That’s the point. How is it against democracy to impeach them?

They can be impeached for Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors [sic]. Not rulings you don't like, which is what you're really talking about, isn't it?

I’m talking about the hundred of gifts Clarence Thomas and his Wife have received from partisan sources. That is Bribery, brother.

Try reading Article III of the Consitution.

Exactly what I mean. How is it against democracy to impeach them?

Their job is to interpret the laws, not make them. No need for them to be voted in.

Exactly. So how is it against democracy to impeach them?

I wouldn’t say it’s against democracy per say, but it is against the constitution. If the Supreme Court were dissolved, there would be no one to properly interpret laws and define what laws are constitutional and what are not. Congress could just make up laws that go against the constitution or have entirely different meanings and no one would be there to stop them. It’s all about checks and balances.

And the current Supreme Court is nothing but an extension of the parties these days. Justices are sworn in on party line votes (both sides do it, not blaming anyone in particular here just the system), and then those justices make decisions on whatever their party would benefit from the most.

I think we could just a clean slate of justices and pass new amendments to ensure the sworn in justices are done so not out of party loyalty but actual judicial competence.

That’s a good idea but it would likely never happen because why make laws that will finish the power of your party?

Well excuse me for having some idealism in this cruel world

This relatively new.

Why do you wish to impeach them?

First of all there’s plenty of evidence that shows Clarence Thomas has been taking bribes.

Secondly, as I explained above, the SCOTUS has shown to have become another source of political partisanship, as justices are confirmed by party line votes and make their decisions accordingly. That goes entirely against how they were supposed to work, which was as an unbiased panel to settle legal disputes

Correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that Democrat appointed judges rule in a manner favored by Democrats, and that goes entirely against how they are supposed to work.

Your animus towards C. Thomas is not that he received gifts but that he was in agreement with the majority opinion that the issue of abortion was not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution and therefore belonged to the individual States or to the People.

Is that not a more honest assessment of your ire?

No it is not. You show me evidence of the liberal justices accepting bribes and I’ll say impeach them all the same as Thomas.

It is.

You started out talking about gifts then made it about party politics.

You are angry about his participation in the returning of baby murder laws to the states and to the people.

Doesn't that make you a threat "democracy"?

Are you plotting an insurrection with the removal of certain US Supreme Court Justices from the bench as one of your goals?

Have you written a manifesto?

I’ve said it before and I’ll said it again: I’m past the abortion issue due to its stalemate in politics.

That makes me think your statements are projection. Isn’t that a more honest assessment of your ire?

Are you parroting me?

Who would have seen that coming?

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

Thank you. ☺️

Please state what you meant by:

"Secondly, as I explained above, the SCOTUS has shown to have become another source of political partisanship, as justices are confirmed by party line votes and make their decisions accordingly. That goes entirely against how they were supposed to work, which was as an unbiased panel to settle legal disputes"

MANIFESTO!

I’ll gladly explain. When the Supreme Court was created, its intention was to settle legal disputes between individuals and states. It would apply the dispute to law and the constitution and act accordingly.

After Marbury v. Madison, they granted themselves the power of judicial review, which is the court’s ability to interpret and strike down passed laws that violate the constitution. While this had been discussed in the Federalist papers, this technically wasn’t a power given to them by our constitution, but given that it would lead to an ultimately stronger system of checks and balances, no one disputed that the courts should not have this power.

However, it only works as a check to legislative and executive action if the courts are apolitical and are not influenced by outside pressures. That was the idea behind appointments being for life, but unfortunately it wasn’t enough to prevent partisanship from entering the system. Now we see liberal and conservative justices split on several issues that should be constitutionally clear, and it’s always amongst party lines. And I’m not blaming either political party in particular as they both do this.

So to get the system working as intended again, we would need a clean slate of justices instead of stacking the Supreme Court to accomplish part agenda goals. I know that will likely lead to decisions that I will disagree with, but it will be okay given the system is less corrupt.

Now I realize that a clean slate of justices is pretty much impossible to except much less carry out. I know that it won't happen. But as long as we’re on the topic of corrupt justices, we should impeach those who have been shown to take bribes, like Clarence Thomas has. And if you have evidence of other justices taking bribes, regardless of their affiliation, add them to the list of impeachments.

You asked for a manifesto and here’s an abridged one for you. Please do tell me how this exercise of free speech and expression is a “threat to democracy”.