Talk of impeaching members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court began with a memo from a second-term state representative from a rural northwestern Pennsylvania-based district. But within two weeks, the state's highest-ranking Republican was calling on lawmakers to have a “conversation” about the issue.

The topic of impeaching Supreme Court members has disheartened many in the state's legal community, who decry the discussion as a clear danger to judicial independence, and political observers feel the that talk is mostly posturing that is unlikely to result in anything more than press releases. However, experts also note that, even if there is not a political will, there is a political way for the state General Assembly to impeach members of the Supreme Court. And, in today's political environment, anything can happen.

“As a political reality, it's not very likely to happen,” G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, said. “The only pause, I would say, is that in this fiercely polarized partisan environment, you probably can't rule out anything.”

Talk of impeachment was sparked after the Supreme Court determined the 2011 congressional map had been so gerrymandered by the Republican-controlled General Assembly it was in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The five justices who had been elected as Democrats said the map should be tossed, but only four agreed that the map should not be used for the 2018 election cycle. Based on that narrow majority, the court gave the legislator a tight deadline to redraw the map.

GOP legislators proposed a redrawn map, but it was quickly rejected by Gov. Tom Wolf, and the court came out with a revamped version of the map Feb. 19.

Talk of impeachment began on Feb. 5 with Rep. Cris Dush, R-Jefferson, issuing a co-sponsorship memorandum that said, “The five Justices who signed this order that blatantly and clearly contradicts the plain language of the Pennsylvania Constitution, engaged in misbehavior in office.”

“Wherefore, each is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office and disqualification to hold any office or trust or profit under this commonwealth,” the memo said. “I would ask you to please join me in co-sponsoring this legislation.”

Dush's district covers all of Jefferson County and parts of Indiana County.

At a press conference on Feb. 21, U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, said talk of impeachment was a conversation that “has to happen.”

“I think state House members and state senators are going to be speaking amongst themselves and their constituents, and the fundamental question is does this blatant, unconstitutional, partisan power grab that undermines our electoral process, does that rise to the level of impeachment?” said Toomey, who is the state's highest-ranking GOP statewide elected official.

Several attorneys told The Legal the talk is political showmanship, sour grapes over losing the decision, and conduct that could potentially raise disciplinary issues for those members of the legislature who are attorneys.

Pennsylvania Bar Association president Sharon Lopez said the proper remedy for the legislators to challenge the ruling is through the federal courts.

“The judiciary must have the independence to interpret the law without political interference or threats of impeachment by another branch of our democracy,” Lopez said in a press statement. “The Pennsylvania Constitution makes clear that public officials can be impeached 'for any misbehavior in office.' There are no allegations of misbehavior in this case.”

With several state and federal lawmakers having already lodged federal challenges, Lopez added that she is confident the legislature will “keep the public trust in our system of government.”

Philadelphia Bar Association chancellor Mary Platt issued a statement in which she “condemned” the call for impeachment.

“Separation of powers is a cornerstone of our democracy and the judiciary should not be subject to threats and personal attacks by legislators who disagree with their decisions,” Platt said. “An impartial and independent judiciary is essential to the rule of law and our democracy, and threatening justices with impeachment and engaging in personal attacks on them undermine judicial independence and the public's confidence in our judicial system.”

Regardless of what Pennsylvania's legal community thinks, given the process and the political make-up of the legislature, impeachments are possible, political experts agreed.

The process, if it begins, requires the state House of Representatives to approve articles of impeachment, which would likely be drawn up in the Judiciary Committee. The Pennsylvania Senate would then hold hearings, much like a trial, and proceed to a vote, which would require a two-thirds majority to mandate removal.

If matters go forward on strictly partisan lines, an impeachment measure could pass. Republicans have a clear majority in the House, and, with 16 Democrats to 34 Senate Republicans, the GOP has more than the two-thirds majority needed to remove the justices.

Although impeachment is most often considered when there is misconduct or malfeasance by an official, the state constitution says that public officials can be impeached “for any misbehavior in office.”

According to Madonna, the definition of “any misbehavior” is “really what the House and Senate decide it is.”

However, to secure a two-thirds majority, there would need to be near unanimity within the Republican party, and political observers don't see that happening.

“In raw numbers that's the case, but I think you'd have a really big challenge to get a number of Republican legislators to go that far,” Christopher Borick political science director of Muhlenberg College's Institute of Public Opinion, said.

Borick said there are two main considerations that might give moderate Republicans pause. First, he said, is that any impeachment efforts would trigger a very real constitutional crisis.

Although some of the legislators calling for impeachment have already suggested that the Supreme Court's ruling caused a constitutional crisis, Borick said that is “in many ways hyperbole.”

“Impeaching justices because of a decision would initiate a real constitutional crisis,” Borick said. “We can call it impeachment, but it's a coup in one branch of government.”

Another more basic reason that moderates would not likely pursue impeachment proceedings is that “ramifications at the ballot box could be quite substantial,” especially in this election cycle, Borick said.

However, there is another issue that might be fueling the call for impeachment: redistricting of the General Assembly itself.

Political observers suggested the call for impeachment talks may come out of fear that the Supreme Court will use its decision tossing the congressional map as precedent for redistricting state districts, which would directly affect the legislators.

“It's unlikely it would be pursued in a substantial way, but a number of representatives might be sending signals with the threat with their own possible redistricting in mind,” Borick said. “We want to rattle the impeachment sword, if you will, to let you know that if you come after us next, we might retaliate.”

Matthew Kerbel, chair of Villanova's political science department, agreed and said the current rhetoric is a reflection of just how big of a political threat the legislators may view the new maps, especially since state districts will need to be re-drawn following the 2020 census.

“It speaks to just how much the old map means to Republican's electoral prospects that some representatives will go so far as impeaching a majority of a Supreme Court,” he said.

That, combined with what Borick characterized as a “fairly volatile [political] environment where people are hunkering down in their tribes,” make the situation seem more of a reality than it would have been only a few years before, observers agreed.

“I took it seriously,” Kerbel said when he first heard Dush's call for impeachment. “In this day and age it's not impossible.”