Fire her. She’s compromised and a Trump appointee that should have been recused.
How?
Wouldn’t she need to be to be impeached by the House? The house is controlled by the GOP. Even if a few republicans wanted to remove her, you would still need the GOP speaker to bring this to the floor.
The prosecutor can request that she be removed from the case, but that’s extreme and, if fails, leaves him with a hostile judge that is also even more empowered than before.
She's been extreme the whole time. Sometimes extreme measures are warranted.
Oh no! She'll make fascists more fascist!
The prosecutor would have to ask for her removal, which would be difficult to accomplish for sure.
I'm sure he already has enough ammo to do so. That whole jury instruction thing was FUCKED.
And the house GOP passed a law that lets them oust their own speaker with a minority vote, too.
That’s not true.
It still requires a simple majority to remove a speaker. In the case of Kevin McCarthy, the vote was 216 to 210, in favor of removal.
What is new is that the GOP is allowing anyone to bring a motion to vacate to the floor. You still need a majority vote to oust someone, but any yahoo can now force the house to drop everything and vote on removing the speaker.
That causes chaos and previously it required a higher bar to get a motion to vacate rolling.
Ty for your correction
Fire her*
*Out of a cannon into the vaccuum of space.
It'd be nice if we had retention elections for these judges. The executive branch nominates judges and the legislative confirms them, but I'd like to see a choice on my ballot every so many years after a judge has been installed asking whether that judge should stay in office or not.
Funny enough, Wikipedia mentions how scholars are opposed to retention elections because the judiciary is supposed to be the most removed from public opinion and introducing that would lead to special interest groups swaying outcomes and generally breeding corruption. The squeeze is that we're already seeing corruption in courts anyways because of the very branches that install judges in the first place. All you have to do is look at this article or the Supreme Court.
Now the real question would be if Supreme Court justices should be up for retention. That's a rabbit hole I'm not sure what the consequences would lead to. Seems like term limits are still appropriate.
Fire her. She’s compromised and a Trump appointee that should have been recused.
How?
Wouldn’t she need to be to be impeached by the House? The house is controlled by the GOP. Even if a few republicans wanted to remove her, you would still need the GOP speaker to bring this to the floor.
The prosecutor can request that she be removed from the case, but that’s extreme and, if fails, leaves him with a hostile judge that is also even more empowered than before.
She's been extreme the whole time. Sometimes extreme measures are warranted.
Oh no! She'll make fascists more fascist!
The prosecutor would have to ask for her removal, which would be difficult to accomplish for sure.
I'm sure he already has enough ammo to do so. That whole jury instruction thing was FUCKED.
And the house GOP passed a law that lets them oust their own speaker with a minority vote, too.
That’s not true.
It still requires a simple majority to remove a speaker. In the case of Kevin McCarthy, the vote was 216 to 210, in favor of removal.
What is new is that the GOP is allowing anyone to bring a motion to vacate to the floor. You still need a majority vote to oust someone, but any yahoo can now force the house to drop everything and vote on removing the speaker.
That causes chaos and previously it required a higher bar to get a motion to vacate rolling.
Ty for your correction
Fire her*
*Out of a cannon into the vaccuum of space.
It'd be nice if we had retention elections for these judges. The executive branch nominates judges and the legislative confirms them, but I'd like to see a choice on my ballot every so many years after a judge has been installed asking whether that judge should stay in office or not.
Funny enough, Wikipedia mentions how scholars are opposed to retention elections because the judiciary is supposed to be the most removed from public opinion and introducing that would lead to special interest groups swaying outcomes and generally breeding corruption. The squeeze is that we're already seeing corruption in courts anyways because of the very branches that install judges in the first place. All you have to do is look at this article or the Supreme Court.
Now the real question would be if Supreme Court justices should be up for retention. That's a rabbit hole I'm not sure what the consequences would lead to. Seems like term limits are still appropriate.