Kirsten Gillibrand:  "Action" Must Be Taken Against Trump-Nominated SCOTUS Justices If They Don't Uphold Roe v. Wade

President Donald Trump with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, speaks before a ceremonial swearing-in in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 8, 2018. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)


As Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-NY) stalled presidential campaign grows increasingly desperate for attention in a crowded field, the Senator has turned to trying to “out-left” her own party on the issue of abortion.

Earlier this week, she essentially said that pro-life Democrats should no longer be allowed in the party, meaning that she’s on board with primarying the few remaining pro-life Democrats in the House and Senate.

But she made some disturbing comments on Wednesday that have been largely overlooked. Gillibrand suggested during an interview on MSNBC that “action” be taken against Trump-nominated Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch if they fail to uphold Roe v. Wade in a future case.

CNS News reports:

Gillibrand said President Trump has deliberately selected “radical justices” to “undermine basic reproductive freedoms and civil rights” of women.

“And I’m going to lift this up, and as President of the United States, I will not appoint any justice that does not agree that they will support the precedent of Roe v. Wade or other judges,” Gillibrand said.

“That is the law of the land, and I think both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lied to the Judiciary Committee when they said they would uphold precedent. And if they then go back on this — this statement they made during their confirmation hearings — I think we should look towards what we will do to address it, because we need far more oversight and accountability over these Supreme Court Justices, and if they lied in their hearings, then we should take action.”

Watch this segment of her interview below:

Gillibrand did not specify the type of “action” she believed should be taken, but I assume she’s talking about impeachment.

I’m no legal expert, but I’m pretty sure that impeaching a Supreme Court Justice for ruling differently from how you would like on a court case is not how any of this works.

Besides, impeaching a Supreme Court Justice is something that is just not done. In fact, it’s only been done one time in our country’s history:

In 1804, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach Associate Justice Samuel Chase. A signer of the Declaration of Independence, Chase was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George Washington in 1796. A Federalist, Chase irked Thomas Jefferson and his Republican allies in Congress, and was impeached on politically motivated charges of acting in a partisan manner during several trials. However, in 1805 Chase was acquitted by the Senate, a decision that helped safeguard the independence of the judiciary. He served on the court until his death in 1811.

Another resigned after being threatened with impeachment:

In 1969, Abe Fortas became the first—and, to date, only—Supreme Court justice to resign under the threat of impeachment. Named to the court by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, Fortas was forced to step down due to financial improprieties that involved him agreeing to act as a paid consultant to the family foundation of a man under investigation for securities fraud.

Gillibrand needs to be asked to expand on her remarks as to what she means, and other Democratic candidates should be questioned as to if they agree with her. They really don’t want to go down this road.

—Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter.–