• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

Page 101 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Give SCOTUS specific power to remove from office anyone that doesn't adhere to the letter of impeachment proceedings?
 
interchange said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or just chuck the whole thing for a parliamentary system with proportional representation rather than layering on more to an already unwieldy system.
 
interchange said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that once impeached the rules remain as they are and if true then Mitch has today.
 
Jhhnn said:
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.
Click to expand...

You would be a broke man if you made your living on guesses.
 
blackangst1 said:
Congress already has that power (expulsion). However, expulsion hasnt occurred since the civil war.
Click to expand...
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.
 
blackangst1 said:
BRB heading to Costco for foil....
Click to expand...
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. 🙂
 
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
interchange said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I see some pretty major issues with this but I will reply in the other thread.
 
blackangst1 said:
You would be a broke man if you made your living on guesses.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Jhhnn said:
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?
Click to expand...

And who disagrees with this?
 
Silly Democrats...trying to remove a president while the Senate is controlled by republicans. This is funnay!!! 😛
 
compuwiz1 said:
Silly Democrats...trying to remove a president while the Senate is controlled by republicans. This is funnay!!! 😛
Click to expand...

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.
 
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
compuwiz1 said:
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)
Click to expand...

I think the calculus is pretty simple.

1) There's no real evidence of impeachment affecting most people's political futures, if anything the public is modestly in support of it.
2) There is overwhelming evidence of multiple impeachable offenses that their oaths to the Constitution require them to act on.
3) The impeachable offenses in this case specifically revolve around Trump attempting to use the presidency to rig the 2020 election in his favor. Before, the primary argument was to just let America vote him out. Now that Democrats saw he's trying to rig the election though that option becomes a lot more problematic.

Numbers 2 and 3 were immediately obvious to anyone paying attention and number 1 showed to be true pretty quickly. Regardless though even if you turn out to be 100% right that this costs some people their political futures it is a credit to them and the Democratic Party that they valued our democracy more than their own political power. It's sad that Republicans don't share their sense of duty to the country.
 
compuwiz1 said:
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)
Click to expand...
It's their sworn oath of office and job to do it.
 
compuwiz1 said:
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)
Click to expand...

People who have no principles often can't understand the motivations of those who do.
 
compuwiz1 said:
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)
Click to expand...
Would you feel this great about it if our military members were so cavalier about disregarding the oath they take on enlistment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top