When they don't follow or fit into your agenda:  ATTACK!!!

AOC.  The new face and future of politics.  Where everyone and anyone will be attacked on philosophy, character, and ideals.

Screw running the country.  That's boring.  We'll do that maybe in the week before deadlines.  Then when we look like we will run overtime, do a CR like we always do.

Modern brown coats. If you don't do what our party wants, we will get rid of you.  Imagine if it was reversed and the GOP tried to get rid of the anti 2a judges.  I mean, they do have a better reason than AOC does because those judges are all violating the 2A.

This is precisely why the Supreme Court Justices are given lifetime appointments. 

The justices are expected to be apolitical -- not loyal to one ideological party.  If they can be threatened with being tossed out, then their rulings would be in question whenever they appear to side with a party's agenda rather than the facts presented.

They can be impeached for committing crimes, just like the president, but i have a feeling they enjoy the same level of immunity pursuant to their official acts as they just reaffirmed a president is afforded.

They are fear mongering, trying to paint the SCOTUS as corrupt because the left isn't getting the results they want. The SCOTUS is doing a better job than congress or the executive branch and they are undermining the trust in the branch we need to be trusted. A good portion of the cases going to SCOTUS are questions that should be solved by congress anyway, perhaps if people like AOC did their job and actually pass laws (like on abortion or guns) we wouldn't need the courts to be deciders like they have been forced to do.

There is room for fair concern over ethical question and investigating those questions but impeachment is ridiculous. SCOTUS judges have a duty to recuse but they also have a duty to sit meaning they shouldn't recuse just to be safe if there isn't actually a conflict.

They are fear mongering, trying to paint the SCOTUS as corrupt because the left isn't getting the results they want. The SCOTUS is doing a better job than congress or the executive branch and they are undermining the trust in the branch we need to be trusted. A good portion of the cases going to SCOTUS are questions that should be solved by congress anyway, perhaps if people like AOC did their job and actually pass laws (like on abortion or guns) we wouldn't need the courts to be deciders like they have been forced to do.

There is room for fair concern over ethical question and investigating those questions but impeachment is ridiculous. SCOTUS judges have a duty to recuse but they also have a duty to sit meaning they shouldn't recuse just to be safe if there isn't actually a conflict.

Please elaborate. . . particularly how would SCOTUS "solve" anything and which "questions". . .

I think suspect I know what you are getting at

Please elaborate. . . particularly how would SCOTUS "solve" anything and which "questions". . .

I think suspect I know what you are getting at

The bump stock case could be a good example because instead of congress doing their job and writing a law that addresses the issue it got handed off to bureaucratic interpretation (Chevron Deference) guided by the executive branch and ultimately lands on the desk of SCOTUS.

Roe V Wade is another example, the SCOTUS fabricated a bad decision to settle the issue because congress didn't pass a law setting a standard.

The bump stock case could be a good example because instead of congress doing their job and writing a law that addresses the issue it got handed off to bureaucratic interpretation (Chevron Deference) guided by the executive branch and ultimately lands on the desk of SCOTUS.

Roe V Wade is another example, the SCOTUS fabricated a bad decision to settle the issue because congress didn't pass a law setting a standard.

Ok.  So for bumpstocks, you think there was a "question" to solve?  Or more a case of someone (or group) taking things too far, (arguably) acting above or outside their authority.  Thus necessesiating SCOTUS stepping in?  Not being a smartass.  Mostly just trying to clarify what you're getting at. 

Ok.  So for bumpstocks, you think there was a "question" to solve?  Or more a case of someone (or group) taking things too far, (arguably) acting above or outside their authority.  Thus necessesiating SCOTUS stepping in?  Not being a smartass.  Mostly just trying to clarify what you're getting at.

There was a case involving Chevron and the EPA  about 40 years ago. The law basically gave the EPA a lot of leeway in terms of interpreting a the law and implementing regulations. So for example the law may have said something like the EPA can set standards for pollution limits (I am simplifying it a bit) and the EPA could go change what counted as a pollutant, what are allowable levels, etc. Chevron lost that case which cemented the ability of federal agencies to interpret the ambiguous laws and apply them as they saw fit, including applying punishment. Not so much that a bureaucrat is abusing or overstepping their authority, rather Chevron Deference had given those bureaucrats the authority when laws were ambiguous.

The case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo reigned in that power. That specific case was about a fishing company having to pay the salary of a fishery inspector to come along with them. There are times where flexibility is needed for agencies to do this kind of thing but Chevron gave them way too much berth and allowed politicians to pass vague or ambiguous laws that gave a lot of power to the agencies. Some of these agencies even had their own internal court type systems where they would hear appeals and give decisions and these would stand even though they were not part of the judicial branch.

When the SCOTUS decides cases they are answering questions posed to them rather than saying simply the plaintiff or petitioner wins. In Garland v Cargill the SCOTUS said that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority in interpreting the federal law to say it was illegal.

I hope that makes sense.

AOC was given the job of using this stunt to distract the media from the fact that Dems just torpedoed the SAFE Act today so that millions of illegal aliens can vote for them.