The Impeachment Thread

[LadySkinsFan]

Getting a Supremes ruling upholding the lawfulness of Congressional subpoenas is, I believe, unlikely given the current makeup of the Court. It would be a 5-4 ruling that people can ignore subpoenas if directed to do so by the President.

 

The House has no confidence in the ability of the Court to uphold the Constitution. And that's pretty ****ing sad.

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Getting a Supremes ruling upholding the lawfulness of Congressional subpoenas is, I believe, unlikely given the current makeup of the Court. It would be a 5-4 ruling that people can ignore subpoenas if directed to do so by the President.

 

The House has no confidence in the ability of the Court to uphold the Constitution. And that's pretty ****ing sad.

 

I would not in any way be surprised if SCOTUS rules against him and he simply ignores their ruling. Because what are they going to do? He's already said openly that he has disdain for any other branch that tries to limit his powers and he'll ignore anything Congress tries to get him to do, so why not go all the way and say the same thing about SCOTUS rulings he doesn't like? 

[Jumbo]

45 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Is there one?  

 

 

 

 

well, i have to turn to the media pundit class, but off the top of my head i'd cite bill crystal, george will, and rick wilson (all gopers i had respect for previously, along with a number of others including in 3D)

 

 

 

ot

 

i've stated before i was a fan of bill buckley jr in my yute so that may give some clue....i was also less informed on just how much racism and various forms of nuttery were so pervasive in the party...i knew they were real and serious issues (mainly race for me), but in my younger days i gave garden variety republicans a lot of misplaced grace on such matters and was more sympathetic to the claim of "liberal exaggerating/whining" even though i was active in race issues then

 

my first "protest march" was at 13 and it was regarded as an anti-lefty event...it was going to welcome military coming back from vietnam in anchorage...my second a week later was in support of interracial marriage (the year scotus struck down anti-miscegenation state laws) and a couple of the folks that loved having me at the welcome home event were screaming at me for being with the other group the next week

 

for all those conservatives who fo-evah (and still) think racism is "way overplayed" by the left, when i was kid it was actively being supported right in front of my face, openly and exclusively by white republicans.......note the word choice...not every goper i knew was doing such, but the ones who were doing it were all conservatives or right-wingers as we called them and they didn't vote for democrats

[LadySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I would not in any way be surprised if SCOTUS rules against him and he simply ignores their ruling. Because what are they going to do? He's already said openly that he has disdain for any other branch that tries to limit his powers and he'll ignore anything Congress tries to get him to do, so why not go all the way and say the same thing about SCOTUS rulings he doesn't like? 

 

This is probably true too. Still, I doubt that the Supremes go against him on this.

[tshile]

As someone who’s recently (within the last 10 years) realized how much racism (and bigotry in general) actually persists within the conservative wing of our country (and I’m talking about random people, not just the talking heads and politicians and lobbyists), it was sort of a double gut punch. First was the “OMG I was wrong” aspect of it (which really hurts when you think you’re always right, like me) and second was the “oh god ive been defending them...”

 

its anger followed by embarrassment followed by sadness (at the scale of it all)
 

I turned the corner immediately following the first inauguration of Obama. Foolishly I wrote all the nastiness off as typical ugly campaign nonsense. When his term started and it got worse I couldn’t do that anymore. 
 

wife and I had a conversation last night that was essentially:

we can’t even look at important people in our lives anymore because it’s impossible to ignore what must be going on underneath that allows them to think, vote, and say the things they say

 

Which creates an internal and likely eternal struggle of: I can’t in good consciousness allow myself to be around a person like this, but this person is important to me and my family and I can’t bring myself to ruin that relationship

we’ve had discussions about where the line is that we say “if that happens again, you will never see our children again”. For example, the displaying of the confederate flag was one of them. 

 

which if you generally value yourself as someone who cares about your morals and principles, is a third gut punch to top it all off. 
 

/rant

[Bang]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

Asked conservative work roomie about this and ill bet any of you can guess his response in under a minute. 

"So what. He was acquitted. And the Bidens are dirty."

 

~Bang

[Long n Left]

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

Asked conservative work roomie about this and ill bet any of you can guess his response in under a minute. 

Snowflake!

[Fresh8686]

@tshile

 

Thank you for being wiling to struggle with all that and make the hard right choices. It takes character to deal with this stuff, because it's often a thankless task with short term loss/struggle as you deal with others who resist/reject what is right. I also appreciate how you embraced the positive disintegration that comes from facing mistakes and recognizing the blindspot we sometimes contain, that can hide within our certainty and confidence in our own intellect. 

 

And finally I deeply respect how you puts serious effort and discussion into "where is my line I won't cross" when it comes to what is and is not acceptable.

 

I hope more people in this country and the world follow your example.

[Hersh]

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

Asked conservative work roomie about this and ill bet any of you can guess his response in under a minute. 

 

All politicians do it so no big deal. 

 

Now, are you going to tell us?

[techboy]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Getting a Supremes ruling upholding the lawfulness of Congressional subpoenas is, I believe, unlikely given the current makeup of the Court. It would be a 5-4 ruling that people can ignore subpoenas if directed to do so by the President.

 

I understand your cynicism, but I think you're wrong about this, for a few reasons.

 

1. People think of the court as partisan and divided, and it is on certain issues like abortion, but the vast majority of cases, from what I've read are 9-0 or similar decisions. This isn't a hotbutton politcal issue like abortion or campaign finance where judges were carefully chosen for their views... this is a straight separation of powers case. I could see the fear that someone like Kavanaugh was selected for his views on Presidential power, but that wouldn't apply to someone like say, Roberts. And really the justices are usually pretty independent minded. I remember reading recently about a couple of decisions where Gorsuch and Ginsburg, of all people, teamed up in majority opinions against similarly odd minority opinions.

 

2. Speaking of Justice Roberts, my understanding is that he's pretty well known for wanting to protect the dignity, impartiality, and image of the Court. I have a hard time seeing him ruling like that.

 

3. The justices, unlike office-holding Republicans, have nothing to fear from Trump. They're appointed for life and don't have to run again.

 

4.  I don't think this is just theoretical. The Court has made rulings on other issues, like Obamacare and gay marriage, that someone with a more cynical view probably didn't expect. I know I certainly didn't think Roberts would vote to uphold Obamacare.

[Llevron]

 

In order 

 

22 minutes ago, Hersh said:

All politicians do it so no big deal. 

 

52 minutes ago, Bang said:

"So what. He was acquitted. And the Bidens are dirty."

 

1 hour ago, drowland said:

"But  AND what about Hilary's emails?"

 

2 hours ago, Larry said:

"Nanny nanny boo boo"?     Hes the boss

 

 

 

He was laughing when he said it all so he could have been ****ing with me. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

About the Supremes and specifically Roberts. I held out some hope that he'd do his job during the impeachment trial in the Senate and call for witnesses. He didn't, he was pretty much a milque toast up there. And that's why I don't trust Republican Supremes to go against the Republican Party. 

 

Edited to add: From the linked article, an example.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court's ruling that ordered Michigan politicians to return to the drawing board on voting maps. The Democratic voters who filed the lawsuit argued that the Republican-drawn voting maps would unduly weaken Democratic representation in the state.

 

The partisan gerrymandering ruling, which was handed down Monday, is the latest Supreme Court blow to redistricting reformers who advocate for fair voting districts that don't provide an advantage to any political party. In June, the justices ruled in cases involving Maryland and North Carolina that partisan gerrymandering is an issue for state, not federal, courts to police. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court threw out a similar case in Ohio. 

 

The high court's ruling voids an April order by a three-judge panel for Michigan politicians to redraw 25 state legislative and nine U.S. House districts. 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-overturns-michigan-partisan-100348161.html

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[EmirOfShmo]

re: Barr's review of the Flynn case. Flynn plead GUILTY. WTF is there to review? 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hooper]

Barr always looks like he is holding in a giant fart.

[twa]

"Read newspapers, not tweets"

 

don't they make you pay to do that?

[Jumbo]

17 minutes ago, Hooper said:

Barr always looks like he is holding in a giant fart.

 

 

he's trying to but it's been unleashed

[Burgold]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

As someone who’s recently (within the last 10 years) realized how much racism (and bigotry in general) actually persists within the conservative wing of our country (and I’m talking about random people, not just the talking heads and politicians and lobbyists), it was sort of a double gut punch. First was the “OMG I was wrong” aspect of it (which really hurts when you think you’re always right, like me) and second was the “oh god ive been defending them...”

 

its anger followed by embarrassment followed by sadness (at the scale of it all)
 

I turned the corner immediately following the first inauguration of Obama. Foolishly I wrote all the nastiness off as typical ugly campaign nonsense. When his term started and it got worse I couldn’t do that anymore. 
 

wife and I had a conversation last night that was essentially:

we can’t even look at important people in our lives anymore because it’s impossible to ignore what must be going on underneath that allows them to think, vote, and say the things they say

 

Which creates an internal and likely eternal struggle of: I can’t in good consciousness allow myself to be around a person like this, but this person is important to me and my family and I can’t bring myself to ruin that relationship

we’ve had discussions about where the line is that we say “if that happens again, you will never see our children again”. For example, the displaying of the confederate flag was one of them. 

 

which if you generally value yourself as someone who cares about your morals and principles, is a third gut punch to top it all off. 
 

/rant

It takes strength to do this. We've had a bunch of tussles about this over the years (always respectful which I appreciate.)  Good post.

[NoCalMike]

Trump still hasn't come to grips with the fact that he doesn't know the law. He doesn't understand it.  He also doesn't seem to comprehend what powers come with being President and which do not.  This is why it is imperative those around him that do know the law, stop trying to bend, twist, ignore and/or break it to Trump's will.  They are only setting themselves up for something much worse in the future when the next President is a lot more savvy and can use the precedents set during this term and turn it to their advantage when they also decide the law need not apply to them. 

[Burgold]

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

Trump still hasn't come to grips with the fact that he doesn't know the law. He doesn't understand it. 

While I agree that he doesn't understand it, I think the bigger issue is that he has no interest in understanding how things work. He wants to be King not President. The laws are inconveniences that little people have to contend with.

[Barry.Randolphe]

4 hours ago, tshile said:

As someone who’s recently (within the last 10 years) realized how much racism (and bigotry in general) actually persists within the conservative wing of our country (and I’m talking about random people, not just the talking heads and politicians and lobbyists), it was sort of a double gut punch. First was the “OMG I was wrong” aspect of it (which really hurts when you think you’re always right, like me) and second was the “oh god ive been defending them...”

 

 

This is exactly how I've felt....it's been a completely eye opening experience that has made me question everything I thought I knew. 

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

 

This is exactly how I've felt....it's been a completely eye opening experience that has made me question everything I thought I knew. 

 

it's like when you try your first drug and realize those DARE people are full of ****

 

🤔

[techboy]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

About the Supremes and specifically Roberts. I held out some hope that he'd do his job during the impeachment trial in the Senate and call for witnesses.

 

Then you had unrealistic expectations, because that wasn't his job. The Constitution doesn't even give him the power explicitly to break ties.

 

Even if he HAD ruled on something, the Senate could have overruled him with a simple majority.

 

That trial was a failure of the Senate, not the Chief Justice.