• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mitch McConnell is openly conspiring with Trump on Impeachment

ChristianProgressive said:
In the case of Impeachment, it IS a trial. And the "jury" and the "court" are supposed to be neutral and put the good of the nation first.
Click to expand...

I disagree. At no time do they lose their role as representative. If being impartial is against the interest of their constituents, then being impartial would violate their duty.
 
This is a shocking development for all those that believed that the Republican leader of the majority Republican house is not going to be impartial when bringing impeachment hearings against the republican president.

Shocking, I tells ya.
 
It's hard to say exactly when it started, but we're living in the era of the imperial presidency. It's inconceivable that Republicans would ever impeach one of their own, and I really doubt that Democrats would at this point either. It's hard to imagine either party getting a super-majority in the Senate, so the impeachment power is essentially neutralized.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's hard to say exactly when it started, but we're living in the era of the imperial presidency. It's inconceivable that Republicans would ever impeach one of their own, and I really doubt that Democrats would at this point either. It's hard to imagine either party getting a super-majority in the Senate, so the impeachment power is essentially neutralized.
Click to expand...


I've been saying for some time that impeachment is a practical impossibility and, to all intents and purposes, not something that actually exists in the US system.
 
3point14 said:
I've been saying for some time that impeachment is a practical impossibility and, to all intents and purposes, not something that actually exists in the US system.
Click to expand...

It's probably been true for a while, but there really hasn't been a test case to fully demonstrate it until Trump.

Trump's abuse of the office is exactly what the Founders had in mind when the included impeachment as a remedy.
 
"I said I was coordinating with the White House. We want to make sure President Pence's transition is smooth."

A fantasy, I know.
 
3point14 said:
I've been saying for some time that impeachment is a practical impossibility and, to all intents and purposes, not something that actually exists in the US system.
Click to expand...

The way Impeachment is setup currently ensures it's only an option in scenarios where it could never practically work.

25th Amendment is pretty much the same way. The only possible non-insane scenarios it would be invokable in are the exact scenarios where it's certain within a statistical rounding error to not happen.

Essentially impeachment is only an option in scenarios where normal checks and balances would already be working so it's not necessary. If there's enough people in Congress to agree to impeach a President then that same Congress is already keeping him in check. Likewise a Congress the lets a President get away with anything to the point we have to consider impeaching them, well then they would not impeach them.

Not least of all because no Congress wants to answer the "Why did you let it get this bad?" question.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
It isn't a court room. Senators are supposed to be partial.
Click to expand...


BobTheCoward said:
I disagree. At no time do they lose their role as representative. If being impartial is against the interest of their constituents, then being impartial would violate their duty.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting take. I completely disagree with it, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

Senators aren't supposed to blindly rubber-stamp whatever their constituents want. They're supposed to intelligently represent their constituents. That includes gathering the facts, considering the facts, voting their conscience, and not simply basing their votes on what will get them re-elected.

That kind of thinking is exactly what is wrong with the USA today. It's certainly not the way the Republicans in Congress acted during the Watergate hearings.

How things have changed. :(
 
Brainiac said:
That's an interesting take. I completely disagree with it, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

Senators aren't supposed to blindly rubber-stamp whatever their constituents want. They're supposed to intelligently represent their constituents. That includes gathering the facts, considering the facts, voting their conscience, and not simply basing their votes on what will get them re-elected.

That kind of thinking is exactly what is wrong with the USA today. It's certainly not the way the Republicans in Congress acted during the Watergate hearings.

How things have changed. :(
Click to expand...

But that still doesn't describe impartiality.


ETA: I also don't understand what voting your conscience means in a representative role. How are you so egotistical that you would think your moral position is superior to the moral position you perceive of the people who voted for you? If you have such low regard for the why are you wishing to represent them?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
But that still doesn't describe impartiality.


ETA: I also don't understand what voting your conscience means in a representative role. How are you so egotistical that you would think your moral position is superior to the moral position you perceive of the people who voted for you? If you have such low regard for the why are you wishing to represent them?
Click to expand...

You and I clearly have different ideas about what representative government means.
 
An impeachment is an impeachment. It's its own metaphor. Any language we use that isn't specifically tailored to it is going to be imprecise at best.

It's a trial but also sort of a trial but not. It's a political decision but also sort of not. It's a legal thing but also sort of not.

And we've only had 4(ish) of these things in the country's history, Congress has some pretty wide latitude to tailor the exact specifics of the nuts and bolts of the process to each scenario, and they all happened under wildly different social/political environments so I don't think we can really start "Impeachment Trend Data Mining" at this point.
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
There is specific direct precedent from the Clinton impeachment that the Senate are not jurors.

ETA: The Tom Harkin objection

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/15/impeachment.objection/
Click to expand...


Posting that article isn't really an effective argument that the Senate isn't a jury. The decision was that the Senate is the entire court, not JUST the jury.

"I object to the use and the continued use of the word jurors," Harkin said in the first vocal objection of the trial. He spoke up during the final opening statement of the night by Rep. Bob Barr (R-Georgia).

Rehnquist ruled in Harkin's favor. "The senator from Iowa's objection is well taken," the chief justice said. "The Senate is not simply a jury, it is a court in this case. Therefore counsel should refrain from referring to senators as jurors."
Click to expand...
 
Armitage72 said:
"I said I was coordinating with the White House. We want to make sure President Pence's transition is smooth."

A fantasy, I know.
Click to expand...

I know you're joking but I suspect McConnell considers Pence incompetent. Ironic considering Trump actually is incompetent.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I disagree. At no time do they lose their role as representative. If being impartial is against the interest of their constituents, then being impartial would violate their duty.
Click to expand...

They take one oath - what oath is that? I'm sure you can tell me.

The interests of their constituents is a political calculation. Most Senators and Representatives don't even know what the interests of their constituents are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom