So how does this work? Would you support impeachment less than 2 months prior to the election? Would you support impeachment of a SCOTUS judge if they are confirmed?
Impeach Trump to keep him from nominating a replacement?
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
So how does this work? Would you support impeachment less than 2 months prior to the election? Would you support impeachment of a SCOTUS judge if they are confirmed?
They have to hear the impeachment trial first before the confirmation hearing.
She basically just deligitimized (sp) the previous impeachment.
The Republican Senate screws with the Constitution and then act surprised when Democrats in Congress consider playing the same game?
The only thing that can save America right now is Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden sitting in a room with a drink.
Assuming this is in regards to the appointment, how is it in anyway unconstitutional? Not fair perhaps, but show where this goes against the constitution.
What? There have been 29 presidents in their last year that had the chance to appoint a Supreme Justice. All 29 times the President has nominated someone. 10 of those times the Senate was held by the other party, 8 times he did not get the Justice confirmed, 2x he did. 19 times the same party held both Prez and Senate, 17 of the 19 times they approved the choice while he was still in office.
You can argue they should not be confirmed, but there is 0 in the Constitution saying it can not be done.
Not entirely true. McConnell used his authority to dictate how "consent" works just like Reid did in changing the rules on how many votes are required to block a judicial nominee vote. Both acts are within their power constitutionally. Its not like this approach is, or was unprecedented and falls on either parties shoulders. It would be unprecedented if McConnell extends this to SCOTUS, but still would be within his constitutional authority.
But all of this partisan garbage is slowly whittling away at our Constitution. Tell us, what was the reason Reid changed the Senate rules (for non-SCOTUS) judges?
It was because the Republicans were refusing to play ball, period. They used their minority numbers to basically block President Obama from filling ANY federal openings in the judiciary. Is THAT what the founding fathers envisioned?
There's a Grand Canyon-wide difference between the Senate using his 'advice and consent' authority to provide a legitimate and necessary 'check and balance' to the President's authority and the Republican Senate giving a big "FU" to whatever President Obama wanted.
Politics and wheeling and dealing have always been a part of our governmental process. Since early in our country's history it's been said, "Laws are like making sausages. The less we know about how they're made, the better."
But there's a difference between politics used to make laws and reach compromises and politics used to flagrantly disregard the spirit of the Constitution.
While you can say certain Congressional actions are "within a party's authority," you and I both know that these 'party over country' power plays are a slow but steady drip-drip-drip that will eventually destroy the very Constitution that we're told EVERYBODY on Capital Hill holds so precious and dear.
But there's a difference between politics used to make laws and reach compromises and politics used to flagrantly disregard the spirit of the Constitution.
While you can say certain Congressional actions are "within a party's authority," you and I both know that these 'party over country' power plays are a slow but steady drip-drip-drip that will eventually destroy the very Constitution that we're told EVERYBODY on Capital Hill holds so precious and dear.
Reid changed the rules because he wasn't getting what he wanted. Not saying what the Republicans were doing was correct, but at the same time you cant claim that one side was trying to be bipartisan there either. Reid could have respected the other side and encouraged Obama to nominate candidates that both sides could agree on. Its a double edged sword so if the measure is bipartisanship you really can't lay blame at the feet of one party.
You bring up Reid's move and I am explaining the reason for it. The advice and consent role is to insure that we have highly-respected and educated people appointed to our judiciary. We don't want a situation where a personal lawyer friend of a President gets appointed to one of the highest courts of the land. On the other hand, we don't want to have a high percentage of qualified appointees blocked or stalled without action simply because of who appointed them.
The way things stand now, if the Parties split the power, nothing happens, and if one side holds the power, 'anything goes.' Hell, given the way this Senate votes, Trump could have nominated Michael Cohen of all people (this being before his felony convictions) and had him receive enough Republican votes to join the SCOTUS. Think about that.
The line Republicans are going with is, "the people elected them so they have a duty to push a supreme court nom through."
Well the people elected congress and they have a duty to impeach Trump for his handling of covid when he knew it was deadly and he downplayed it while 200k people died.
Well the people elected congress and they have a duty to impeach Trump for his handling of covid when he knew it was deadly and he downplayed it while 200k people died.
Downplayed it how??? By not causing MORE OF A FEAR MONGERING NATIONAL PANIC? You’re a fear mongerer.
Impeach him for his Words?
Not impeachable dumbshit. Stop spending my money on frivolous BS
You just made a great argument for why Reid was wrong in using the nuclear option and setting that precedent.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: Tampa Bay Rays Stadium / Orlando Dreamers Mega Thread ⚾- Latest: Knightwalker94
-
