Give SCOTUS specific power to remove from office anyone that doesn't adhere to the letter of impeachment proceedings?
Give SCOTUS specific power to remove from office anyone that doesn't adhere to the letter of impeachment proceedings?What rules would you want to change?
The problem isn't that we lack rules for how this is to be conducted, it's that McConnell and others have decided the rules no longer matter and they're going to conduct a biased and unfair proceeding. I mean they are so unafraid of the consequences that they are just publicly stating they will violate their oaths.
I don't see any realistic way that SCOTUS could change that.
There is certainly words indicating an intent to hold a trial with all of the very faults Republican reps are currently ascribing to the current impeachment process. In the wake of all this, I would want a constitutional amendment formalizing rules for impeachment inquiries and trials with SCOTUS getting roped in automatically at every step.
The article does add some context, but the basic principle that I was referring to is that the Senate sets the rules of the trial, as they did with Clinton. What's on the books from Johnson isn't relevant if they change the rules. Roberts only has the powers they vest in him.
What I did learn, unless the article is mistaken, is the urgency they must act with to do so.
I'm guessing that when Trump said "I did nothing wrong" you believed him. When he said "Read the transcript" you did, and you still believed him. The power of suggestion overcame your intellect. Trump is realy good at doing that to people.
Give SCOTUS specific power to remove from office anyone that doesn't adhere to the letter of impeachment proceedings?
Requires 2/3rds agreement, which if one party has captured 2/3rds of the party, ensures that they can break the rules without any blowback. Given a second tier the power of expulsion as well and it sidesteps this issue.Congress already has that power (expulsion). However, expulsion hasnt occurred since the civil war.
Requires 2/3rds agreement, which if one party has captured 2/3rds of the party, ensures that they can break the rules without any blowback. Given a second tier the power of expulsion as well and it sidesteps this issue.
To late! You have already been infected and have demonstrated the inability to comprehend basic facts and meanings. May I suggest you go find yourself a hug me jacket and a rubber room, because that is what you will need if the infection spreads.BRB heading to Costco for foil....
What rules would you want to change?
The problem isn't that we lack rules for how this is to be conducted, it's that McConnell and others have decided the rules no longer matter and they're going to conduct a biased and unfair proceeding. I mean they are so unafraid of the consequences that they are just publicly stating they will violate their oaths.
I don't see any realistic way that SCOTUS could change that.
Started a new thread on it. The Constitution doesn't define the rules the House or Senate has to follow. They do. So it means they can change them which allows quite a lot of power to any party with a majority in either body. The SCOTUS would be there to ensure whatever permanently codified rules are enforced, making decisions on whether witnesses are material, evidence reaches whatever agreed upon standard to be presented, resolving promptly decisions regarding privilege, etc., so there isn't the issues going through a laborious legal process. Those kinds of things.
You would be a broke man if you made your living on guesses.
So, what is your contention in all this? You already said that you believe the Senate will do whatever they have to do to let Trump off the hook regardless of the evidence. The verdict is pre-ordained. They have no intention of judging the case on its merits. There's no reason to operate thusly if Trump is actually innocent. Will you contend that he is?
And who disagrees with this?
And who thinks it's right? You?
Nope. Never said that. Ever. But I will admit...and have..its politics.
Silly Democrats...trying to remove a president while the Senate is controlled by republicans. This is funnay!!!
I've never understood the argument that because the Republicans won't fulfill their oath to the Constitution that Democrats shouldn't.
Then again you're the guy who seemed very convinced he wasn't going to be impeached at all if I remember right, despite his impeachment being 100% obvious from the beginning.
I just had a hard time understanding why so many Democrats would want to jeopardize their political futures, so I said to myself, this cannot be, those people are nuts. Nah, they wouldn't really do this. I guess this is really going to play out to the stupid end. (in the end they will look stupid)
It's their sworn oath of office and job to do it.I just had a hard time understanding why so many Democrats would want to jeopardize their political futures, so I said to myself, this cannot be, those people are nuts. Nah, they wouldn't really do this. I guess this is really going to play out to the stupid end. (in the end they will look stupid)
I just had a hard time understanding why so many Democrats would want to jeopardize their political futures, so I said to myself, this cannot be, those people are nuts. Nah, they wouldn't really do this. I guess this is really going to play out to the stupid end. (in the end they will look stupid)
Or just chuck the whole thing for a parliamentary system with proportional representation rather than layering on more to an already unwieldy system.
People who have no principles often can't understand the motivations of those who do.
Compuwiz1 assumes everyone has the same ethics he does.It's their sworn oath of office and job to do it.
Would you feel this great about it if our military members were so cavalier about disregarding the oath they take on enlistment?I just had a hard time understanding why so many Democrats would want to jeopardize their political futures, so I said to myself, this cannot be, those people are nuts. Nah, they wouldn't really do this. I guess this is really going to play out to the stupid end. (in the end they will look stupid)