They could - Congress has the exact same authority to impeach a supreme court justice as they do a president (or any other federal office-holder for that matter).

But they won't.

A Dem majority wouldn't be enough, because Schumer and Jeffries and all the rest of their neolib hack allies would still be there, and they're owned by most of the same big money donors that own the Republicans.

The only way there's any chance that Congress would actually exercise its authority is if all of the corrupt shitweasels are primaried and the Dems end up not just with a majority, but a majority of actual leftists with actual principles and integrity.

And that's terribly unlikely, since both the Republicans and the Democrats would fight it tooth and toenail.

Impeachment requires 2/3 of the senate voting to convict. The only way that will happen is for one party to have 67 senate seats, or for members of both parties to vote to convict.

For the Dems to get to 67 senate seats in the next midterm election would require winning every single race, The odds of that are just slightly more than 0, you'd be better off playing the lottery.

It's slightly less implausible that the Democrats could win most of the seats up for election in a large backlash against Trump and the Republicans, and that in that scenario you could get the remaining votes from Republicans who view the Trump administration as a sinking ship that they don't want to go down with. Trump's second impeachment was as close as we've seen to that kind of scenario.

Even then, it's a lot easier to imagine Republicans going along with an impeachment of Trump (who will almost certainly be gone soon anyway) than it is for them to remove members of the Supreme Court whose positions could affect the balance of power for decades. About the only way I can see it happening (even in this extreme scenario) is if they went after Thomas and/or Alito, because they are the oldest members currently on the court and that would give Trump the opportunity to appoint two new justices.

So, realistically, any (legal) accountability is at least two elections away. And even then, it's more plausible that it would come from a new administration pursuing criminal charges against the fascists and their enablers than it would be through impeachment.

Can we judge him now and hold him accountable?

Huh. Guess those rich white guys from the 1700s COULDN'T anticipate everything that could possibly threaten a nation. Imagine that!

If the Dems win, they could immediately resize the court and add another 5 justices. Then make Roberts eat his garbage legacy by relitigating these terrible decisions and fixing the mess one case at a time.

Yeah how are we a decade in and still most Democrats are still on the whole "well, you know, it's better to let democracy die on the high road than to stoop to their level" shit???? I'd rather not live the rest of my life in the coming and present nightmare in the service of some abstract, holier-than-thou nonsense, tyvm. Go lower, Jesus Christ.

Malfeasance and abuse of power is a feature, not a bug. There is no accountability, for any elected office holder. There's the dog and pony show when someone does something deemed too egregious for the voter base to stomach, where the perpetrator will step down to spend time with their family as they quietly reflect on the "damage" they've done, but that's smoke and mirrors for them being offered a private sector role where any connections they made while holding the reigns of power can be utilized to get tax payer dollars for the company that funds them, or help lobby for ever less restrictive legislation that will allow the company to dump toxic waste into the municipal drinking water then charge those effected to clean it up, all while doing everything they can to reduce the chance they ever have to pay taxes. Accountability isn't something that applies to the suits in Washington. Laura Bush and Ted Kennedy both killed people, if it had been you or I doing that we'd still be serving time, but for them the qualifying question of "was the victim someone of power, status, or influence?" was asked before the ball even got rolling on the judicial process. Those in power are all above the law, every single one of them, and it's because of that there is no cognition that these office holders are public servants. They kowtow to the biggest donor, not the public that actually goes to the voting booth. So long as McDonald's, Bayer, Nestle, Verizon/AT&T-Time-Warner-AOL-Atari-Discovery-Paramount-Skydance-Chuck E. Cheese (whatever other fuckin' company decides to buy that behemoth)/T-Mobile, Cargill, Dow, DuPont, Pfizer, Disney, Moderna, United Health/Aetna/Cigna, CVS, ExxonMobil, Haliburton, Lockheed, Boeing, and the Duck Dynasty crew (just to name a few) get to throw unlimited money at candidates promising favorable legislation on their behalf, there will be no accountability for the corruption and incompetence that permeates the halls of power. JD Vance said the right things to Peter Thiel and Thiel cut a check to have a talking head in a position of power that could further his [Thiel's] goals. Until the public gets their shit together and crowd funds a candidate that can't be bought no matter the cost or threat to family/business interests, we'll continue to have one shit stain candidate after another, promising a brighter tomorrow to the public, while working feverishly to ensure the shares waiting for them from their sponsor company reach maximum value upon their leaving office or retiring.

Huh... that sounds about right.

Alito, for instance, was always a demagogic piece of shit, and Thomas was always a corrupt piece of shit, but for a while there, Roberts was a relatively decent justice, all things considered. But no more - now he's at least as corrupt/compromised as the rest of them. But I was never quite sure how that happened, and that's a plausible explanation.