Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) accused the Supreme of having “gone rogue” over its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The Supreme Court’s June ruling, which saw it overturn a half a century precedent giving abortion-access federal protection, upset many Democrats, who believe Justices lied during their confirmation hearings regarding their feelings toward the 1973 landmark case.
Speaking about the Supreme Court’s ruling again on Wednesday (July 13), Ocasio-Cortez noted that the decision warranted considering several moves appropriate to the high court going rogue.
Addressing reporters, Ocasio-Cortez stated, “I believe impeachment should be on the table. I believe court expansion should be on the table. I believe that ethics rules should be on the table. I believe that recusal requirements should be on the table.”
The New York Democrat continued, “I think all of it should be considered right now. And we shouldn’t be putting any tools out because of … the degree of which this court has gone rogue.”
Ocasio-Cortez then called out Justice Clarence Thomas, in particular, as a justice who should be impeached, saying, “I believe that Clarence Thomas should be impeached without a shadow of a doubt.”
The New York Democrat also referenced a letter she and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA.) co-authored and sent to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, in which they requested Senate Democrats take a position on whether Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch — who were part of the majority opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade — had lied under oath during their confirmation hearings.
But Senate Democrats may not be as gung-ho as those in the House to impeach Justices.
In an interview with Fox News Sunday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, “I don’t think it’s realistic,” when questioned about impeaching Thomas.
But Durbin noted that Thomas “should show good judgment,” adding “If this court is going to be credible, it has to be as apolitical as possible.”
Addressing Durbin’s misgivings, Ocasio-Cortez questioned if there would be “no consequence for a nominee to lie to duly-elected members of the United States Senate?” noting that a lack of action could “establish a new precedent” that lying is acceptable to secure lifetime appointment to the high court.
