The Impeachment Thread

[Simmsy]

Forget trickle down economics, I've just invented a new term: "trickle down politics". I kept wondering why Trump supporters never talk about the Trump connection to Russians and Ukranians, I think I've got it. Instead of focusing on what everyone else is focused on, the GOP gives them crumbs or scraps that their tiny brains can understand. Virginia went blue, its what the people wanted. However, conservatives are freaking out, what should the GOP do? Second Amendment Sanctuaries! A lame duck law, against a law that doesn't exist and isn't quite alliteration, but you can tell someone tried. These idiots do know that you can't just make up your own laws and say the people have spoken, right? The people have spoken...when they voted VA blue.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Is there a process to request a case go straight to the Supreme Court bypassing lower courts?  And ask them to put a rush on it?  If not, there needs to be.

[Larry]

4 hours ago, Simmsy said:

The people have spoken...when they voted VA blue.

 

Yeah, that seems to be a recent thing I have to add to the list of downright satanic things that the GOP does when they gain power.  The "quick!  The voters have voted us out of power, but we still have the power for two weeks!  We must do as much damage as possible on our way out!  (Before we lose the ability to do damage.)"  

 

First time I think I saw it was Ohio?  R's lost the governorship.  So the legislature passed, (and the outgoing governor signed) laws taking power away from the governor.  

 

Last year or so, I've had a fantasy of either getting rid of lame duck sessions entirely.  Or, if they have to keep them?  Then a constitutional amendment stating that any action taken by an elected official during the period between an election, and the election taking effect, can be reversed by a simple majority of the newly-elected body.  

 

Yeah, the lame duck governor can sign a law taking power away from himself.  But the new governor can veto it when he takes office.  

[Larry]

17 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Is there a process to request a case go straight to the Supreme Court bypassing lower courts?  And ask them to put a rush on it?  If not, there needs to be.

 

I don't know if there is a procedure for requesting it.  

 

I do know that the Supremes have given themselves the power to choose to take a case directly to themselves.  (I think they did so for the Bush v. Gore election matter?)  And the power to simply declare a newly-passed law as unconstitutional, without even waiting for a case to be filed, challenging it.  

 

But I also know that they have a tradition of actually trying to stay away from a lot of highly-charged matters.  For example, there's been issues (I don;t remember which ones they are, just remembering that I've read about them) where the SC intentionally avoided addressing a hot issue, until they had two appeals court rulings that came to opposing rulings.  (Supposedly because that way, they will have writings from two lower courts, arguing in favor of opposing sides, that they can cite in their ruling.)  

 

(And me, I'd really like for the Supremes to remain scared to address controversial issued.  To me, when the Supremes address an issue where the public really wants a certain ruling, that's when we get rulings like Korematsu, where the court literally ruled that they were going to declare ethnic internment camps constitutional simply because the legislature, the executive, and the people all wanted them.)  

[mistertim]

36 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Is there a process to request a case go straight to the Supreme Court bypassing lower courts?  And ask them to put a rush on it?  If not, there needs to be.

 

I don't think there is. I was actually thinking about this the other day as well. But if you had that sort of fast track straight to SCOTUS then it would need to have some pretty strict parameters for the case to be eligible for it, otherwise you'd have everyone and their mother abusing it and trying to take their cases straight to SCOTUS for tons of random ****. Another potential downside with not going through the other courts is that if you take it straight to SCOTUS and lose, it's over. If you lose in lower courts you can appeal and possibly obtain new evidence, change how you're approaching the case, etc. 

 

But yeah, overall I agree with you. When there's a legit constitutional crisis or some other super compelling reason, there should be a strictly controlled but available fast track straight to SCOTUS. I mean, what happens if a guy becomes president and literally declares himself king (which is actually what Trump has essentially done without using the actual word...though I'm sure he'd LOVE to be able to)? Would he then basically be a monarch for a year while the lawsuits made their way through the courts? 

[twa]

they can fast track a case if it is deemed worthy and appropriate, but it still must be brought before a judge first.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, twa said:

they can fast track a case if it is deemed worthy and appropriate, but it still must be brought before a judge first.

 

Even a current "fast track" would still take months to get to SCOTUS. Then there's no telling how long it would be until they would hear it. Not every level of the courts would agree to fast track it either, probably. 

[illone]

A common line i keep hearing from the bootlickers:

 

”elections have consequences”

 

didnt the american people vote blue in the midterms in part so someone would hold dotard accountable?

 

[Hersh]

Not that I expect Trump to be removed from office but the way McConnell and others are making a mockery of the process and thus the Constitution is depressing. These are horrible ****ing people with no moral or integrity and certainly honor. 

[Bang]

8 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Not that I expect Trump to be removed from office but the way McConnell and others are making a mockery of the process and thus the Constitution is depressing. These are horrible ****ing people with no moral or integrity and certainly honor. 

They have killed the country.

And this will be the last dagger. If they do this, there is no Constitution and he will anoint himself absolute ruler. And they will allow it, and in fact dance once it's done.

 

Go head Senate, surprise me.

 

~Bang

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

The media better not be writing stories about the Democrat who voted against impeachment.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

43 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

Looking forward to hearing Rudy testify under oath about his trips to Ukraine, what his assignment was during those trips, who tasked him with those missions.  

 

Somehow, I bet he's been guaranteed, before appearing, that no questions will be permitted about anything actually to do with the articles of impeachment.  

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

3 hours ago, Bang said:

They have killed the country.

And this will be the last dagger. If they do this, there is no Constitution and he will anoint himself absolute ruler. And they will allow it, and in fact dance once it's done.

 

Go head Senate, surprise me.

 

~Bang

Over a year ago I compared Trump and his cult to Chancellor Palpatine and the Republic.

 

At the time I was somewhat joking but now?

 

Yeah.....🤔

[Burgold]

19 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

What Jeff Van Drew needs to do is switch parties, vote for impeachment, and declare loudly that this proves that the impeachment effort is a bipartisan one.

[NoCalMike]

If impeachment was the only thing you disagree with your current party with, switching parties over it makes little sense.

[Larry]

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

If impeachment was the only thing you disagree with your current party with, switching parties over it makes little sense.

 

1)  What if your views on impeachment disagree with the Party, and the people who voted for you?  

 

2)  And I have to say, I have trouble imagining that there's anybody out there who opposes Trump because they have some deeply held belief that Presidents soliciting bribes is a Good Thing.  Or any other moral reason.  My assumption (admittedly based on nothing other than the fact that he says he opposes impeachment) is that he chose that position because he figures it will get him reelected.  

 

(I suppose it's conceivable that someone could be stupid enough to honestly believe the GOP spin on the matter, too.  But I have trouble believing that anybody who can make it to that level does.)