Politics The Biden thread

[Ivan le Fou]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

>immediately slash jobs
>TRUMP DID THIS, GIVE HIM TIME

*honk honk*

 

[NZM305]

That's the law. The Constitution. And, incidentally, History.

The principal argument against allowing post-presidential impeachment is that the Constitution does not make private citizens subject to impeachment. The founders rejected the British model that allowed Parliament to impeach anyone, except for the King, and so they limited impeachment to certain public officials, including presidents.
Subjecting a president to impeachment after he has returned to his private life would, seemingly according to this logic, violate this basic constitutional principle. The Constitution itself applies only to governmental not private action.

No former official has ever been convicted by the Senate, and only one has been impeached.
Secretary of War William W. Belknap was indisputably guilty of numerous impeachable offenses, to which he confessed as he resigned his office hours before the House unanimously impeached him in 1876. The Senate voted in favor of a procedural motion affirming its jurisdiction to try Belknap’s impeachment. But two dozen senators who believed he was guilty voted to acquit on jurisdictional grounds. A close vote nearly a century and a half ago doesn’t establish a binding precedent.

Beyond the constitution, there are strong policy and historical reasons an incoming administration shouldn’t seek recriminations against its predecessor. In some countries defeated former presidents and prime ministers are routinely prosecuted. America has lived more in accordance with President Lincoln’s message to the soon-to-be-defeated Confederacy: "With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds."


A more compelling precedent is the House’s decision not to impeach Richard Nixon. After he left office in 1974 to avoid certain impeachment and conviction, there was no movement to continue the process.
The Supreme Court emphasized that “the impeachment powers” were exclusively entrusted to Congress with no role for judicial review. The court there was focused on the question of whether the court could review what the Senate understood to be a trial.

Moreover, the Supreme Court might take the view that the jurisdictional question in the Trump case does not raise the kind of finality questions that worried the court in Nixon. What if a Senate convicted and purportedly removed a president and the "president" filed motions in court seeking to have that verdict overturned? The prospect of judicial review could create the risk of a constitutional crisis in which the country did not know who was properly exercising the powers of the president.

In Trump’s particular case, there is no such risk. If the Supreme Court reviewed the results of a Senate trial of a former president, there would be no risk of casting doubt on the chain of command in the executive branch. If the House and Senate were to purport to impeach, convict and disqualify a private citizen who had never held political office, the justices might well think that Congress was operating outside the bounds of any credible reading of the constitutional impeachment power and that judicial intervention would pose no real risk of undercutting the core uses of that power and the operation of the constitutional system of checks and balances.

The claim that the Senate can hold an impeachment trial for a former president is not necessarily wrong though. It is at most a difficult question, and one that has historical precedent behind it. Nonetheless, Judge Luttig asserts that "only the Supreme Court can answer the question of whether Congress can impeach a president who has left office prior to its attempted impeachment of him."


Setting aside the apparent confusion of impeachment by the House with a Senate trial on impeachment charges in the Senate, it is not at all evident why "only the Supreme Court" can answer such a question. Traditionally, it was the Senate as the constitutionally designated court of impeachment that has had the final say over constitutional questions regarding the impeachment power. To get to Judge Luttig’s result, the Supreme Court would have to conclude that, even on close constitutional questions relating to the impeachment power, the Senate as the constitutional court of impeachment is an inferior tribunal to the Supreme Court. The court would run the risk of upending the constitutional system by claiming judicial supremacy over one component of the most awesome and delicate authority granted to Congress.

The impeachment power, like any other constitutional power, can be abused. The Senate sits in judgment of whether the House has misused its sole power to impeach federal officers. The people sit in judgment of whether the House and the Senate together have properly wielded this most formidable constitutional weapon.


For the Democrats to seek revenge against Donald Trump would set a terrible precedent, distract from President Biden’s agenda, and make it hard to heal the country.

So this will be setting a precedent then.
And will potentially end up at the supreme court for a decision on its legality.
The argument for it to stand will be that he never resigned before the article of impeachment was passed in the house.
And yes i'd agree that it may make it harder to heal, but the democrats and republicans will also be weighing up that if trump is no longer able to be president then the next 4 years of him promising to run again won't happen.

 

[Fluff]

So this will be setting a precedent then.
And will potentially end up at the supreme court for a decision on its legality.
The argument for it to stand will be that he never resigned before the article of impeachment was passed in the house.
And yes i'd agree that it may make it harder to heal, but the democrats and republicans will also be weighing up that if trump is no longer able to be president then the next 4 years of him promising to run again won't happen.

but it needs 2/3 majority, in a house split 50/50. So any Republicans that vote for it, are comiting suicide at the next election.

As to the legality, if its allowed, what stops the next president investigating Iraq, and impeaching Bush? Real Banana republic.....

 

[Ivan le Fou]

So this will be setting a precedent then.
And will potentially end up at the supreme court for a decision on its legality.
The argument for it to stand will be that he never resigned before the article of impeachment was passed in the house.
And yes i'd agree that it may make it harder to heal, but the democrats and republicans will also be weighing up that if trump is no longer able to be president then the next 4 years of him promising to run again won't happen.

Depends what is the most concerning thing to you then.

Making sure Trump is not president anymore and can't hold any kind of public office anymore?

Or setting a precedent that can and WILL be applied to ANYBODY holding a public office in the future? And, possibly, anybody who used to hold a public office in the past?

Do you really want that kind of precedent?

Also, the House only sets the articles of impeachment. Until they reach the Senate they don't mean anything and/or hold any real legal weight. It's like suing someone, to some extent, the case only carries weight when received and accepted by a judge (in the US legal system at least).

 

[NZM305]

but it needs 2/3 majority, in a house split 50/50. So any Republicans that vote for it, are comiting suicide at the next election.

As to the legality, if its allowed, what stops the next president investigating Iraq, and impeaching Bush? Real Banana republic.....

And that will be the interesting question, will republicans vote and fall on their swords to convict him to get him out of the party and/or because they truely believe his speech was inciting?
It's going to be very interesting to see how it pans out.
And as to the second part, can't impeach a private citizen.
It's why the democrats had to push so quickly to get the article of impeachment through while Trump was still President.

 

[NZM305]

Depends what is the most concerning thing to you then.

Making sure Trump is not president anymore and can't hold any kind of public office anymore?

Or setting a precedent that can and WILL be applied to ANYBODY holding a public office in the future? And, possibly, anybody who used to hold a public office in the past?

Do you really want that kind of precedent?

Also, the House only sets the articles of impeachment. Until they reach the Senate they don't mean anything and/or hold any real legal weight. It's like suing someone, to some extent, the case only carries weight when received and accepted by a judge (in the US legal system at least).

So I guess its up to the now Democrat controlled Senate to decide how to procede, and as you said the voters will then pass their judgement on both the senate and the house at the next elections.

 

[Fluff]

And that will be the interesting question, will republicans vote and fall on their swords to convict him to get him out of the party and/or because they truely believe his speech was inciting?
It's going to be very interesting to see how it pans out.
And as to the second part, can't impeach a private citizen.
It's why the democrats had to push so quickly to get the article of impeachment through while Trump was still President.

I cant see it progressing, in the worlds most litigious country - Trump will appeal to the SC - the constitution is not detailed, its says the pres gets sacked, he's already sacked.....it will run for months or years.

Also if you can try the ex pres, then the ex-pres must retain some powers, so maybe he could pardon himself - its just legal spagetti from now on.....

 

[Ivan le Fou]

They filed the articles of impeachment, but they have not been submitted to the Senate.
They will be next Monday.

But they haven't been as of now. Process is something Democrats have shown utter contempt these past few years.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Have fun opening that pandora box then...

There is a reason why it was one of the first things the Founders rejected, keep that in mind.


To think some luminary/moron/moral rebuke compared Trump to Mugabe and Maduro (or Chavez, some guy down South). Yes @Telmar , you.

 

[nicememe]

And that will be the interesting question, will republicans vote and fall on their swords to convict him to get him out of the party and/or because they truely believe his speech was inciting?

To my understanding, the political elite in USA is dead.
You're no longer looking at a group of people who are politically-conscious, but rather a senile pseudo-aristocratic clan of people who think they are destined to be rulers, but don't actually understand the details behind the political situation inside the country, thus attempt to survive by riding waves of whatever is "currently trendy".
Just as Pence cucked Trump, I wouldn't be surprised to see Republicans cucking themselves on every turn from now on. They're out in the cold now, confused, scared, desperate for comfort. And will go along with whatever seems to them as the safest route, rather than the right one.

Whomever can reverse the erosion of the political consciousness in the country, would have to be quite radical and extreme. Very unlikely such person or group will step in. (at least not likely, if historical precedents are anything to go by)
Then again, history has a tendency to be unpredictable.

 

[colin traveller]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ivan le Fou]

 

[Telmar]

Yes @Telmar , you.

I´ll let the late and great June Carter and Johnny Cash reply to your constant requests for attention and love from me...

"It ain´t me you´re looking for babe"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ivan le Fou]

So I guess its up to the now Democrat controlled Senate to decide how to procede, and as you said the voters will then pass their judgement on both the senate and the house at the next elections.

We may, or may not.

The Dems have made their position "clear"-ish on the matter; they want to remove the Electoral College, create two more states, rework the voting system (which is not "necessarily" a bad thing, but it depends on what they mean by "reworking" and how it will be done), toying with the Supreme Court (I do remember them saying, among other things, having ACB removed was on the list of things to be done ASAP), possibly packing it, etc...

That's the Dems in their globality, taken as a whole. Individually they may differ though, hopefully they are not a hive mind.

But regarding Biden? We don't know. He never answered the questions. We don't know what his positions are.
And considering how quickly he already flip-flopped on a substantial number of promises, even if he had answered the questions and stated his positions on the subjects... how certain can we be he would actually keep on holding these positions?

He may, or may not. At this stage it's just assumptions. But what is "bothering" is that he is known for: flip-flopping, lying (about his background, his education, plagiarism, his political standing, etc...) and now... well... the fact that he "may" not be all here from a mental/cognitive point of view (Alzheimer/dementia/senility/etc...).

 

[bfc1001]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ivan le Fou]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

HONK HONK

 

[nicememe]

Bernie already reached the Genshin Impact gaming community

 

[BCNTM]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

HONK HONK

we like 'democracy' when it is good for our business - but we don't like it when it may affect our business

the worst sort of left/woke hypocrites - and you can see it in action

 

[Ivan le Fou]

the company is seeking a "valid, fair and successful election" and in-person would ensure that

the company is seeking a "valid, fair and successful election" and in-person would ensure that

the company is seeking a "valid, fair and successful election" and in-person would ensure that

"valid, fair and successful election"



Wouldn't it be hillarious if they also asked for the votes to be audited if there are claims of fraud and such?

 

[JimHPTN]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

HONK HONK

Sooooo.... If one of the 5 most tech savvy organizations in the world, if not the most tech savvy organization in the world in that they have to deal with physical stuff and real world customer satisfaction in conjunction with tech stuff, says that voting must be in person to be legitimately free and fair, I would actually say that their statement is correct. The sad/disgusting part about it is that they're part of the group who are de-platforming those who originally said the same thing. Also, I'm willing to bet that everyone who is voting will have to show an Amazon employee ID to boot.