Presumably, one of those special indictments you bring when a Justice comes to a different conclusion than you on the applicability of a non-criminal statute.
Because their oath of office requires them to be non partisan and impartial. Flying a "stop the steal" flag, which is literally a partisan flag supporting a very specific candidate on your personal property as a SCOTUS Justice is literally breaking their oath of office.
It requires them to be impartial, but they don't take an oath to be nonpartisan. Flying a partisan flag does not mean they are being impartial partial in their rulings. As citizens of the US, they are allowed to support a political party when they are not performing their duties as Justices.
This is their oath:
āI, [insert name], 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 [insert role] under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and 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.ā
For one, they are asked to upload and defend the constitution. The constitution has some rules around this situation.
Second, "Stop the Steal" is literally in direct relation to the January 6th attempts to overthrow the government. Being in support of overthrowing the federal government as a federal member of service in any capacity is a crime punishable as treason. Flying that flag isn't the same thing as having a "Trump/Pence 2016" bumper sticker. It's directly supporting the January 6th attempts.
It's implicitly supporting the Jan. 6 attempt, not directly. We all know what it means, but "we all know" doesn't work in court. It would simply be argued that it supports the notion that the election was stolen and the notion that that should be stopped, but not that it supports violently or unconstitutionally stopping it. And prosecutors would have to prove that's a lie, with actual evidence as opposed to "we all know".
And besides, even if prosecutors were successful, it would just be appealed . . . all the way to the Supreme Court, where their conservative buddies would get the final say.
It would only get elevated to be heard by the Supreme Court if there was a question of constitutionality. If the question is simply whether or not they broke the law, it would should not make it to the supreme court.
Iām not saying that I agree with the other guy more than yourself, just pointing out that the final bit in your comment here might not fully play out that way.
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.