AOC wants to impeach two Supreme Court justices

Why? You have to read it to believe it.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) has led the charge to impeach U.S. Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel J. Alito, Jr. on grounds of alleged failure to report gifts and for political views that AOC asserts compromise their ethical obligation toward impartiality.   In particular, AOC is enraged that Justice Thomas has questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 elections and the Democrat narrative regarding the events of January 6, 2021, and that Justice Alito’s wife passionately supported Donald Trump through the so-called insurrection and displayed flags AOC connects to extremism.

The impeachment resolutions attempt to dismantle the SCOTUS — not by depoliticizing it, but by hyper-politicizing it (like everything else in social justice America) into a one-party ideological apparatus.  Co-sponsors of AOC’s Court impeachment coup include the usual extremist suspects Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Jamaal Bowman, but equally revealing is the resolutions’ “endorsers,” a hodgepodge of dodgy socialist NGOs and radically progressive cultural Marxists.

Wives’ Knives Out

Justice Alito has publicly explained that his wife was solely responsible for displaying an upside-down U.S. flag and that he permits her to exercise her political liberties.  Still, the resolution faults the justice for “allowing” her to do so:

In January 2021, Justice Alito allowed an upside-down American flag to be flown outside his primary residence for several days. At the time, an upside-down American flag was widely understood to be an expression of support for the criminal efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and was a symbol displayed by those who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Meanwhile, Justice Thomas’s wife dared to express political speech verboten to the self-proclaimed Democrat protectors of American democracy.  The resolution against Justice Thomas avers:

Mrs. Thomas advised the President to initiate and sustain political, legal, and extralegal attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election (writing, “Do not concede”; “The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History”; “save us from the left taking America down”).

Among the endorsers of these resolutions is UltraViolet, whose website declares:

UltraViolet is a powerful and rapidly growing community of people mobilized to fight sexism and create a more inclusive world that accurately represents all women, from politics and government to media and pop culture. ... We fight attacks against women and work toward a proactive vision of what equality looks like for women.

This so-called “more inclusive world that accurately represents all women” does not include political views.  According to UltraViolet and AOC, a “proactive vision of what equality looks like for women” means telling two women they are not free to engage in protected First Amendment political expression while demanding that their powerful husbands stifle them or face impeachment.

Extremist Endorsements

Other “endorsers” of AOC’s ridiculous effort include the People’s Parity Project, Our Revolution, NextGen America, and Take Back the Court.  Their dogmatic jibber-jabber exposes the far-left extremism of these impeachments.

The People’s Parity Project advocates for a thinly veiled Marxism enforced by a legal system that does not feign objectivity:

The People’s Parity Project is a movement of law students and attorneys organizing for a democratized legal system which empowers working people and opposes subordination in any form. ... We are working towards our long-term goal: a world in which lawyers understand that the practice of law is inherently political, that they are empowered to choose a side and choose to fight for the people, and that they are then held accountable by their professional community and the public as a whole for shaping the law into a force for true justice. ... Rather than seeing the courts as sacrosanct and above reproach, a referee standing apart from the game, we see the courts as another player on the field, capable of all the moves, pressures, and adaptations that we expect from members of Congress and other elected officials.

The Supreme Court must be mobilized, according to social justice ideology, not as an impartial arbiter of citizen disputes, but as an active political agent toward the liberation of the marginalized and the achievement of economic, environmental, and racial Nirvana:

NextGen America is the nation’s largest youth voter organization, mobilizing millions of young people each year to support progressive candidates and causes.

At NextGen, we know that young people have the courage and imagination to make our leaders tackle our biggest challenges. Our nation needs that courage again to solve climate change, racial injustice, economic inequality, and to save democracy itself.

AOC, et al. seek to displace two justices for their (and their wives’) conservative political views so that the institution of the Court may be more fully weaponized solely for the advancement of social justice causes instead.  This is the declared intention of endorser Take Back the Court:

DEMOCRACY WILL DIE UNLESS WE TAKE BACK THE COURT. To restore the right to vote, ensure reproductive freedom, protect workers, halt our climate emergency, and save democracy, Congress must add seats to the U.S. Supreme Court.

AOC’s impeachment initiative is a politically motivated ploy timed to distract national attention from a floundering POTUS while virtue-signaling faux righteousness before the Cult-Party faithful.

The Democrats lack a party majority in the House (necessary to pass the articles of impeachment to the Senate) and hold only a bare majority in the U.S. Senate (where the resolutions would require a two-thirds vote for conviction).  There is no way that these outrageous, anti-American resolutions will pass.

AOC’s hypocrisy is plain: she attacks these justices for political views she claims are inappropriate to the Court while shamelessly advancing far more partisan one-party totalitarianism — always in the name of justice.

(Previously published at American Thinker.)