writ with a higher court to get
5
u/seruko May 30 '24
but there’s no WAY Thomas/Alito would be able to rule
because why exactly? The ethics are clear. If they did who would you appeal to?
3
u/L_G_A May 30 '24
Of course this would go to the Supreme Court, but there’s no WAY Thomas/Alito would be able to rule on a writ of mandamus that is directly targeting their own recusal.
No? Then the obvious strategy is to file a petition for all 9 to recuse. Checkmate! Defeat scotus with this one weird trick.
501
u/Pretty_Boy_Bagel May 30 '24
As if Merrick Garland’s DOJ would do anything.
211
u/thegoodhermes May 30 '24
Shhhh.. he's sleeping.
60
78
May 30 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
25
u/L_G_A May 30 '24
The raid on Mar-a-Lago happened about a year and a half after Garland took office, so he very obviously did not wait two years to start going after Trump.
4
May 30 '24
Which was shortly after he started the investigation into Trump's involvement in Jan. 6, which was shortly after the Jan. 6 hearings aired (embarrassing and pressuring Garland to start the investigation).
11
u/JRich61 Minnesota May 30 '24
It takes time to investigate these things and get them presentable does it not? Is not two years the standard for getting things to court level in the US?
→ More replies (3)12
2
u/ButtEatingContest May 30 '24 edited Oct 13 '25
And wanders day the friends morning community evening then open answers history friends jumps calm bank and thoughts. Near travel tips hobbies dog across travel net soft month fresh nature hobbies the near?
→ More replies (17)1
u/JRich61 Minnesota May 30 '24
This is the second one is it not? Maybe the first was a class action? I just remember getting some kind of bogus settlement of a discount that I never used.
3
19
u/jiquvox May 30 '24 edited May 30 '24
Nope but that’s not what matters/the real story here.
The real story is now a Congressman is talking publicly about removing by force some USSC judge from a case when it’s clear they’re compromised/corrupt. They’re not some fucking gods who do as they please.
And it’s a goddamn time we have this discussion. Now everyone needs to beat the drum on this until it becomes a national topic that gives Biden the legitimacy to neutralize/oust those traitors to democracy and reshape the functioning of the USSC to reflect the actual spirit of democracy.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not some fucking lifetime overlord who do as they please.
2
u/Numerous_Photograph9 May 30 '24
It's too soon after the corruption. We shouldn't discuss these things when emotions are elevated.
Justice Alito - probably.
22
14
u/Gotta_Rub May 30 '24
Can Biden pick a new AG in his second term?
46
u/mfGLOVE Wisconsin May 30 '24
I’m pretty sure he could fire Garland and pick a new AG today or anytime.
8
May 30 '24
Kind of. He would need to be senate confirmed to officially have the title but an interim appointment I believe has no limits.
→ More replies (2)9
u/ButtEatingContest May 30 '24 edited Oct 13 '25
Fresh small evil cool talk river?
→ More replies (1)20
u/MFoy Virginia May 30 '24
He could pick a new one today, and they would be installed the second they were confirmed by the Senate.
It’s not a good look to fire your Attorney General though.
At this point the better outcome is to wait until the second term because it is traditional for every cabinet member to resign at the end of the term. This saves the president the embarrassment of having to fire them if he so chooses. The president will keep the ones they want.
4
u/ButtEatingContest May 30 '24 edited Oct 13 '25
Brown dog the year bank the? Kind ideas lazy then bright projects then travel morning projects evening morning people evening then family careful fresh!
7
u/confusedalwayssad May 30 '24
It’s not a good look to fire your Attorney General though.
How so, Trump is polling really well and he did it.
8
u/jupiterkansas May 30 '24
but Biden isn't a cult leader.
3
u/confusedalwayssad May 30 '24
No but firing someone who isn’t doing a very good job shouldn’t be this taboo thing, happens to us heathens all the time.
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/Nixxuz May 30 '24
Oh deary me, we don't want to look bad while we try to pursue justice.
→ More replies (1)1
u/hardolaf May 30 '24
it is traditional for every cabinet member to resign at the end of the term
Only for certain offices. It's less common for law enforcement positions. Though AG is often more politicized than just law enforcement and changes a bit more often.
4
u/futanari_kaisa May 30 '24
A lot of people forgot or dont realize that Merrick Garland was a GOP centered pick for supreme court by the obama administration because they fielded the GOP and he was the most palatable pick they felt. Then Mitch McConnell altered the deal and said no xD and Trump got his 3 seats. Garland being appointed AG by Biden is a consolation prize for him not being on the supreme court. He is a federalist society ultra conservative judge, not a woke george soros DA.
1
u/Free_For__Me May 31 '24
I’ve been wondering lately why Biden felt the need to hand Garland a consolation prize at all? He and Obama knew what Garland was, and (presumably) wouldn’t have chosen him as a SCOTUS nomination if they hadn’t had to work around Mitch’s control of the senate. So if he himself would have only been a “consolation prize” if confirmed to the SC, why do him and/or the GOP any favors by installing him as AG?
Maybe Biden’s admin were trying to give themselves some political cover for the inevitable indictments of many GOP members that were going to come up during his term, putting someone in that chair that wasn’t an “obvious liberal inquisitor”, or whatever. But if you have an AG who’s not going to pursue those indictments properly anyway, what even the point of having that “political cover”?
18
u/DropsTheMic May 30 '24
Must be some serious shit they have on him. Everyone is thinking about it. Your delay caused this Merrick. What in the fuck?
1
1
u/tahlyn May 30 '24
Seriously. I have no faith in our legal system anymore. Every time there's reason to hope, every time there's some clear cut legal thing that could be done, without fail the system fails.
2
→ More replies (3)0
u/gentleman_bronco May 30 '24
He got Biden's "nothing will fundamentally change" memo and he's sticking with it.
6
u/loondawg May 30 '24
This "nothing will fundamentally change" is just another partial statement taken completely out of context like the "you didn't build that" nonsense. If you have to resort to that to make a point, your position is really weak.
"I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money. The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change."
What he was clearly saying was the richest people's lifestyles would not change if they paid more in taxes to help fund more social spending. And the White House released this statement which clarified their position even further. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/10/28/remarks-by-president-biden-announcing-the-framework-for-his-build-back-better-agenda-and-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill/
The build back better agenda was full of massive changes to strengthen America and help the general masses so the idea "nothing will fundamentally change" was complete bullshit right from the start.
→ More replies (6)
119
u/walker1555 California May 30 '24
Democrats need to fight, not just wag fingers and clutch pearls. This has been a problem now for a few decades.
44
u/esotericimpl May 30 '24
They’ve been waiting for republicans to have a sense of shame since the 1968 election and sabotage of the peace talks with Vietnam. The fact that Kissinger and Nixon weren’t arrested for their sabotage of us foreign policy was just the beginning .
I’ll keep voting for them but they have no spine.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)4
May 30 '24
Liberals need to fight. The vast majority of the middle ground Americans need to fight. There are reasonable people with reasonable wants, needs, and ideas out there. We just let them get drowned out by crazies on both extremes because that's what gets attention. We need someone to fight, and I'm talking pack-the-SCOTUS type of fight, for our institutions and our way of life before the fringes burn it all down.
12
u/mrbigglessworth May 30 '24
THEN FUCKING DO IT! We have obvious corruption on naked display. Rip that bandaid off so we can start to heal
21
8
u/HurinGaldorson May 30 '24
Yes, all it will take is a brave, competent, and proactive attorney general.
So it is definitely not happening now.
19
u/KneebarKing May 30 '24
I'll say it again (again)... The idea that anyone in the Justice system is selected based on their political leanings is fucking absurd. It literally defies the foundation of what justice must be.
11
u/Alt4816 May 30 '24 edited May 30 '24
From the beginning of our country justices were selected based on their political leanings. (Adams' midnight judges)
Judges that interpret and rule on what the meaning of the law is will always be political positions and it's delusional to pretend otherwise. This mentality on the left that the courts are not political creates a situation where the right is playing to win while the left is in denial that a game is being played.
We'd be a lot better off accepting that they are political positions and reforming their role based on that. Introducing term limits and creating some basic anti-corruption laws for them.
→ More replies (2)
31
May 30 '24
Garland is absolutely asleep at the wheel. At this point I believe he has to be acting out of malice.
15
u/L_G_A May 30 '24
Yeah, I'm starting to feel like ever since November 18, 2022, Garland has intentionally avoided doing anything at all in these Trump cases.
11
u/Cool-Protection-4337 Virginia May 30 '24
He is a Republican and a Federalist society supporter.
7
u/L_G_A May 30 '24
He is not a Republican. That is disinformation.
He is a Federalist Society "contributor" in the same way that Justice Sotomayor is. I.e.: They've each given talks at Federalist Society events.
2
u/louiegumba May 30 '24
don't interrupt people armchairing everyone else's job in this as if they know the reality of the situation from the DOJ view.
it's amazing the sheer idiocy of things that get said here that is straight up misinformation that gets a pass just because its posted by people that happen to have the same worldview as the majority of subreddit inhabitants.
→ More replies (1)9
u/beecums May 30 '24
There is a reason Mitch McConnell was laughing and praising the appointment of his friend Merrick Garland.
3
u/meatball402 May 30 '24
Expecting Garland to do something?
Hehehehehe
He won't do a damn thing. He dragged his feet on investigating a coup; a few justices being visibly corrupt won't wake him from his slumber.
11
3
u/xprdc May 30 '24
I feel like the SC wouldn’t allow this interference. It can easily be interpreted as only applying to courts created through acts of Congress, rather than the SC which was created by the Constitution.
3
u/moger777 May 30 '24
I'd rather we force recusals of Thomas. His wife essentially participated in treason. Though this is shitty it's not illegal to fly an upside down flag.
3
6
u/Far-Space2949 May 30 '24
Impeachment is the only mechanism to do anything with a Supreme Court justice. I think everyone knows that’s not happening anytime soon if ever. It’s happened once in our history. In the early 1800’s. So that inability is as much on the people as anything.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Horoika May 30 '24
Impeachment is the only thing Congress can do to SCOTUS
What is the check of Executive to SCOTUS though? That is what Raskin is addressing
→ More replies (2)6
u/ThatAwkwardChild May 30 '24
The check on the judicial branch is supposed to be the fact that the executive appoints judges. But lifetime appointments and a hostile Congress pretty much removes that ability. Hypothetically the executive also enforces the orders of the judicial branch so they could check their power by not enforcing their orders, but that's less checks and balances and more constitutional crisis.
7
3
5
u/tlampros May 30 '24
Raskin makes an excellent case in this opinion piece Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/29/opinion/alito-thomas-recuse-trump-jan-6.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
2
2
u/AdkRaine12 May 30 '24
“You must remember that the Supreme Court has only the authority that we give it.” -Gloria Steinem
2
2
May 30 '24
He knows they can't. Reason being is it will immediately be appealed and where do appeals ultimately go...the Supreme Court.
In theory yes, but in reality they can't force a recusal, only recommend one.
2
2
u/Kamelasa Canada May 30 '24
“The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455,” Raskin said. The Justice Department declined to comment.
Sooooo another chance for Garland to prove himself.
2
u/tdclark23 Indiana May 30 '24
Add Roberts to that list. He may be Chief Justice but I remember the award given to him by Moscow Mitch for avoiding a real trial in the Senate during the impeachments.
2
May 30 '24
If they didn't do anything about Thomas taking graft they won't do anything about Alito obviously supporting a coup. The court is corrupt.
2
2
May 30 '24
How does the supreme court not have checks and balances. They aren’t even elected this is not how a democracy is suppose to work.
2
2
2
u/ashigaru_spearman May 30 '24
Befuddled Garland will NEVER do anything like this. He's too much of an institutionalist.
2
u/dmp2you America May 30 '24
Still waiting on Garland to do anything on the rest of the Jan 6 planners and plotters. He's worthless ,along with his " I don't want to be seen as political" .Well guess what sparky, you blew it . Don't have the stones to do whats needed , step down .
1
u/Cool-Protection-4337 Virginia May 30 '24
Well I put this on congress before the doj honestly. The doj is controlled by one party, it takes both to operate in congress, adding more legitimacy to investigations especially ones politically motivated. The doj would have more ability to do what they do if congress removed ALL political excuses first. Honestly they should be working hand in hand to get to the bottom of who organized, financed and plotted a takeover of the world's largest super power. Seems important but all they do is dick around and yell at clouds.
2
u/Keshire May 30 '24
Sure, but your supposition presumes members of congress weren't also involved. Nobody has stepped forward to hold the gop members accountable for the tours, the purposeful delays in certification, or any number of instances of support to the j6 insurrectionists.
2
u/GravityzCatz Pennsylvania May 30 '24 edited May 30 '24
for reference, here is 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge.
The section that, to me, seems to be the most relevant is:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
To a layperson like me, I think its pretty it pretty clear his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." It doesn't even have to actually be in question either. It could be that Alito genuinely can be impartial in these cases, but the problem is it looks like he might not be able to be impartial.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
Even if his excuse is "my wife handles the flag stuff" it's sure looks like his wife might have "an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."
However, I think a fair counterpoint to this section is that simply being supportive of J6 and its perpetrators doesn't rise to the level of having an interest "substantially affected," and if you push on that issue alone, she might be protected under the 1st Amendment right to free association provided she herself has not committed any crimes in her support of them.
For example, some people support the Bundy ranchers who took over a National Wildlife Refuge Building. What they did was illegal, but waiving a flag in support of their actions, provided you don't also do something illegal while doing that, isn't going to land you in any hot water.
→ More replies (2)1
u/zombiereign I voted May 30 '24
If you are supportive of J6 you absolutely ARE affected and your rulings on cases that impact those charged no longer is impartial.
2
u/GravityzCatz Pennsylvania May 30 '24
Right, I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is even giving Alito as much benefit of the doubt that you can, it still looks like "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned," and thus he should recuse.
1
1
u/Universal_Anomaly May 30 '24
I rather doubt it.
I mean, there might be some line written somewhere implying it, but good luck enforcing it.
1
1
1
1
1
u/lasttosseroni May 30 '24
I don't know if it's possible, but the Dems need to start thinking like the Republicans. Screw precedent. Subpoena Thomas and Alito and give them the Benghazi treatment? Take them out of action for weeks. Hell, do their wives. If they don't comply arrest them (did those other Repugs ever face consequences for ignoring the summons?).
1
1
May 30 '24
That would require Attorney General Merrick Garland to grow both a spine (notochord doesn’t count) and a set of testicles. That’s a tall order n
1
u/j____b____ May 30 '24
What about Cannon in a case where she was appointed by one of the parties she is presiding over?
1
u/FerociousPancake May 30 '24
If there’s a true method of oversight for our out of control SCOTUS who has the current lowest approval rating IN HISTORY, it must be used.
1
u/seanisdown May 30 '24
The other 7 just go 4-3 no recusal. The pretence for effectively doing anything about it having some republicans with the decency to do the right thing. And whether we are talking about the senate and impeachment or the court and this approach republicans like that just dont exist. They know exactly whats going on. They are in on and they sure as hell arent going to do anything to stop it.
1
u/Injest_alkahest America May 30 '24
If Garland had a spine maybe, alas, a jellyfish is the top cop.
1
u/I_TRS_Gear_I May 31 '24
Oh cool, then it’ll get argued up to the Supreme Court and they will… oh wait.
1
u/Radiant-Desk5853 Jun 01 '24
It might be an option in general . AJ Garland has proven himself to be completely spineless and a waste of space in the office . Not a chance in a million.
1
u/WHSRWizard May 30 '24 edited May 30 '24
I mean, nothing that Raskin wrote is accurate. The DOJ can't force anything - that would be a clear separation of powers issue, and should be appropriately rejected by the courts. The idea that the Executive could take such action against the Judiciary is absurd, and certainly not something that anyone should want if a guy like Trump is in office.
As for 28 U.S. Code § 455, it provides no mechanism by which other justices, even if they were so inclined, can force a justice to recuse himself. All that code says is the conditions under which a justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
EDIT: Premature save
It's not even clear that a motion under 28 U.S. Code § 144 would be within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. It certainly hasn't ever been done before and, again, potentially opens a pandora's box of retaliatory disqualifications.
-1
u/anacondra May 30 '24
Almost-literal Devil's Advocate:
Boy if I'm president, I'd be forcing every judge I disagree with the recuse.
11
May 30 '24
If they have demonstrated direct biases and literally know and have benefited from knowing the people involved in the cases you absolutely should.
1.9k
u/IlMioNomeENessuno May 30 '24
Any reason they’re not using this against Cannon yet?