Supreme Court under impeachment attack

The American political left has carried its attack on the United States Supreme Court to an unprecedented level. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has filed Articles of Impeachment against the two senior Originalists on the Court. She alleges failure of financial disclosure, and refusal of each to disqualify himself from cases, at least one party to which had some kind of connection to the Justice involved, or his wife. But everyone knows the real reason: a means by which to create two Court vacancies for Biden’s handlers to fill. “AOC” doesn’t realize it, but she just opened the door for American patriots to do the same, in reverse. She also has revealed what the left fears most – an opportunity they are about to lose, and patriots to gain.

The first Supreme Court impeachments

Never before has any Member of Congress attempted to remove a Justice of the Supreme Court from the bench. That alone might have given any other Democrat pause. But AOC isn’t an ordinary Democrat, but a raving maniac – a loose cannon on the gundeck. Her impeachment articles clearly show this.

Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit shared the most detailed description of these Articles two days ago. He quoted extensively from this press release from AOC’s office. Naturally AOC’s targets are Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito. From the press release:

The first impeachment resolution includes the following impeachment articles against Justice Thomas:

1. Failure to disclose financial income, gifts and reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, and transactions, among other information.
2. Refusal to recuse from matters concerning his spouse’s legal interest in cases before the court.
3. Refusal to recuse from matters involving his spouse’s financial interest in cases before the court.

The second impeachment resolution includes the following impeachment articles against Justice Alito:

1. Refusal to recuse from cases in which he had a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party in cases before the court.
2. Failure to disclose financial income, gifts and reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, and transactions, among other information.

She provided links to the respective Articles against Thomas and Alito. That she is not a lawyer, becomes painfully obvious from reading both these resolutions. Apparently she didn’t even request assistance from Minority Counsel on the House Judiciary Committee. (She does not sit on that Committee herself, but some of her Squad mates do.) Even New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg could have drawn up better charges than these. The two legal lions whom AOC has dared to beard, can make mincemeat of these Articles.

Clarence Thomas

The alleged failures of financial disclosure all involve gratuities – sums or in-kind gifts reflective of personal friendship. If either Justice received any such gifts before deciding particular cases the donors filed, she has not cited any. Concerning Justice Thomas, she cited one Harlan Crow, a Director of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Of the “regular” friend-of-the-court briefs AEI has filed with the Supreme Court, AOC did not cite a single one. Her thesis seems to be that AEI’s positions are beyond the Constitutional pale, and only by accepting a bribe could Justice Thomas adopt any of these positions. To suppose that Liberal Bloc members never received gratuities from leftist legal think tanks, strains credulity.

Furthermore, Chief Justice John Roberts has already addressed those concerns. Possibly the Chief Justice does not care to have anyone but a Court officer poring over his own financial records, nor those of any of his colleagues, be they Originalist, Moderate or Liberal. Certainly he has separation-of-powers concerns – and the concerns appropriate to any leader whose subordinates come under attack.

Three Supreme Court case citations

The alleged refusals to recuse would be more serious – if she really had a case. Concerning Justice Thomas, AOC alleges that his wife Virginia Lamp “Ginni” Thomas had a financial interest in numerous cases in which AEI, Liberty Central, and Liberty Consulting briefed the Court. Again, she will not cite the cases. She says only that Ginni Thomas founded one such organization, and received a salary from another. That doesn’t tie her to any particular case – which could explain why AOC won’t cite any.

Then she accuses Thomas of protecting his wife’s legal interest. For that, she cites three cases:

• Texas v. Pennsylvania, in which the State of Texas asked leave to complain about election fraud in Pennsylvania in 2020. The Supreme Court refused that case – allegedly after Roberts harangued his colleagues with the spectre of riots on First Avenue Southeast if the Court took the case. Justice Alito dissented from that decision, and Justice Thomas joined that dissent.
• Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid, seeking to challenge certain ballots as fraudulently cast. After the corrupt Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to look at the evidence, the Republicans petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The Court denied review – and Thomas dissented.
• Trump v. Thompson, concerning some of Trump’s records (December 23, 2021) in the National Archives. The “January 6 Committee” got those records over Trump’s objection. Thomas didn’t write an opinion, but the Order List does show he would have voted to grant an injunction.

Where is the legal interest?

The problem, for AOC’s case, is this: if Ginni Thomas had any interest in those cases, beyond having exhorted Trump and his team not to concede the election, AOC did not allege this. She seems to think those conversations are enough. Furthermore she uses the word insurrection, although never once has anyone brought such a charge against anyone. (Then again, this same AOC told of cowering in her office – in the Cannon House Office Building on Independence Avenue! – on January 6.)

Samuel A. Alito

Her impeachment resolution against Justice Alito begins with the inverted American flag flown outside Alito’s home on January 17, 2021. Then she mentions the Alitos flying an Appeal to Heaven flag outside their summer residence in the summer of 2023. Both flags, she says are

expression[s] of support for the criminal efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election[.]

On that ground alone, she says, Alito should have recused himself from:

• Trump v. United States (the Presidential Immunity cases),
• Fischer v. United States (concerning charging January 6 defendants under Sarbanes-Oxley), and
• Trump v. Anderson (Trump’s Colorado ballot access case).

Again she uses a form of the word insurrection to describe not only the January 6 Event but also the reasons why 100,000 people gathered on the National Mall to hear President Trump speak that day. (The Event itself was a false-flag pseudo-operation, as CNAV has repeatedly stated and continues to maintain.)

The Supreme Court would probably have decided the cases the same way

To refresh readers’ memory, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States and Fischer v. United States on 6-3 votes. But the Court unanimously reversed the Colorado Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson. So none of those cases would have changed by Justice Alito’s recusal alone. Now perhaps had anyone knocked Alito and Thomas off those cases, they could have changed the outcomes of the first two, but not the last. But we cannot know, because AOC didn’t cite the cases in her Resolution against Justice Thomas.

AOC’s accusations of improper gratuity acceptance against Alito are totally sketchy. She cites no donors in her Resolution. She accuses Alito of taking a gift from “a wealthy individual … [having] direct interests” in several cases before the Court, but did not name that individual. If she did, she would have had to cite the cases – and she didn’t do that, either.

Cite the case. Actor Peter Coyote, as San Francisco County District Attorney Thomas Krasny, in Jagged Edge (Dir. Richard Marquand; with Glenn Close, Jeff Bridges, Peter Coyote, and Robert Loggia; Columbia Pictures, 1985)

How serious an affair is this?

Ordinarily, CNAV would agree with Dr. Steve Turley, who told his “Insiders” this morning that nobody takes AOC seriously. She’s a loose cannon on the gundeck, and everyone knows this. If either of these cases came before even Judge Tanya Chutkan, they would provoke laughter. But Articles of Impeachment don’t come before judges; they come before the House of Representatives.

The House … shall have the sole power of impeachment. Article I Section 2 Clause 4

In that sense, Articles of Impeachment are for window dressing. All that matters is the partisanship of the Membership. Under better circumstances, no one should imagine that these Articles would ever pass – but these aren’t ordinary circumstances. The Republican majority is very slender, and has a critical number of RINOs in it. Not all would be brazen enough to vote for these Articles, but they might conveniently absent themselves from the House. Result: passage by a simple majority of the Members present and voting.

The Senate – again, ordinarily – would be an insurmountable hurdle. But twenty-five Senators could easily absent themselves from the Senate. That body would still have a quorum – but the Democrats, if they all “stuck together,” could convict the Justices. That’s because conviction in the Senate takes two-thirds of the Senators present.

Bear in mind that Republicans have never fought against Biden’s judicial nominations, not even when they have strained credulity. Case in point. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Indeed Biden has gotten more judges through than Trump! Thanks, RINO Senators!

Take-home lessons

Aside from any actual threat to Justices Thomas and Alito, AOC says out loud what her Progressive allies are thinking. Thomas and Alito are Originalists, and Originalists threaten everything Progressives hold dear. Indeed the Originalist Bloc has had quite a run these last three terms of the Court. They’ve set at naught several key precedents that were the building blocks of a secularistic society, that disarms, deindustrializes and depopulates its populace, and disallows religion entirely. Those precedents include without limitation:

• Roe v. Wade
• Lemon v. Kurtzman
• Any of a number of precedents upholding “gun control.”
• Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel
• Regents of University of California v. Bakke

The precedents those three have set will make Progressives weep and gnash their teeth for at least a generation. That’s why they keep introducing bills to codify the precedents the Originalists have set aside.

AOC also understands this: Biden will lose. Progressives will no doubt insult the intelligence and civic sensibilities of the American people with outright cheating and even false-flag pseudo-operations aimed at starting everything from civil unrest to World War Three. (Frank D. Miele discussed – today – his role in the Heritage Foundation’s Transition Integrity Project, Conservative Version.) But they’ll still lose. So they want Justices Thomas and Alito off the bench, now, so Biden’s handlers can replace them now.

Therefore…

It is up to patriotic Americans to stop this. Call your Representatives and make sure they show up to vote those Articles down. Share this article with them, especially the critical analysis of these Articles. And repeat this mantra: Cite the case. Cite the case, Cite the case, CITE THE CASE. If those Articles get any further than Judiciary Committee referral, heckle AOC and Jerry Nadler, the Ranking Member, without mercy, with that same phrase: Cite the case. Your object isn’t to change their minds; that’s impossible. Rather, your object is to get every Trump supporter repeating: Cite the case. Trump could even use that at his rallies: CITE! THE! CASE! (If Sony Pictures Entertainment tries to trademark that phrase, all the better! It will get that much more attention, which is exactly what we need to shut this effort down. And do it before it gets near the Senate.

Sadly, it’s probably too late to “primary” any Republican Representative who doesn’t show up (or worse, votes for impeachment). But it might not be too late to set up a machine to punish them in another way: write-in candidates. And remember: if they play games to make sure of impeaching Thomas and Alito, they’re no better than Democrats anyway. Tell them that! Watch them and call them out at the slightest false move.

The Constitution, and making sure the Democrats do not treat it as Thomas Jefferson’s “mere thing of wax,” are at stake. Act accordingly.