Judges of the court of appeals and justices of the supreme court may be removed by concurrent resolution of both houses of the legislature, if two-thirds of all the members elected to each house concur therein.
Judges of the court of claims, the county court, the surrogate's court, the family court, the courts for the city of New York established pursuant to section fifteen of this article, the district court and such other courts as the legislature may determine may be removed by the senate, on the recommendation of the governor, if two-thirds of all the members elected to the senate concur therein. — New York Constitution Article VI - Judiciary Section 23 - Removal of judges
Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and Justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns. — Article III of the Constitution
This intrepid band of Culture Warriors are a vital component of the coalition supporting Trump but does not represent the animus of those willing to break the law. The "stand back but stand by" rhetoric is still alive in Trump's speaking of pardoning January 6 participants.
The rhetoric being used is a tug of war between two camps. The poo-pooing of alarmed Liberals as suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome is straight from the Fox News normalization of MAGA. But the language of being completely dominated by an ideological regime has that Confederate tang you want in an energy drink. — Paine
I followed the trail back a bit, and it appears you're referring to his 1/6 speech. If so, it's a red herring. The context is relevant: Trump had been publicly proclaiming the election was stolen since the election night, which ginned up anger in his supporters - including the crazy and violent, like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys (remember Trump's callout to them during a debate: "stand back and stand by"). They took him seriously then and when he invited his angered supporters to D.C. "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" This was despite the fact he'd been told by DOJ leadership, and White House Counsel the fraud allegations were bogus.On the one hand I'd implore you tell me in your own words what was wrong with Trump's speech, but on the other hand I don't need you to because I know what you're going to say. — NOS4A2
Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace wrote that Trump “acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means; specifically, by using unlawful force and violence.” And, she concluded, “that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021 and therefore ‘engaged’ in insurrection.” ‘
… Although Wallace found that Trump engaged in insurrection, she determined Section 3 does not apply to him. Section 3 refers to some offices by name as well as those who are an “officer of the United States,” but does not specifically mention the presidency. Wallace determined those who wrote Section 3 “did not intend to include the President as ‘an officer of the United States.’” The judge also determined that the amendment’s provision technically applied to those who swear an oath to “support” the Constitution. The oath Trump took when he was sworn in after he was elected in 2016 was to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. Wallace wrote she did not want to disqualify someone from office “without a clear, unmistakable indication” that that was what those who wrote the 14th Amendment intended.
We didn’t get to see any of this in the J6 inquiry, which used Hollywood producers to gin up a slick narrative, but with the release of the footage we’re finally allowed to see what they hid. Here’s some footage showing Capitol officers using indiscriminate violence against protesters, inciting violence. — NOS4A2
We saw an angry mob fired up by Trump's rhetoric and the Big Lie about the election being stolen! And their purpose wasn't to protest, it was to disrupt, otherwise they would have never attempted to enter the Capitol building itself. — GRWelsh
...who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol?They’re throwing concussion grenades into the crowd of people... — NOS4A2
The video appears to show one guy who took a shot to his face, presumably from police shooting from a distance. Again, were the cops unwarranted in doing so? What would you have them do, under the full context of circumstances? (A context you've ignored)?They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces.
Are you referring to Stewart Rhodes trial? J6 committee hearings? Please explain what falsehoods came out.Did you see any of this in the J6 show trial?
...who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol? — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.