• 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

BobTheCoward said:
Some of these posts seems to be saying that partisanship is leading people to take a course of action they know is wrong. I wonder if partisanship is actually causing people to think their actions are correct and based on evidence.... cognitive dissonance rather than ethical lapse.
Click to expand...

The evidence from psychology suggests you are correct.
 
Mumbles said:
Dolt 45 would, and since he's in charge now...

Ordinarily, I'd say that he's sunk, since he tried to destroy Kynect, left coal miners lose their pensions (while dems supported their protests quite openly), and any number of other monsterous things. But most people vote party, so...
Click to expand...

They did just elect a Democrat as governor.
 
Here is the Senate oath for an impeachment, as reported by this site.
Senators all swear a general Oath to uphold the Constitution, but the Oath taken in impeachment trials is more finely tuned. It is a juror’s oath, not a legislator’s oath. Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials provides the text: ”I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”
Click to expand...
Moscow Mitchy won't have the slightest qualms about putting his hand on the Holy Bible and falsely swearing that oath.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Some of these posts seems to be saying that partisanship is leading people to take a course of action they know is wrong. I wonder if partisanship is actually causing people to think their actions are correct and based on evidence.... cognitive dissonance rather than ethical lapse.
Click to expand...

Are you actually suggesting there is no evidence that Trump did anything improper, let alone illegal?
 
Mumbles said:
Dolt 45 would, and since he's in charge now...

Ordinarily, I'd say that he's sunk, since he tried to destroy Kynect, left coal miners lose their pensions (while dems supported their protests quite openly), and any number of other monsterous things. But most people vote party, so...
Click to expand...
You think Trump would say no to McConnell? For any reason? I don't see it.

I saw abysmal ratings for McConnell in 2017. Like, 18 percent. But you are probably better informed than I am.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
There are unquestionably flaws in the system (just one of which is that it's likely that now Johnson has formed a majority government he's going to curtail the power of the Supreme Court out of revenge), but I think there's evidence that it's more effective than the US system which, as you've observed, is proving fairly ineffective once people decide they're no longer obeying the gentleperson's agreement to play fair.
Click to expand...
I'm not proud but I suck at understanding the British system. So I can't speak to the House of Lords issue. But I find even your guarded optimism very reassuring. I'm a fan of the UK and hope it endures.

Babbylonian said:
Exactly. While we all know that there are people who will accept anything their team does, this action is a huge risk with seemingly no upside. All it can do is harden the will of the opposition and potentially make others wonder if their team is any good at all.
Click to expand...
Which makes me wonder why McConnell made such a big deal out of it. It seems designed to butter up Trump, but for what?

If course he could just be sucking up gratuitously but it feels contrived.
 
Hercules56 said:
Actually, in this case the Senate IS a court room, and McConnel is one of the jurors. If he is conspiring with Trump he must recuse himself from voting.
Click to expand...

Not according to the Constitution. It is silent on that. It is a matter of what rules the Senate uses....and it isnt the federal laws governing jurors.
 
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...

Their FIRST duty is to the US Constitution - that is the duty for which they swore an oath i.e. to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The way Trump has behaved makes him an enemy of the Constitution.

Their NEXT duty is to the truth

Their duty to their constituents comes a very distant third!
 
smartcooky said:
Their FIRST duty is to the US Constitution - that is the duty for which they swore an oath i.e. to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The way Trump has behaved makes him an enemy of the Constitution.

Their NEXT duty is to the truth

Their duty to their constituents comes a very distant third!
Click to expand...

The problem here is "defend the Constitution" is itself so vague as to be useless. Like if they think the Constitution is best defended by keeping in office a president that will continue to appoint the right kind of judges. Or similar.
 
smartcooky said:
Their FIRST duty is to the US Constitution - that is the duty for which they swore an oath i.e. to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The way Trump has behaved makes him an enemy of the Constitution.

Their NEXT duty is to the truth

Their duty to their constituents comes a very distant third!
Click to expand...

They probably disagree with your interpretation. They probably legitimately think Trump did not do something impeachable. So they would violate the Constitution by impeachment. Resolving cognitive dissonance is not a conscious act.
 
ahhell said:
Senators were appointed by the State governments rather than elected.
Click to expand...

Even that is open to being partisan and political. Independent bodies are, IMO, the best way to mitigate that factor. Although how you choose the members of those bodies is one question and, as you say, it's ultimately less democratic.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Even that is open to being partisan and political. Independent bodies are, IMO, the best way to mitigate that factor. Although how you choose the members of those bodies is one question and, as you say, it's ultimately less democratic.
Click to expand...

Democracy isn't a good thing so that is a plus.
 
Minoosh said:
I'm not proud but I suck at understanding the British system. So I can't speak to the House of Lords issue. But I find even your guarded optimism very reassuring. I'm a fan of the UK and hope it endures.
Click to expand...

This last year has really helped me to see the benefits of the UK system. We had (and have - but that's a rant for a different time) a Prime Minister who was similar to Trump in that he was trying to ride roughshod over the system and set himself up as Emperor, and he was slapped down by the system working as it should. As I indicated upthread even the queen being the head of state looked like it might come in to play with her exercising a power that no British monarch has for a very long time. It didn't come to that, but it was an interesting case study in how being a monarchy could actually be beneficial to democracy. And if you'd have told me when I was a teenager or in my 20s that I'd be saying anything at all positive about having a queen I'd have laughed in your face.

I think flaws in the system are going to play more into next year, now that Johnson's got a large majority (and, indeed, the very fact that he has a large majority exposes a similar flaw in the system to the electoral roll having elected Trump on a minority of votes), and we're in the bad situation we're currently in because of a lot of very stupid moves by quite a few people creating a perfect storm. But it has indeed been heartening over the last several months to see the checks and balances in the UK system doing exactly what they're supposed to do and reining in someone who was trying to abuse the system for his own personal and political gain.
 
smartcooky said:
Their FIRST duty is to the US Constitution - that is the duty for which they swore an oath i.e. to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The way Trump has behaved makes him an enemy of the Constitution.

Their NEXT duty is to the truth

Their duty to their constituents comes a very distant third!
Click to expand...

You Talking Mitch McConnell doubt he has ever really read the Constitution, it
Isn't in the Republicans play book.
 
Seems to me that the biggest problem in US politics is that your judiciary isn't independent. If that were fixed, this mess would never happen again.

Independent judges, not politically appointed and hired in competition with others by an independent body of peers and with a separate ethics body with the power to put a judge on trial for misconduct. None of the involved are at any point appointed by any politician.

As an aside, this is the way it is in Sweden, so maybe it's too socialist for y'all.

ETA: Thinking more about it, it's probably more complicated than I originally thought, and to achieve a truly independent judiciary, you'd need a cultural change.

Let me explain, again using Sweden as an example: A judge in Sweden works in an office in an office building with other judges, administrators, 'secretaries' (we don't call them that anymore), security personnel, janitors etc. They all eat together. They have their fika together. They have Christmas parties and celebrate each others birthdays and go on office conferences. Each judge is just another employee. Sure, he or she is an important - crucial even - part of the office, and has the power to affect the handling of any individual case within their assigned lot (a case is divided among judges using a lottery system), but they aren't untouchable bastions of unattainable glory. They get payed more than the rest, so they have nicer clothes (generally), but they are just Lars, Susanne or Monica with the janitors. This includes the supreme court justices.

This culture is essential because it ensures not only that the judge is centered in normalcy and has the ability to visualize what the impact of their decisions would be on the common people - because the guy in the office next door is one of them, and he just bought chocolates for the entire office yesterday - but also to make them understand that they are just employees, and they will not remain a judge if they screw up.

My advice for the US for the future - provided you ever get the chance: de-dramatize the role of the judge in society and work on setting up a system to hire judges that isn't dependent on the whims of a - possibly deranged or fascist - president with a sycophantic congress.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom