The media never, ever learns, even after a disaster like The New York Times ill-advised excerpt from two reporters’ new book on the Brett Kavanaugh hearing, which had to have an editor’s note appended to add some critical information left out of the piece.
But that “mistake” has done its job, and now people are calling for Kavanaugh’s impeachment, though Rep. Jerry Nadler says his committee’s busy right now working on President Trump’s impeachment. And that meant that Vox had to jump in head-first and publish an “explainer” of just how Kavanaugh could be impeached.
To remove Brett Kavanaugh via impeachment, two-thirds of the senators present for such a vote would need to vote against him.
But, if two law professors are right about the Constitution’s "good behavior" clause, there could be another way. https://t.co/5cbJJ6oeYs
— Vox (@voxdotcom) September 16, 2019
About that “good behavior clause”:
In 2006, years before Christine Blasey Ford publicly accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her when they were both in high school, the Yale Law Journal published a provocative paper.
The paper, “How To Remove a Federal Judge” by law professors Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, lays out a road map for, well, how to remove a federal judge without resorting to the impeachment power. It argues that a provision of the Constitution stating that federal judges and justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” is widely misunderstood.
Recommended
Oh, please.
— Uri Blago (@UriBlago) September 16, 2019
Those law professors have to read the constitution first.
— east coast elitist (@somenycguy) September 16, 2019
Narrator: They were wrong
— Thufir (@thufir0) September 16, 2019
I'm old enough to remember when Democrats were worried about Trump not accepting the outcome of the election. seems like some people might be holding a grudge
— Margarita Bane (@Tranny_Bane) September 16, 2019
The victim herself doesn’t recall the incident.
Incident raised by a Clinton lawyer.
Definitely not weird … ?5-4 conservative USSC
3 important cases this year
RBG fadingHrm… whatever could the reason be to dredge up unfounded claims again?
— BubbyBelle ?? (@BubbyBelle) September 16, 2019
Kavanaugh will be on the Court for the next 30 years. At some point accept the loss and move on.
— Rod McCulloch (@ILPollster) September 16, 2019
Take the L.
— Jeni Peni (@peni_jeni) September 16, 2019
Desperation has set in…
— Jorj X McKie (@jjs92285) September 16, 2019
— CarlosDanger (@18orlessplz) September 16, 2019
You guys are seriously going to try to drag us through this again
— Chris Carlino (@sir_studboy) September 16, 2019
Can someone link me to the Vox twitter post that talks about the NYT retraction? ?
— Pre Game (@TTasticDesigns) September 16, 2019
He has led an exemplary life for 35 years. Everything he is accused of is: not remembered by the victim, the victim had to be coached to remember, or the accuser simply lied. So, what gives with you losers, anyway?
— KEE (@superbucks2050) September 16, 2019
Also, you Dems are cultivating the hatred of a powerful enemy who very well could sit on that bench as long as Ginsburg.
— KEE (@superbucks2050) September 16, 2019
Does impeachment make you horny Vox?
— T-Bob Corvus (@T_Bob_Corvus) September 16, 2019
Related:
'Seems really newsy': Why didn't the NYT's Brett Kavanaugh story include any of these details from Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly's book? https://t.co/6FK5z9omSx
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) September 16, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member