Jump to content

US Politics - I'm not orange I'mpeach


Which Tyler

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The 25th amendment is the ultimate resort.

He's demonstrated, along with all his surrounding enablers, amply, that he's earned removal via the terms the 25th amendment provides.  That isn't a political process.  That is a legal process for someone who has demonstrated utter unfitness for inhabiting the office.

 

Nah.  Don't kid yourself; 25th Amendment is also political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Nah.  Don't kid yourself; 25th Amendment is also political.

Of course it is. But it included specific wording of  "Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office," which goes beyond 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' yes? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

And it will also never happen. So why are you so fixated on it? 

You also said Pelosi would never begin impeachment inquiry.  You and David Brooks, separated at birth . . . . :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

Of course it is. But it included specific wording of  "Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office," which goes beyond 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' yes? 

No, it's just a different standard and equally subjective and undefined.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The 25th amendment is the ultimate resort.

He's demonstrated, along with all his surrounding enablers, amply, that he's earned removal via the terms the 25th amendment provides.  That isn't a political process.  That is a legal process for someone who has demonstrated utter unfitness for inhabiting the office.

 

Don't the Vice President and majority of the Cabinet have to agree? Pence may be up for it, but which of the dingbats and grifters in the Cabinet do you see biting the hand that feeds them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zorral said:

You also said Pelosi would never begin impeachment inquiry.  You and David Brooks, separated at birth . . . . :rolleyes:

Nany Pelosi didn't get her job by constantly licking the man's boots. If the cabinet invoked the 25th their political careers would be over. Now maybe half or so of them would be happy with the $$$ to go embarrass themselves on CNN. But what in the ever living fuck makes you think Mike Pence would just wave goodbye to his chance of being elected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Nany Pelosi didn't get her job by constantly licking the man's boots. If the cabinet invoked the 25th their political careers would be over. Now maybe half or so of them would be happy with the $$$ to go embarrass themselves on CNN. But what in the ever living fuck makes you think Mike Pence would just wave goodbye to his chance of being elected? 

Well, in this scenario Pence would be President, which is by itself a pretty strong incentive.  His chances of being elected in 2024 or later are pretty low.  Sadly not zero, but still low. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Well, in this scenario Pence would be President, which is by itself a pretty strong incentive.  His chances of being elected in 2024 or later are pretty low.  Sadly not zero, but still low. 

I doubt he wants to be Gerald Ford. If he can't get elected, what's the point? Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I see Pence as the least likely to do it. Unless the orange fuck 'wins' next year and they launch the takeover in April or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of all the issues with the 25th Amendment, (convincing the people with the most riding on Trump to vote to kick him out) are you ready for all the legal hairsplitting over whether acting Cabinet heads or deputies who’ve never been promoted even to acting Secretary get votes about removing the president?

Because if you think unlikely bullshit legalese is being employed now to slow down Trump proceedings, wait until that subject comes up. Or we get to hear the argument about whether Trump has the authority keep removing cabinet heads until he lands on people he’s 100% sure will back him. It would be far from the most insane thing Barr and company have said about Presidential powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we please stop with this nonsense? You need a two thirds vote in both chambers for it to work, and that will never happen absent Trump stroking out or something to that effect.

30 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

On top of all the issues with the 25th Amendment, (convincing the people with the most riding on Trump to vote to kick him out) are you ready for all the legal hairsplitting over whether acting Cabinet heads or deputies who’ve never been promoted even to acting Secretary get votes about removing the president?

Because if you think unlikely bullshit legalese is being employed now to slow down Trump proceedings, wait until that subject comes up. Or we get to hear the argument about whether Trump has the authority keep removing cabinet heads until he lands on people he’s 100% sure will back him. It would be far from the most insane thing Barr and company have said about Presidential powers.

I had the same thought, and by my reading of section IV, I think they can. Problem is he can sue over the meaning of “unable.” The intent was not to remove a president simply because they suck at their job. He could have a case there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Can we please stop with this nonsense? You need a two thirds vote in both chambers for it to work, and that will never happen absent Trump stroking out or something to that effect.

I had the same thought, and by my reading of section IV, I think they can. Problem is he can sue over the meaning of “unable.” The intent was not to remove a president simply because they suck at their job. He could have a case there.

Would a psychological and/or physical evaluation be required, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Of course it is. But it included specific wording of  "Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office," which goes beyond 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' yes? 

But, again, that is a judgment call on the part of the VP and the Cabinet.  Then a second judgment call on the part of the Congress as to whether or not they will support the VP and the Cabinet.  There is no precise definition of what "inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office" constitutes.

It is entirely political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Don't the Vice President and majority of the Cabinet have to agree? Pence may be up for it, but which of the dingbats and grifters in the Cabinet do you see biting the hand that feeds them?

The real question I wonder about is whether "acting" cabinet officers have the ability to vote on an invocation of the 25th Amendment and whether Trump likes "acting" cabinet officers for that very reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But, again, that is a judgment call on the part of the VP and the Cabinet.  Then a second judgment call on the part of the Congress as to whether or not they will support the VP and the Cabinet.  There is no precise definition of what "inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office" constitutes.
It is entirely political.

Tough sell. As far as I know the 25th was never meant to remove an unwilling president so the absence of a precise definition means little in itself.
My little thought experiment about Nixon was highly speculative, but otoh I think it's fair to assume the Supreme Court would have to decide on the reading of the 25th if it were used against Trump.
Is there any reason to believe they'd see it as something entirely political?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Tough sell. As far as I know the 25th was never meant to remove an unwilling president so the absence of a precise definition means little in itself.
My little thought experiment about Nixon was highly speculative, but otoh I think it's fair to assume the Supreme Court would have to decide on the reading of the 25th if it were used against Trump.
Is there any reason to believe they'd see it as something entirely political?

The lack of limiting language.  The vaugeness of the terms included in the amendment.  That and the fact that they would be interfering in an area of the Constitution wherein they were given no explicit role... all that might combine to keep them from weighing in at all a declaring the 25th's interpretation to be a political matter expressly left to the political branches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The lack of limiting language.  The vaugeness of the terms included in the amendment.  That and the fact that they would be interfering in an area of the Constitution wherein they were given no explicit role... all that might combine to keep them from weighing in at all a declaring the 25th's interpretation to be a political matter expressly left to the political branches.

You're the lawyer. But I can't help but think they'd be tempted to look at the original intent behind the amendment, thus defining its scope once and for all... Impeachment was always meant as a political process (that much is certain), but the inability clause(s) always seemed to focus on continuity of government. Not that the SCOTUS would go into details but they could very well rule that the inability has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt or something along those lines...

(not trying to be a smartass here, just genuinely curious as to the whys and hows of such matters)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...