Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sheshe2

(98,248 posts)
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 12:16 AM Apr 30

let me be very clear: everything is on the table.

Jeffries says everything is on the table legislatively to deal with the Supreme Court:

In the new Congress, we’re going to have to do something about this Supreme Court, and let me be very clear: everything is on the table.

Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social) 2026-04-30T02:17:55.255Z


I like Jeffries. I can't wait to see him as Speaker of the House. I know a lot of others feel differently and are vocal about ousting him. However, he has only been in a minority position, and I am not just talking about his skin color.
59 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
let me be very clear: everything is on the table. (Original Post) sheshe2 Apr 30 OP
Everything better include expanding the court in 2029. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #1
Wouldn't impeaching the Repuke grifters help more? buzzycrumbhunger Apr 30 #2
Scalia is dead radical noodle Apr 30 #31
LOL buzzycrumbhunger Apr 30 #37
The Rehnquist 5 started this in 2000 DemocracyForever Apr 30 #45
I hope so. sheshe2 Apr 30 #3
That's why I said 2029 Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #33
I share your fear DemocracyForever Apr 30 #46
expanding court means either party could fill those seats. only works w dem prez and senate. nt msongs Apr 30 #4
Preach sheshe2 Apr 30 #5
That's why I said 2029 Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #32
Constitution gives Congress authority to regulate SCOTUS DemocracyForever Apr 30 #47
Rotate Judges on and off court Whip-poor-will Apr 30 #6
THIS!!! calimary Apr 30 #13
Totally agree with this - the lifetime appointment gives a President too much influence FakeNoose Apr 30 #26
In 2000, Rehnquist 5 appointed chump DemocracyForever Apr 30 #48
That would require a constitutional amendment. Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #34
Where does it say that Whip-poor-will Apr 30 #39
They are nominated, confirmed and sworn in for a specific seat on a specific court Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #40
I haven't been that enthused about Jeffries, but in the past ?8 months or so.... electric_blue68 Apr 30 #7
Jefferies doesn't want to impeach Trump Blue Full Moon Apr 30 #8
link and explain sheshe2 Apr 30 #9
Straight from him. Blue Full Moon Apr 30 #10
cool. sheshe2 Apr 30 #11
"Pelosi won't impeach!!!" we heard again and again, as if it were just up to her. betsuni Apr 30 #16
You are absolutely correct. sheshe2 Apr 30 #38
I don't care that Jeffries doesn't want to Cha Apr 30 #21
Dems can impeach and (attempt) to help people at the same time. Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #35
Yeah, that makes sense, too. I just want Cha Apr 30 #54
This this this this this! sheshe2 Apr 30 #51
Mahalo, she... We Just Need to Win the Cha Apr 30 #55
Yes, we do and I believe that we can. sheshe2 Apr 30 #56
You need 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove Trump padah513 Apr 30 #24
PREACH IT BROTHER HAKEEM Skittles Apr 30 #12
Thanks, Skittles. sheshe2 Apr 30 #14
Hang in there sheshe2 jfz9580m Apr 30 #19
You too, kiddo. sheshe2 Apr 30 #23
he strikes me as a very intelligent man Skittles Apr 30 #22
I think Alito and Thomas are crooked enough to impeach. ShazamIam Apr 30 #15
Yes. sheshe2 Apr 30 #18
King Charles probably knew Trump would not understand his remarks but knew the audience would, ShazamIam Apr 30 #57
OmGosh.. I've been waiting for some Cha Apr 30 #17
Behind the scenes, sheshe2 Apr 30 #20
G'Night, she.. Mahalo for more of the Cha Apr 30 #25
You and SheShe have made my day. 🥰 MorbidButterflyTat Apr 30 #43
Ohh Mahalo, MorbidButterflyTat ! Cha Apr 30 #53
For warfare to truly be "maximum" impeachment must be on the table. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #36
From "Impeachment is off the table" to "Everything is on the table" BWdem4life Apr 30 #27
What was going on with impeachment and the Supreme Court 20 years ago? betsuni Apr 30 #29
Not the SC BWdem4life Apr 30 #30
The OP is about the Supreme Court. betsuni Apr 30 #49
I'm fully aware what the OP is about. BWdem4life Apr 30 #58
They're not going to do anything. BlueTsunami2018 Apr 30 #28
Impeaching SC Justices could be interesting Buckeyeblue Apr 30 #41
Thank you. MorbidButterflyTat Apr 30 #42
You are very welcome! sheshe2 Apr 30 #44
Thank you, Democrats, for being the single mother of American politics -- doing all the governing without help. betsuni Apr 30 #50
Well said and a perfect analogy! sheshe2 Apr 30 #52
MaddowBlog-Trump wants Hakeem Jeffries to be impeached, which is foolish for all sorts of reasons LetMyPeopleVote Monday #59

buzzycrumbhunger

(2,127 posts)
2. Wouldn't impeaching the Repuke grifters help more?
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 12:22 AM
Apr 30

Thomas, Roberts, Scalia… that “shadow docket” and self-enrichment bullshit is surely enough to send them packing—if not to prison—right?

DemocracyForever

(133 posts)
45. The Rehnquist 5 started this in 2000
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 01:50 PM
Apr 30

and nothing was done by Congress to stop it. We're paying the price now.

sheshe2

(98,248 posts)
3. I hope so.
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 12:29 AM
Apr 30

No clue how that can be done with this admin, but I hope we can start the process.

Bottom line, there is going to be one f**king hell of a lot that needs to be addressed and what we can do with this admin as we are spiraling into a hell of their making.

Frankly I am scared shitless that we will not be able to correct our course,

Fiendish Thingy

(23,884 posts)
33. That's why I said 2029
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 09:09 AM
Apr 30

That will be our earliest opportunity.

But the senators elected in 2026 will still be in the senate in 2029, so this years elections are just as important when it comes to court expansion.

msongs

(74,095 posts)
4. expanding court means either party could fill those seats. only works w dem prez and senate. nt
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 12:44 AM
Apr 30

Fiendish Thingy

(23,884 posts)
32. That's why I said 2029
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 09:07 AM
Apr 30

That will be our earliest opportunity.

We cannot govern out of fear of what republicans might do if they return to power.

After all, republicans don’t govern that way.

Whip-poor-will

(455 posts)
6. Rotate Judges on and off court
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 01:11 AM
Apr 30

There is no guarantee of a lifetime supreme court assignment just a lifetime judgeship.

Rotate through a lottery the judges from appeals court judges pool two year limits on serving.

calimary

(90,602 posts)
13. THIS!!!
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 02:03 AM
Apr 30

That’s a TERRIFIC idea, Whip-poor-will! The more I think about it, the better I like it!

FakeNoose

(42,212 posts)
26. Totally agree with this - the lifetime appointment gives a President too much influence
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 03:10 AM
Apr 30

... over the judges they appoint. That's where we are right now with Chump and "his" Supremes.

Let's pull the rug out now.

Fiendish Thingy

(23,884 posts)
34. That would require a constitutional amendment.
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 09:10 AM
Apr 30

Expansion only requires having the votes and the courage to do it.

Fiendish Thingy

(23,884 posts)
40. They are nominated, confirmed and sworn in for a specific seat on a specific court
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 12:39 PM
Apr 30

Otherwise, a president could just transfer a judge from a lower court onto SCOTUS without needing a new confirmation from the senate.

electric_blue68

(27,183 posts)
7. I haven't been that enthused about Jeffries, but in the past ?8 months or so....
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 01:11 AM
Apr 30

he's been saying things that seem stronger in empathizing certain things.
I like that!

sheshe2

(98,248 posts)
11. cool.
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 01:56 AM
Apr 30

However, my post is actually about the SCOTUS.

Though to comment on your post:

“I’ve made clear from the very beginning that our top priority is going to be to drive down the high cost of living,” the House minority leader added.

“We believe in this country, you work hard, you play by the rules. You should be able to live an affordable life, a comfortable life, in fact, to live the good life, and that means a good paying job and good housing, good health care, good education for your children, and when it’s all said and done, a good retirement,” he added.

Jeffries has hammered Trump multiple times on the issue of affordability and slammed the president for driving up gas costs amid the Iran war.

snip

Democrats subdued their push after acknowledging they don’t have the votes to get it done.


There are so many issues and brakes to push with the maggots agenda,....why in the world we waste time on something that will fail every dayum vote.



betsuni

(29,245 posts)
16. "Pelosi won't impeach!!!" we heard again and again, as if it were just up to her.
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 02:16 AM
Apr 30

Then when the votes were there Trump was impeached and so what, he'll never be impeached in the Senate.

Used as a "disqualifying" purity test yet again. As if it's Jeffries personal both sides complicit no fight establishment plot -- whatever the insult is.

Voters have said, what's important is affordability, and that's what they're doing. If they did make a big deal about going after Trump all the time they'd be harshly accused of ignoring the suffering of the working class and kitchen table issues being out-of-touch about economic inequality.

Cha

(320,319 posts)
21. I don't care that Jeffries doesn't want to
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 02:43 AM
Apr 30

Impeach Traitor.

I read an article on here a while ago that makes perfect sense.

Traitor has been impeached twice, and it went nowhere. They won't convict and remove him in the Senate.

And Traitor claimed victory.

And, imo, it wastes a lot of time that could be spent actually helping People.
💔💙 ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜


Fiendish Thingy

(23,884 posts)
35. Dems can impeach and (attempt) to help people at the same time.
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 09:16 AM
Apr 30

Ignoring Trump’s crimes because the senate won’t convict, while trying to pass legislation that will either be blocked by the filibuster or vetoed by Trump is a certain path to increasing voter apathy and cynicism about the Democratic Party.

Until there is a Democratic president, the only way Dems can show voters they are fighters is by investigating and impeaching Trump and his cabinet.

Cha

(320,319 posts)
54. Yeah, that makes sense, too. I just want
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 04:15 PM
Apr 30

to Win the Midterms against the Evil Gazilllion $$$$$ Force coming at us.

sheshe2

(98,248 posts)
56. Yes, we do and I believe that we can.
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 04:46 PM
Apr 30

No many how many roadblocks we have to navigate our way through.

padah513

(2,711 posts)
24. You need 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove Trump
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 03:00 AM
Apr 30

That won't happen and Fetterman is an automatic no

jfz9580m

(17,709 posts)
19. Hang in there sheshe2
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 02:42 AM
Apr 30

This is a shitty time for everyone, especially AA.
I don’t really muck much with electoral politics. That is not really my function in any society. Though I learn from you guys.

I rant a lot and everything is mediated by tech we don’t enough honest info about.
And then sometimes I realize later that - yeah no. That was not the context I intended that in.
Dammit..

I might have to start thinking more ..oh joy..lol.

But hang in there sheshe2..

sheshe2

(98,248 posts)
23. You too, kiddo.
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 02:47 AM
Apr 30

I am trying my best to hang in there. I know it is not easy for any of us.

Hugs to you and yours.

Skittles

(172,602 posts)
22. he strikes me as a very intelligent man
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 02:43 AM
Apr 30

I'm betting he's hearing our frustrations loud and clear

sheshe2

(98,248 posts)
18. Yes.
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 02:28 AM
Apr 30

They gave tsf immunity. They bow and kiss his ample ass with delight and leave the rest of us in a hell of their making.

He is NOT A KING!

Speaking of Kings, Charles kicked his ample ass, and I loved every moment of it. I may not care for the King however he gave rebukes to tsf that flew way over his head. I have to say, well done King Charles, damn well done.

Fact,
Charles cares about America more than the 'Resident does.

ShazamIam

(3,184 posts)
57. King Charles probably knew Trump would not understand his remarks but knew the audience would,
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 05:36 PM
Apr 30

his remarks were a grand joke on Trump.

Cha

(320,319 posts)
17. OmGosh.. I've been waiting for some
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 02:17 AM
Apr 30

Hopeful news like this on the Supreme Court. Good on Leader Hakeem Jeffries!!

I like Jeffres, too.. and so do a lot of people who are paying attention to what he actually does.

"I don't give a damn": Jeffries defends "maximum warfare" remark



October 2025: Jeffries amps up Dem pushback in redistricting wars

LEADER JEFFRIES: “DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO RESPOND FROM COAST TO COAST AND AT ALL POINTS IN BETWEEN TO THIS EFFORT TO STEAL THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS”

Jeffries amps up Dem pushback in redistricting wars

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is escalating his efforts this week to thwart Republicans’ nationwide redistricting push.

The New York Democrat spent the weekend in southern California, campaigning for the Proposition 50 ballot initiative that would let Democrats gerrymander California’s congressional map.

Behind the scenes, Jeffries also has continued to lobby state lawmakers in Illinois for a stalled redistricting effort there, according to sources familiar with his plans. And Jeffries has been plotting with Ohio Democrats on how to block a GOP attempt to draw out Democratic Reps. Emilia Sykes and Marcy Kaptur.

This multi-state effort is crucial for Democrats’ chances to retake the House majority.

https://punchbowl.news/article/house/jeffries-amps-pushback/

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=21189341

Mahalo, she! 💔💙 ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜

sheshe2

(98,248 posts)
20. Behind the scenes,
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 02:42 AM
Apr 30
Jeffries also has continued to lobby state lawmakers in Illinois for a stalled redistricting effort there, according to sources familiar with his plans. And Jeffries has been plotting with Ohio Democrats on how to block a GOP attempt to draw out Democratic Reps. Emilia Sykes and Marcy Kaptur.


Behind the scenes!

Wait. Watch. Listen!

Love it.

TY, Cha.

And that is my goodnight.

Cha

(320,319 posts)
25. G'Night, she.. Mahalo for more of the
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 03:01 AM
Apr 30

Behind the Scenes work that Leader Hakeem Jefres is getting Done!

Please read my post on what I think of "impeachment."

I think of it every time I read anyone calling for it..
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=21209132

BWdem4life

(3,079 posts)
27. From "Impeachment is off the table" to "Everything is on the table"
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 06:14 AM
Apr 30

In 20 short years!



Will be hoping for the best but not holding my breath.

Lucy has pulled the football back more than a few times....

BWdem4life

(3,079 posts)
30. Not the SC
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 08:12 AM
Apr 30

20 years ago we got the majority, and Nancy Pelosi infamously sucked the (short-lived) joy out of liberal democrats days later. Referring to GWB

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html

I guess it didn't make as much of an impression on you as it did me. Not surprising I suppose.

betsuni

(29,245 posts)
49. The OP is about the Supreme Court.
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 02:34 PM
Apr 30

Nancy Pelosi says she wanted to fund service members and veterans but not the war, and for Bush to end the war by 2008, told him she was opposed to nation-building -- Bush vetoed a bill with the goal of ending involvement in Iraq by March 2008.

"The Art of Power":

"While there were major disagreements over what I considered the largest destabilizing mistake in American history in terms of its consequences, I resisted the calls for impeachment. Sen. Bob Graham, in his book 'Intelligence Matters,' had presented a case for impeachment on the basis of Iraq's nonexistent nuclear weapons and our leaving Afghanistan too early. Although I was strongly opposed to the war -- and constantly pointing out the false statements by the administration -- as long as American troops were in combat, I held that we had the responsibility to support them.

"In May, we passed the very specifically named U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 on the House floor. The bill was very clear in its support of our military service members and our veterans. Many provisions were directed toward their well-being and their care. Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, chair of the Armed Services Committee, proposed a 3.5 percent pay raise for troops and a $40 per month increase in survivors' benefits.... Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas ... put forward the largest increase to the Veterans Affairs budget in the department's seventy -seven-year history. So it was very clear that our debate was not about whether or not we supported our troops. ... It was about opposing the war"

Obligatory personal insult: "it didn't make as much of an impression on you as it did me. Not surprising I suppose."

BWdem4life

(3,079 posts)
58. I'm fully aware what the OP is about.
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 08:04 PM
Apr 30

My comment was about generally what was “off the table” last time we got the majority in the 6th year of a presidency, vs what is supposedly “on the table” now if as expected we retake the majority now. My comment was about Democratic leaders talking a big game before the midterms, then dialing it back afterwards.

It could be credibly suggested that had we impeached GWB for his clearly unconstitutional and criminal actions, we could have prevented the Repukes from becoming even worse, and prevented the Trump era.

Instead it was once again “we want to look forward, not backward” and “it’s ok to dissappoint the liberal wing of the party because they have nowhere else to go. That worked out so well, maybe they’ll try it again this time with regard to expanding the Supreme Court. “We said all options were on the table, we didn’t specifically promise to expand the court. Now that we have the majority, we think other things have higher priority.”

So, like I said before, I’ll remain hopeful but not particularly expectant because we’ve been let down so many times by our leadership in the past.

Buckeyeblue

(6,423 posts)
41. Impeaching SC Justices could be interesting
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 12:39 PM
Apr 30

Especially bringing them before the Senate and leveling corruption charges against them so they made news. Big time news.

You could potentially slow their docket. And their attorneys would have to respond to a number of uncomfortable questions.

betsuni

(29,245 posts)
50. Thank you, Democrats, for being the single mother of American politics -- doing all the governing without help.
Thu Apr 30, 2026, 02:48 PM
Apr 30

LetMyPeopleVote

(181,602 posts)
59. MaddowBlog-Trump wants Hakeem Jeffries to be impeached, which is foolish for all sorts of reasons
Mon May 4, 2026, 05:31 PM
Monday

The president has no idea that members of Congress can’t be impeached. It’s emblematic of the profound ignorance that continues to undermine his presidency.

Trump’s call for Republicans to impeach Hakeem Jeffries is absurd for a variety of obvious reasons, but I found myself stuck on one thing:

Shouldn’t a sitting president in his sixth year in the White House know that members of Congress can’t be impeached?
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-05-04T17:17:39.854Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-wants-hakeem-jeffries-to-be-impeached-which-is-foolish-for-all-sorts-of-reasons

In case Trump’s racism wasn’t quite obvious enough, he published a follow-up item last week, again arguing that the House minority leader has a “Low IQ” before adding that Jeffries “is nothing but a THUG, and he is a danger to our Country!”

On Sunday afternoon, the president went even further down the same unfortunate path, with another online missive that said:

Hakeem Jeffries, a Low IQ individual, said our Supreme Court is “illegitimate.” After saying such a thing, isn’t he subject to Impeachment? I got impeached for A PERFECT PHONE CALL. Where are you Republicans? Why not get it started? They’ll be doing this to me!


Let’s unpack this one, which stood out for a variety of reasons.

First, criticizing the Supreme Court is not an impeachable offense. Second, if criticizing the Supreme Court were an impeachable offense, Trump would have a real problem on his hands, given the severity of his recent condemnations of the court and its justices. (It was just last month when the president said “certain” conservative justices on the Supreme Court have “gone weak, stupid, and bad.”)

Third, Trump’s ongoing efforts to relitigate his first impeachment remain quite pitiful. Fourth, his “they’ll be doing this to me” comment seemed like an implicit acknowledgement that he expects Republicans to lose control of the House in the midterm elections.

But even if we put all of these relevant details aside, arguably the five most interesting words in Trump’s online statement were these: “Isn’t he subject to Impeachment?”

As it happens, there is an unambiguous answer: In this country, members of Congress cannot, in fact, be impeached.

The thing is, a sitting American president really ought to know that. Trump no longer has any excuses for flunking Civics 101 tests, since he’s no longer the rookie who got elected despite never having served a day in any governmental capacity. Trump is now in the sixth year of his presidency, and he’s had time to familiarize himself with the basics of how Washington, D.C., works
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»let me be very clear: eve...