Submitted by boundfortrees t3_zzxamf in philadelphia
Comments
Trafficsigntruther t1_j2eukm5 wrote
But also:
> In the order Friday, the court rejected the latter two arguments from Krasner, saying impeachment proceedings could occur across different legislative sessions, and that the legislature could impeach the city’s district attorney.
oliver_babish t1_j2fivja wrote
So, basically, "you can impeach a DA, but not for weaksauce like this."
Paparddeli t1_j2f8ch9 wrote
Yeah, he really only won on one of three issues. It's also important to remember that this was the decision of one Democratic judge. The Pa. Supreme Court will have the final word, where there is currently a 4-2 Democratic edge, with not all the Democratic justices being fans of Krasner.
Krasmaniandevil t1_j2fb7ym wrote
If they side against Krasner, they open the door to the legislature impeaching justices for decisions they don't like. I don't think they're that stupid, but I've been wrong before.
oliver_babish t1_j2fj08v wrote
That threat is already manifest.
Krasmaniandevil t1_j2fnloq wrote
My theory is the GOP is trying to dilute the significance of Trumps impeachment by using it for purely political reasons so they can later claim its a "both sides" thing.
Head-Kiwi-9601 t1_j2evbyt wrote
Good. Happy to see this was not sanctioned. This would not have been a fair fight. Krasner would have annihilated the dopey legislature. I’m thrilled we aren’t wasting money on this.
[deleted] t1_j2eprvj wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2eq7rf wrote
[removed]
Dryheavemorning t1_j2e51n5 wrote
>In an order filed Friday afternoon, Commonwealth Court Judge Ellen Ceisler said the seven articles filed against Krasner, which were approved by the House last month, did not sufficiently show that he’d failed to perform his duties with an improper or corrupt motive, which is required under the state constitution to impeach a public official.
>The practical implications of the ruling were not immediately clear...
>“It seems to me that these impeachment proceedings are based on disagreements with public policy and an elected officials’ discretion,” she said. “And I think that this proceeding could set terrible precedent in the future.”