He'd first have to be convicted by this House of Reps.
And then Obama gets to replace him. Yeah, right.
Get a grip. You really think that would happen?
FReegards!
He'd first have to be convicted by this House of Reps.
And then Obama gets to replace him. Yeah, right.
Get a grip. You really think that would happen?
FReegards!
“He’d first have to be convicted by this House of Reps.
And then Obama gets to replace him. Yeah, right.
Get a grip. You really think that would happen?”
Yes, it certainly could happen.
First of all, you have your facts wrong. A justice of the Supreme Court is impeached by the House and faces trial in the Senate.
If Roberts did in fact engage in unethical conduct, there might be sufficient number of Republicans in the House to vote articles of impeachment against him. It goes without saying that all the ‘rats in the House would go along with this.
I’m not sure how it would go in the Senate. It takes 2/3 to convict, I believe. Of course, all the ‘rats in the Senate would vote for removal, perhaps even a handful of Republicans “on principle”, but Roberts might still survive a conviction vote.
HOWEVER — in that case, even though he had not been forcibly removed, I don’t see him as being able to remain on the Court afterwards. He would probably resign and fade away. Remember, sometimes the appearance of impropriety is as damaging to one’s reputation as the improprieties themselves.
If the ‘rats are willing to force the issue of impeachment, I think they might well “win”, regardless of whether Roberts is convicted — or not...