In a bold legislative move, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced impeachment articles against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

This latest development underscores growing Democratic discontent with what is perceived as a politically biased Supreme Court, The Wall Street Journal reported.

On Wednesday, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic Representative, formally accused Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito of several ethics violations, including accepting undisclosed gifts and engaging in conflicts of interest.

This action has sparked a vigorous debate within the political sphere, particularly regarding the impartiality of the judiciary. Following these accusations, House Speaker Mike Johnson quickly dismissed the impeachment push as a political tactic.

Senators Call for Further Investigations

In response to the allegations, Senators Ron Wyden and Sheldon Whitehouse have escalated the matter by requesting the appointment of a special counsel. This counsel is to investigate Justice Thomas concerning the acceptance of luxurious gifts that might influence judicial impartiality.

Similarly, other Democratic leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, have publicly criticized the ethical conduct and recent controversial rulings of the Supreme Court.

Schumer has also mooted potential legislative measures to curtail presidential immunities upheld by the court, particularly those granted to former President Donald Trump.

Supreme Court's Public Approval Wanes

Recent polls suggest that public approval for the Supreme Court is at a historic low. This decline is primarily attributed to contentious decisions concerning abortion rights and gun policies.

Moreover, the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 has led to several polarizing decisions, further stirring public discourse regarding the court's direction and integrity.

Despite introducing the Supreme Court's first-ever code of conduct in November to address these ethical concerns, critics argue that there needs to be an enforcement mechanism that renders it ineffective.

Historical Precedents and Contemporary Responses

Interestingly, the last impeachment of a Supreme Court justice occurred in 1804, when Justice Samuel Chase faced charges but was subsequently acquitted. No justice has faced impeachment since.

The accusations against Justices Thomas and Alito are severe. Thomas reportedly accepted gifts from real estate mogul Harlan Crow, and his wife received payments from conservative groups. Meanwhile, Alito allegedly enjoyed a trip on a private jet and allowed the display of right-wing symbols at his residences.

Justice Alito has defended his actions, asserting in recent communications and an op-ed that he has adhered to ethical standards.

Experts Question Impeachment Motives

Amid these turbulent developments, some experts, like law professor Frank Bowman, suggest that the impeachment efforts may be more about political performance than substantive justice. He described the efforts as performative and potentially a waste of resources.

This viewpoint reflects similar historical dynamics from the 1970s when Republicans levied ethical accusations against the then liberal-majority Supreme Court, explicitly targeting Justice William O. Douglas with impeachment articles.

The various responses to the current situation echo these past political strategies, highlighting a cyclic nature of judicial-political tensions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the introduction of impeachment articles against Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez marks a significant escalation in the Democratic critique of the Supreme Court's ethics and impartiality.

This move, compounded by historical lows in public approval and calls for further judicial oversight, underscores a deepening divide over the role and integrity of the highest court in the United States. The outcome of these efforts remains uncertain but signals a potentially pivotal moment in the intersection of law and politics.