Amy Coney Barrett has officially been an associate justice on the Supreme Court for barely 24 hours, but liberals have already concocted scenarios demanding that she be impeached and removed from the high court.
Despite the fact that Barrett has not yet heard a single case, liberals want Barrett to recuse herself from a critical case with major election implications, or else be removed from the court.
"If Amy Barrett doesn't recuse herself on the Pennsylvania voter suppression case going to the Supreme Court she should be impeached," radio host Chip Franklin said Tuesday.
If Amy Barrett doesn’t recuse herself on the Pennsylvania voter suppression case going to the Supreme Court she sho… https://t.co/bopWkj3QPV— Chip Franklin (@Chip Franklin)1603811287.0
Franklin is referring to a case in which Pennsylvania Republicans have asked the Supreme Court to determine whether mail-in ballots received after Election Day should be counted.
As TheBlaze reported, the Supreme Court failed to make a determinative ruling last week — due, in part, to the court vacancy — which allowed a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a Democratic majority, to stand. The court had ruled that ballots received up to three days after Election Day should be counted, regardless of whether or not a ballot's postmark is legible or even present.
Meanwhile, lawyers representing the bureau of elections for Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, filed a motion with the Supreme Court on Tuesday requesting that Barrett recuse herself from the case.
"This recusal is compelled since Justice Barrett's 'impartiality might reasonably be questioned' ... given the circumstances of her nomination and confirmation," the attorneys said. The request was later rescinded because it had been filed without first consulting county leaders.
Others accused Barrett of engaging in a quid pro quo.
Norman Ornstein, a scholar who works at the American Enterprise Institute, claimed Trump appointed Barrett to "sway the election," and Barrett's participation in such a plot would warrant her impeachment.
"I repeat: If Barrett, acceding to a partisan swearing in at the White House, knowing that Trump explicitly said he nominated her to sway the election, does not recuse, it is an overt quid pro quo. The House should impeach her to leave an irrevocable stain on a dishonorable justice," Ornstein wrote on Twitter.
If Amy Coney Barrett goes on the Court and immediately votes for PA voter suppression, she should quickly be impeac… https://t.co/MdX2xWBXk9— Norman Ornstein (@Norman Ornstein)1603564635.0
@eliehonig @Mimirocah1 I repeat:If Barrett, acceding to a partisan swearing in at the White House, knowing that Tru… https://t.co/eY5pUsBL59— Norman Ornstein (@Norman Ornstein)1603763738.0
Similarly, PBS host Alexander Heffner propagated the conspiracy theory that Barrett will interfere with the election, claiming that Barrett "refusing to recuse herself" from the Pennsylvania mail-in ballot case — which implies that Barrett has an obligation to recuse herself, which she most certainly does not — "would clearly amount to a quid pro quo for Trump's re-election."
"By voting against the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and interfering in state's electoral practices, Barrett's rank duplicity will be unmistakable," Heffner claimed.
"This is when Democrats need to pounce on her ethically and legally dubious approach — to serve the interests of the Republican Party rather than uphold the law — and make the argument they were right about not seating her. Any public support for the nominee-turned-justice will crumble. And while there will not be a 2-3 majority to convict in the Senate, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and House Democrats can swiftly impeach her," he continued.
Heffner, however, provided zero evidence to back his claim that Barrett will "serve the interests of the Republican Party rather than uphold the law."
In fact, Barrett made clear at her Senate confirmation hearings that the Constitution and law, not political ideology, is exactly what she is interested in serving.
Barrett will begin hearing oral arguments next week.