• 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

The Great Zaganza said:
Impeachment should be up to the Supreme Court, and the threshold should be high.
Click to expand...

That's worse. A thousand times worse.

At the very least right now every 2 years the two tribes have to put at least some token effort of pretending like they give a crap about the people so they get enough votes to maintain the tipping points in Congress.

With your plan get 5 person majority on the Supreme Court on your side and boom... you're set for life.
 
Rumor has it that right out of the gate, McConnell will move to acquit, not dismiss the charges.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I have come to the conclusion that Impeachment is a deeply flawed method for a check on power on the President, precisely because it tries to turn a legislative body into a judicial one: this undermines the credibility of such a process.
Impeachment should be up to the Supreme Court, and the threshold should be high.
Click to expand...

Your solution would try to turn a judicial body into a political one. A prospect the Supreme Court has consistently rejected over the years.
 
theprestige said:
Your solution would try to turn a judicial body into a political one. A prospect the Supreme Court has consistently rejected over the years.
Click to expand...

If you don't think the Supreme Court is a political body, you haven't been paying attention.
 
acbytesla said:
Rumor has it that right out of the gate, McConnell will move to acquit, not dismiss the charges.
Click to expand...

Oh most probably. They want to turn this into a "win" not just a... neutral.

They want the strongest "This proves Trump is innocent" narrative they can get out of this.
 
theprestige said:
Your solution would try to turn a judicial body into a political one. A prospect the Supreme Court has consistently rejected over the years.
Click to expand...

not if the case is decided on the merits.

And I would suggest that more than a simple majority would be necessary.


how much worse than the current system, which has never worked so far, can it be?
 
acbytesla said:
If you don't think the Supreme Court is a political body, you haven't been paying attention.
Click to expand...

It's not that I don't think the Supreme Court is a political body. It's that the Supreme Court itself has repeatedly invoked a doctrine of political questions to recuse itself from certain Constitutional disputes. There are many SCOTUS rulings that say, in essence, "this is political; it needs to be resolved by the other two branches amongst themselves." I think the Supreme Court would almost certainly apply this doctrine to the question of impeachment.

I think it's an obviously political process, and was always intended as such, and that this is the right way to handle it. I do not believe, nor intend to suggest, that the SCOTUS judges are not political creatures.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are thouse two options actually available?
Click to expand...

I can't think of why immediate acquittal wouldn't be an option. The part I don't get is how they can strip the Dems of being able to call any witnesses or anything like that. I assume, though, that since they have the majority they're working on the premise that giving impeachment any attention would be justifying it. If you kick it immediately you can say, "Ok, we're done with that. Lets move on." Which is exactly what the GOP wants. Given the results in Britain, as dangerous as drawing connections can be, the world is turning more conservative everyday.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are thouse two options actually available?
Click to expand...

I don't believe "dismiss" is available, but acquit possibly/probably. A GOP Senator will be recognized by Roberts and he can make a motion to acquit and then it will be seconded. Then they will record the vote and if 51 vote Aye on the motion, it's over.

I think.
 
plague311 said:
I can't think of why immediate acquittal wouldn't be an option. The part I don't get is how they can strip the Dems of being able to call any witnesses or anything like that. I assume, though, that since they have the majority they're working on the premise that giving impeachment any attention would be justifying it. If you kick it immediately you can say, "Ok, we're done with that. Lets move on." Which is exactly what the GOP wants. Given the results in Britain, as dangerous as drawing connections can be, the world is turning more conservative everyday.
Click to expand...

The problem with immediate acquittal is political and how it would be viewed through the lens of history. The Constitution mandates a trial in the Senate. For the Senate not to take it seriously would look bad.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
not if the case is decided on the merits.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of the legal merits of the case. It's not a simple question of removing the president for breaking the law. Clinton broke the law when he committed perjury. The question is whether we, as a nation, want to remove the president from office over it. This is a political question that the courts should not decide.

If questions were decided purely on the legal merits, jury nullification wouldn't be a thing. But it is. Because in a democracy, the will of the people is always in tension with the rule of law, and that tension cannot always properly be relieved by siding with the rule of law.

And I would suggest that more than a simple majority would be necessary.
Click to expand...
I'm on board with this suggestion.

how much worse than the current system, which has never worked so far, can it be?
Click to expand...
I disagree that it has never worked. I think it worked just fine with Clinton. He was tried, and he was acquitted. What more could you ask from the system? Do you think the system was improperly applied? The House missed the mark in its arguments for removal? The Senate was remiss in its duty to properly consider those arguments and vote for removal? How did the system not work, in the case of President Clinton's impeachment?

Furthermore, "how much worse could it be?" seems like a terrible reason to make a major change to a system of government. That's not the kind experiment I think we should ever try.
 
acbytesla said:
The problem with immediate acquittal is political and how it would be viewed through the lens of history. The Constitution mandates a trial in the Senate. For the Senate not to take it seriously would look bad.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's a good idea to base major policy decisions on the hypothetical feels of future historians.
 
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...
Given this reality, and given DOJ policy that a POTUS can't be indicted, Trump can actually shoot people dead and there's not a thing that can be done. It can't be 5th ave though; the NY cops will nab him. It needs to be on federal property.
 
acbytesla said:
The problem with immediate acquittal is political and how it would be viewed through the lens of history. The Constitution mandates a trial in the Senate. For the Senate not to take it seriously would look bad.
Click to expand...

You can't use the "Oh but history is going to harshly judge you" argument against people who aggressively don't care that the Earth is going to be a burned out cinder in a few generations.
 
At least one Democrat (Rep Val Demings, FL) is openly calling for McConnell to recuse himself from the Senate Trial.
 
JoeMorgue said:
You can't use the "Oh but history is going to harshly judge you" argument against people who aggressively don't care that the Earth is going to be a burned out cinder in a few generations.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. If they don't care, then they don't care. For them it's simply a political calculation.
 
acbytesla said:
No they ARE NOT. Before the trial every Senator must take an oath to be impartial and uphold the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Do you have evidence for this? Aside from the oath of office which requires them to protect and defend the constitution, I am unaware of any additional oath required for impeachments.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom