'Only 2 ways to deal with' the Supreme Court —and one 'leads to civil war': Elie Mystal
@DemocracyMattersALot
A modest proposal for an illegitimate #SCOTUS
1) #Biden uses his new powers to un-appoint the six radicals who created absolute immunity and overturned Chevron defense, citing Article IV
2) Appoint six new judges who promise to overturn immunity and get Shumer to rush them through
3) Grant pardons to everyone involved but not himself
4) Order DOJ to investigate him w Spec Pros
4) Biden says no one should have such power and resigns. Court and jury decide his fate.
@TCatInReality Biden has no power to un-appoint a justice.
Only Congress can remove a justice from the Court.
@DemocracyMattersALot
@volkris @DemocracyMattersALot
Says who?
The Constitution says the POTUS has the official duty to appoint federal judges. It doesn't say anything about removing the appointment (which could be logically inferred) - particularly when required to honor Article IV (guarantee clause).
This is purely a thought exercise, but in my alternate world, Biden goes there and throws it to a jury to decide.
Exactly: since it doesn't say anything about removing the appointment, the president lacks legal authority. There's nothing he can point to as the source of the authority.
Impeachment is the one and only option.
@DemocracyMattersALot
Keep in mind that the statement is purely about providing protections. Critically, notice that it doesn't address bad behavior.
Basically, a judge who's misbehaving nullifies the line. It doesn't mean he gets removed, it only means he loses the protection from removal.
Even if the line is nullified, the president still has no authority to cite to actually remove a justice.
Impeachment is the one and only authority available, and that's for good reason as it leaves it up to the representatives of the people to shape our government, not to the unilateral preferences of a president.
@volkris @DemocracyMattersALot
Article III says judges "...shall hold their offices during good behaviour....".
One can certainly argue that the immunity decision violates the Article IV guarantee clause and therefore those six judges no longer exercise " good behaviour" and mandate the POTUS act on it.
Again, this is all a thought exercise.