Judge John McConnell Jr Faces Impeachment for Obstructing Trump

[cigaretteman]

Representative Andrew Clyne, a Republican, has announced on X (formerly Twitter) that he is drafting articles of impeachment, accusing the judge of being a "partisan activist."

The Public Information Officer for the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island told Newsweek that Judge McConnell "does not speak to the press during the pendency of a case."

Clyne said McConnell should be impeached because he is a "partisan activist." Federal judges, who are appointed for life, can only be impeached if they are accused of "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

If McConnell is successfully impeached and then convicted by the Senate, it will set a precedent that blocking the president's actions in court is akin to treason.

MSN

 

[tarheelbybirth]

If McConnell is successfully impeached and then convicted by the Senate, it will set a precedent that blocking the president's actions in court is akin to treason.

MSN

The Senate demonstrated today that there is no bottom to their obsequiousness - to paraphrase the Damn Yankees Broadway standard, whatever Donald wants, Donald gets.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Complete horseshit. But par for the MAGA course.

 

[IACub]

Golly, that sounds kind of fascist. But I've been assured that they aren't fascists.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Golly, that sounds kind of fascist. But I've been assured that they aren't fascists.

Fascist is too tame for what those assholes are doing.

 

[Hawkeye Swarm]

Golly, that sounds kind of fascist. But I've been assured that they aren't fascists.

If it’s within the framework of the law, how is it fascist?

 

[lucas80]

Impeachment shouldn’t be the fear. Trump is half a step away from ordering judges to be arrested.

 

[RicoSuave102954]

Impeachment shouldn’t be the fear. Trump is half a step away from ordering judges to be arrested.

At this point I see that as a plausible option, interfering with Presidential Executive Orders warrant it.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

A lot of these judges were Reagan appointees. Not exactly partisan libs

 

[RicoSuave102954]

A lot of these judges were Reagan appointees. Not exactly partisan libs

 

[lucas80]

A lot of these judges were Reagan appointees. Not exactly partisan libs

Not to cult members. Reagan’s GOP is dead.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Not to cult members. Reagan’s GOP is dead.

I understand that. But MAGA GOP is no sustainable. It literally will destroy the country. Reagan did some bad things, but nothing on the level of Trump. Reagan also had a heart. Something Trump does not have. Reagan served (in his own way). Trump did not. Reagan never called our deceased service members, POWs, MIAs, losers. Bone spurs did.

 

[libbity bibbity]

Not to cult members. Reagan’s GOP is dead.

While the squad runs the Democrat party.

 

[Colonoscopy]

 

[tarheelbybirth]

View embedded media

This coming from a guy who gets billions in subsidies from the federal govt. You just couldn't make up shit like this. Nobody would believe it.

 

[Colonoscopy]

Here's the TRO issued by McConnell.

https://www.rid.uscourts.gov/sites/rid/files/TRO%20issued.pdf

Seems this would be a real uphill battle for Trump admin since we're talking about not spending funds appropriated by Congress. Seems like an impoundment issue. Don't know why they're attacking this judge and ruling in particular given this.

Judge actually cites SCOTUS judge Kavanaugh:

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote when he was on the D.C. Circuit: Like the Commission here, a President sometimes has policy reasons (as distinct from constitutional reasons, cf. infra note 3) for wanting to spend less than the full amount appropriated by Congress for a particular project or program. But in those circumstances, even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds. Instead, the President must propose the rescission of funds, and Congress then may decide whether to approve a rescission bill. See 2U.S.C. § 683; see also Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 95 S. Ct.839, 43 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1975); Memorandum from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, to Edward L. Morgan, Deputy Counsel to the President (Dec. 1, 1969), reprinted in Executive Impoundment of Appropriated Funds: Hearings Before the Sub comm. on Separation of Powers of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary,92d Cong. 279, 282 (1971) (“With respect to the suggestion that the President has a constitutional power to decline to spend appropriated funds, we must conclude that existence of such a broad power is supported by neither reason nor precedent.”)

 

[Colonoscopy]

This coming from a guy who gets billions in subsidies from the federal govt. You just couldn't make up shit like this. Nobody would believe it.

Yeah. He doesn't give a shit. Operates under principal of get whatever you can however you can; nothing sacred. Which is terrible since he's a very powerful person at the moment. Purposefully politicizes the courts to the masses -- he has over 200m followers -- just because it suits his needs at the moment. Terrible person.

 

[Colonoscopy]

If it’s within the framework of the law, how is it fascist?

It's bad because there is no precedence for impeaching a judge because you don't like a ruling.

Has happened very rarely. And because of something like corruption -- not unfavorable opinion.

Doing so for purely political reasons represents a major blow to our checks and balances.

 

[ISUBryce]

If it’s within the framework of the law, how is it fascist?

It’s not. That’s the point.

 

[libbity bibbity]

It's bad because there is no precedence for impeaching a judge because you don't like a ruling.

Has happened very rarely. And because of something like corruption -- not unfavorable opinion.

Doing so for purely political reasons represents a major blow to our checks and balances.

Didn't the Democrats want to impeach Clarence Thomas and Alito on the Supreme Court?

 

[BioHawk]

Totally not fascist.