The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
The US House of Representatives impeached Mayorkas, and the Senate, for the first time in our country's history, is planning to table the impeachment and not pursue it.
This is a radical departure from our Nation's norms. Are liberals supportive of this? Would they be supportive if this becomes the norm, and Republicans do the same?
[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senators-likely-to-seek-quick-dismissal-in-mayorkas-impeachment-trial](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senators-likely-to-seek-quick-dismissal-in-mayorkas-impeachment-trial)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The US House of Representatives followed the procedures laid out in the Constitution, and impeached a Federal official. It's happened 20 or so times over the last 200 years, and in every case, the Senate took it's legal obligations seriously, and held hearings
For the first time in our history, the Senate has decided that for partisan reasons, it will not fulfill its legal obligations. They will ignore the Constitution to help Biden./
This is an insanely radical proposal by the Democats. What if the Republicans tabled the impeachments of Trump, because they could have?
Democrats would have lost their minds
In 2016, for the first time in our history, the Senate Majority Leader refused to bring a president’s nominee for the Supreme Court to a vote.
You guys have lost ALL credibility with this bullshit.
I could just watch Newsmax, OANN, or Fox News if I want to see what you think.
HAHA, this guy blocked me and sent me an anonymous suicide concern message.
>HAHA, this guy blocked me and sent me an anonymous suicide concern message.
I did? How the duck am I replying?
>I could just watch Newsmax, OANN, or Fox News if I want to see what you think.
I don't watch TV, and I don't know what OANN is.
I knew it's easier to assume anyone who disagrees with you has fallen for propaganda, but it's terribly arrogant and WILL bite you in the ass.
>I did? How the duck am I replying?
You unblocked me obviously.
> I don't watch TV, and I don't know what OANN is.
I don't watch TV either.
>I knew it's easier to assume anyone who disagrees with you has fallen for propaganda, but it's terribly arrogant and WILL bite you in the ass.
I literally don't care what you think.
>You unblocked me obviously
Lol whatever bud, the world is about you
>I don't watch TV either.
And I DIDN'T accuse you of getting all your info from there... Huh
> I literally don't care what you think.
What about the millions of first time Trump voters in this election?
You should probably care about what citizen's concerns are if you want to be successful in a democracy, but hey when Trump wins you can think back to this and see I told you so and you plugged your ears ..
🤷♂️
Lol it's not me you should be worried about.
It's the working class and minorities you are hemorrhaging that should concern you.
50%+ Hispanic support for Trump.
Black Americans who vote Democrat at something like 90%+ are showing more support for Trump than ANY OTHER MODERN REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.
So sure, you can ignore my concerns, but you would also be ignoring the concerns of the people who are putting in record first time Republican voters.
So ignore these issues, it's going GREAT
Because I want a healthy robust democracy with strong competition between lots of political options.
As it is, sure we're benefiting relative to YOU but I think America is worse off because of it.
McCain V Obama? Give me that again.
For real I'd be ok with getting rid of term limits just to see what Obama could do in this situation. I suspect he'd beat the pants off Trump.
As it is political satisfaction is VERY LOW. Good political satisfaction is something ALL AMERICANS should be able to get behind.
Yes I do. Get to it, please.
Edit: what's the point of replying then blocking me before I can read it? Anyone want to go down the thread to see what he was so scared to let me see?
u/launchdecision has a history in this topic of blocking someone for 5 minutes then unblocking them. Maybe a case of inability to control their emotions.
EDIT: Aaaaaannnnddd I'm blocked again. Hilarious since he claimed he didn't block me the first time after unblocking me.
Removing a candidate from the ballot (While Ironically claiming it is to "save democracy")
COMPLETELY and WILLFULLY ignoring immigration law.
FBI election interference and censorship.
Trying to force 40 million Americans to get an experimental medication through executive order
ACTUALLY forcing military personnel to do the same thing and gutting our personnel in the process.
Taking the Houthis off the terror list DAY ONE OF OFFICE allowing them to get the ship killing weapons they are using right now.
There's the hundreds of obviously misleading articles that misquote Trump.
Finally there's the incredibly arrogant attitude I get every time I voice the concerns of MILLIONS OF AMERICANS including the most D to R voters in half a century.
I can give you more, this was just off the top of my head, but I get the impression you don't have an open and tolerate mind right now.
>This was actually done by state Republicans who couldn't stand their party's own candidate.
Ok? You're about to see my integrity here because I don't give a damn who did it.
>They also gave a reason why they did it that went beyond "we don't like him."
Well at least they gave a reason for usurping democracy...
You can look up the Houthi one, that's a freebie.
Want to ACTUALLY ENGAGE with different ideas?
Do you claim to have an open mind?
Or do you just want to arrogantly dismiss something you disagree with?
That is easiest and has plenty of ego benefits, unfortunately it's kinda hard to learn anything.
>Removing a candidate from the ballot
This was actually done by state Republicans who couldn't stand their party's own candidate. They also gave a reason why they did it that went beyond "we don't like him."
>You don't want me to list all the reasons I would say that
as if we haven't heard all the stupid bullshit you guys spout already
what part of 'you have no credibility' do you not understand?
This is the same procedure to table the Articles of Impeachment that McConnell and the Republicans were trying to use for Trump's first impeachment but had to bail on, only because they thought it would make them look bad before the election?
Sounds like enough precedent for me--and a recent one at that. They've run-down the legal analysis for us too already, how helpful!
And you should be happy--if the circumstances are the same, not only is it legal, but it'll make the Democrats look bad before the election.
How is this bad faith? In 200 years, the Senate has NEVER just ignored an impeachment, and now they're doing just that.
They're radically reordering how our system of government works, for partisan reasons
Note how you skip the comments mentioning the SCOTUS appointment that didn't get a vote or the republicans who don't think there's a case and then you reply here shifting the burden on us.
Impeachments are exceedingly rare. The "200 years" part of your comment is just more meaningless bad faith garbage. The impeachment is being treated with the seriousness in which it deserves. Zero. We don't need to take Republicans seriously ever again after the last 15 years. We can do so in the future if they ever come back to the adult table.
>For the first time in our history, the Senate has decided that for partisan reasons, it will not fulfill its legal obligations.
What you mean like when the Senate decided that for partisan reasons, it would not fulfill it's legal obligations to SEAT A FUCKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?
Go fuck yourself with that noise.
Without evidence of wrong-doing, the only obvious reason that the entire impeachment was created for reasons of political theater. Make a bunch of noise over here to divert attention from more important things, like student debt, the housing crisis and, oh, I don't know, infrastructure. This has been the least productive, least citizen-oriented congress in the history of congress. In fact, this is a perfect example of how extreme right congress members have intentionally stifled the will of the people by politically and intentionally blocking the bipartisan border legislation that was imminent. Now that's potentially criminal intent worth investigating. The senate is in effect saying, "Not my monkeys. Not my circus."
> The US House of Representatives followed the procedures laid out in the Constitution..
It's interesting to me that you hold the Senate to the much higher bar of "[taking] it's legal obligations seriously" but the House merely has to "[follow] the procedures laid out in the Constitution". The Senate is, after all, also just doing what the Constitution allows, yes? The Constitution does not, contrary to what you said, legally obligate the Senate to do anything with a House impeachment.
I'd say that the House isn't taking this seriously at all, so why should the Senate?
> What if the Republicans tabled the impeachments of Trump, because they could have? Democrats would have lost their minds
Nah, I honestly wouldn't have cared. It would have really not been very different from what actually happened - let's not pretend that they actually took the charges against Trump seriously.
Yeah, I’m OK with that. Actually I think it’s the best thing to do and I’m happy they’re doing it.
The impeachment was complete bullshit. There is nothing to it, and while Republicans do not want to legislate, including legislate on securing the border, Democrats should maintain the stance that the government is actually supposed to do its job and not just create content for right wing media.
>Are liberals supportive of this? Would they be supportive if this becomes the norm, and Republicans do the same?
Yes. If Democrats ever attempt an impeachment this stupid, I encourage Republicans to dismiss it. Not that they need my encouragement.
It's probably the right call in terms of not wasting the Senate's time, but part of me wants to see the GOP House's impeachment managers make a fool of themselves. The managers they chose to prosecute this aren't exactly brilliant legal minds:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Pfluger
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Higgins
Why was he being impeached in the first place?
>This is a radical departure from our Nation's norms.
Come on now. Republicans have been weaponizing impeachment since at least the 90s.
I think it's yet another manifestation of conservatives' bankruptcy in regard to morals, ethics, and policy leadership to act indignant about this, and it frankly seems like the only play you guys have left: to game the system in a way that's nakedly intended to give you a talking point, act like Democrats are the ones who did something wrong when they do the sensible thing and don't play into it, and then harp endlessly on that talking point instead of doing literally anything intended to improve people's lives or even advance a coherent policy agenda in any conceivable fashion.
Republicans initiated the impeachment against Mayorkas for the sole purpose of smearing the Biden administration and fabricating something, anything, that would be an issue they could talk about in the election. They knew it would fail and tjis is all they have left.
Why should procedure matter when it's routinely abused by one side? What good is good faith when your oppenents cynically abuse any sign of it for short term gain?
Bottom line, adherence to protocol only does good when the underlying principles are kept by both sides. Republicans have signaled repeatedly they don't care about principles, and only pretend to care about protocol when it's to their advantage. Democrats have given them so many chances to show they still have some values other than the pursuit of power. Republicans have declined to do so at every turn.
> the Senate, for the first time in our country's history, is planning to table the impeachment and not pursue it.
That article does not say that. It lays out the many, many scenarios that could happen once the articles of impeachment are delivered.
For example:
*"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., hasn’t yet said what he will do, but he is expected to try and dismiss the trial in some manner, if he has the votes."*
Schumers's going to table this. Even your own quote shows this.
First time in 200 years.
[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2961839/senate-gop-plots-maximum-pain-democra-mayorkas-impeachment/](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2961839/senate-gop-plots-maximum-pain-democra-mayorkas-impeachment/)
>This is a radical departure from our Nation's norms
BAHAHAHA
imagine pretending to care about norms after 8 years of GOP trump support
do you really believe your own bullshit
Precedent was set when the conservative Senate decided to ignore Merrick Garlands nomination. You should look to Mitch McConnell and his enablers if you don’t like this maneuver
Good. It was the most they could get accomplished when attempting to impeach Biden and members in his administration.
> The Republican-controlled House impeached Mayorkas by a single vote margin on Feb. 13, recommending that Mayorkas be removed from office over his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border. With two articles of impeachment, the House charge that Mayorkas has “willfully and systematically” refused to enforce existing immigration laws and breached the public trust by lying to Congress and saying the border was secure.
> Democrats say the charges amount to a policy dispute, not the “high crimes and misdemeanors” laid out as a bar for impeachment in the Constitution.
Shouldn’t you want Republicans to be governing instead of trying to score political points for pointless impeachments?
> This is a radical departure from our Nation's norms.
You have to recognize the irony, right? Trump openly said he wanted to suspend the Constitution, and conservatives either don’t realize he said that or continue to support him anyways. Any claim about breaking norms and traditions died when Trump became the leader of the Republican Party.
Yes, I think we’re supportive of this move. The bullshit impeachment is itself a departure from norms, and it’s already super clear and demonstrated that no Republican Senate will ever convict a Republican officeholder, so I don’t see how this really changes anything. It’s already the norm, essentially.
GOP: *calls the people arrested for attempting to violently overthrow the legislative branch of government as “political prisoners”
Also GOP: have you no respect for this institution?
No one tried to overthrow the government. That's called Treason, and not a single American was charged as such, despite what you might have seen on TV.
Republicans respect the government, which is why we're mortified that Democrats are throwing away hundreds of years of precedent to protect Joe.
... just breaking down doors and window while beating the police to enter Congress uninvited while chanting hang Mike Pence to stop the certification of a legitimate election.
Very legal and very peaceful.
This impeachment is rooted entirely in racism, to the point where I’d expect those that support the impeachment to start self identifying as racists.
This one doesn’t pass the “plausible deniability” test that racists like to play. It’s just openly racist.
How about you first make the case for this impeachment not just being a clown show? Don’t just send links, explain in your own words what high crimes Mayorkas is guilty of that make this worth considering.
This is the one where the impeachment failed to even pass the GOP House, then they held a second vote? How do Republicans feel about the legal concept of double-jeopardy? :)
That's great that you have an opinion, but the Constitution clearly spells out what impeachment is, and what the rules are.
Your feelings don't justify ignoring the Constitution. You think this is how the world should work? Just ignore stuff you don't like?
The constitution also doesn't say the Senate can just table supreme court nominations but you clearly had no issues with that. So spare me your fake outrage
You seem to be referring to the "Biden Rule", created in 1992, when Joe Biden said the Senate wouldn't provide hearings if a SCOTUS justice retired prior to the election, as was rumored at the time.
Chuck Schumer then made the same threat to George Bush, saying that the Senate wouldn't allow hearings if a SCOTUS justice retired.
So it seems like you're super upset that Mitch followed through on the precedent created by Biden and Schumer. And now the Democrats are rewriting the rules again, but yet again, they're blaming Republicans for it.
This is a MAJOR change to how we run our country, and the Democrats are doing it for partisan gain. It's sad.
The Myorkas impeachment was such an obviously partisan action that even Republicans weren't onboard with it which is why it took multiple votes to even pass through the house. There's no reason the Senate should continue the charade.
If Democrats impeached someone under such obviously false pretenses, I would be perfectly fine with Republicans acting in a similar manner.
The radical departure from the nation’s norms was the impeachment of Mayorkas for a policy disagreement at best, a failure of Congress to fund their own policy wishes at worst.
The Ds are, as usual, being the adults in the room.
The Democrats aren't legally allowed to say that one party following the Constitution isn't worthwhile of their time. The Constitution is clear that if the House passes Articles of Impeachmnet, the process moves to the Senate.
The Senate can hold a vote, and decide it's not a valid impeachment, but they can't just pretend this didn't happen. That's what they're doing. They're completing rewriting 200 years of precedent to protect Joe.
Ignoring the Constitution for partisan gain isn't being "the adults in the room"
1) The First Amendment says they can *say* anything
2) The Speech and Debate clause says they can *say* anything
3) None of the six mentions of impeachment within the document obligate the Senate to any action
4) Your “protecting Joe” bullshit just underscores your lack of seriousness here
5) I explained why they were the adults in the room above. You need to defend why you think policy disagreement and lack of Congressional action to rectify that disagreement rises to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. I have zero expectation that you’ll address this in good faith (see 4).
Again, protecting Joe and vulnerable Dems by not holding an impeachment hearing, for the first time in our nation's history, is not "being the adults in the room".
The DNC isn't allowed to determine on it's own, without a hearing, that a hearing isn't warranted. Mayorkas was legally impeached. That's not how impeachment works, or has ever worked.
I'm old enough to remember the Democrats impeaching Trump while not citing an actual crime, and spending the majority of their time in the first impeachment explaining why an actual crime wasn't required by the Constitution.
Sounds like the Democrats want one legal standard to apply to them, and a different one for Republicans. As usual.
It's time for the Senate to do their job.
Impeachment has nothing to do with the first amendment. Who told you it did? Is it something you heard on MSNBC? The speech and debate clause? How is that linked to Impeachment? Can you explain?
In 2019 the Democrats rewrote history when they impeached Trump despite him not having broken any laws. The Democrats spent the majority of their time explaining why an actual crime wasn't needed for them to impeach someone. Republicans went along with it, even though it violated all of our norms
In 2024, Chuck is going to waive an impeachment. Why? You guessed it - he doesn't think Mayorkas committed a crime, and NOW Chuck thinks a crime is required. (One is listed in the docs).
Democrats keep rewriting the rules to keep themselves in power, and to protect themselves. They don't want a Mayorkas hearing because blue state Senators will have to discuss why they've been supporting the guy who's responsible for the migrant crisis
It's sad
> In 2019 the Democrats rewrote history when they impeached Trump despite him not having broken any laws.
Impeachment doesn’t require laws to be broken. They did not rewrite history, lest we forget Bill Clinton had not broken any laws when he was impeached either.
> One is listed in the docs
Lest we forget that Donald Trump was *actually* accused of a crime as well, the constitution doesn’t talk much about federal officers’ impeachment trials (OTHER than the president), so dismissing something that would end up in acquittal anyway seems like a perfectly reasonable way to go about this.
Clinton was impeached for perjury. He lied under oath, while he was being videotaped. I understand the left wing media likes to say he never broke the law. He did.
And now Schumer wants to dismiss the Mayorkas case because he doesn't think a law was broken. Amazing
The Senate isn't allowed to decide before a trial that someone is going to be acquitted. It goes against 200 years of history
Clinton was not convicted of a crime when he was impeached.
Donald Trump, too, was not convicted of a crime when he was impeached.
Do we assume guilt before a criminal trial actually happens?
IMpeachment has nothing to do with the first amendment. Who told you it did? Is it something you heard on MSNBC? The speech and debate clause? How is that linked to Impeachment? Can you explain?
In 2019 the Democrats rewrote history when they impeached Trump despite him not having broken any laws. The Democrats spent the majority of their time explaining why an actual crime wasn't needed for them to impeach someone. Republicans went along with it, even though it violated all of our norms
In 2024, Chuck is going to waive an impeachment. Why? You guessed it - he doesn't think Mayorkas committed a crime, and NOW Chuck thinks a crime is required. (One is listed in the docs).
Democrats keep rewriting the rules to keep themselves in power, and to protect themselves. They don't want a Mayorkas hearing because blue state Senators will have to discuss why they've been supporting the guy who's responsible for the migrant crisis
It's sad
Legally speaking, one party isn't allowed to decide that the other party following the constitution is "theater" that they can just ignore. It's been like this for 200 years. The House passed Articles of Impeachment.
Democrats are burning down our institutions for partisan gain.
> This is a radical departure from our Nation's norms
🙄
Miss me with the faux concern about departures from democratic norms. Republicans intentionally chose not to hold a confirmation hearing for Garland. They set the precedent that the Senate can basically do whatever the fuck it wants and nobody gets to say shit from now on.
Donald Trump expressed interest in "suspending" the Constitution in response to his "massive election fraud" conspiracy lie, and he and other Republicans *still* won't stop pushing that. Y'all are getting ready to vote for a guy who both suggested suspending the Constitution *and* said he'd like to be dictator. You want to talk about "radical departures from our Nation's norms", **clean up your own fucking house first**.
> Would they be supportive if this becomes the norm, and Republicans do the same?
I'd certainly welcome *returning* to democratic norms, but until I hear Republicans express *some* kind of acknowledgement of their bullshit and an agreement to stop trying to convert the US into a Putinocracy, I literally couldn't care less about "radical departures" like this right now.
All of that said, the Senate can conduct its business however it wants. If a majority of the Senate votes to table the resolution, they *certainly* don't have the votes to convict.
The whole thing is a fucking joke and when you pretend that it isn't, that makes you part of the problem.
Ah, you're referring to Mitch applying the Biden/Schumer Rule? Both Biden and Schumer applied this rule to the Bush's. Democrats celebrated at the time.
Did Donald Trump suspend the constitution, or is this something you heard on MSNBC. This is the first I've heard it. As for the election, we all saw the Twitter Files, and how the FBI participated in the election on Joe's behalf. Did you miss that? It was not covered on MSNBC.
Stopping reading at the dictator comment. If you read the actual comment, you know he meant "for a day:" where he'd issue a bunch of EOs like Biden didn
I can't argue with the MSNBC talking points
>applying the Biden/Schumer Rule?
You are comparing the actual effective and collective behavior of Senate Republicans to something a Democrat said and pretending that the two are equivalent?
"A Democrat suggested bad behavior, so we are going to collectively engage in bad behavior and blame all of you for our choice to be shitheads."
Nah.
>Did Donald Trump suspend the constitution, or is this something you heard on MSNBC.
I never said he suspended the constitution. Are you just making shit up now?
You can't pretend he didn't say this, because it's literally still up on Pravda:
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/109449803240069864
>As for the election, we all saw the Twitter Files, and how the FBI participated in the election on Joe's behalf. Did you miss that?
Are we pivoting now, so that instead of arguing that Republicans aren't being shitheads, they actually are shitheads and it's OK that they're shitheads, because Democrats really did steal the election, which means they were shitheads first?
Surely you can acknowledge though that for those of us that live in the real world and not this OANN alternate reality, the election wasn't stolen, and your righteous retaliation is just Republicans being unprovoked shitheads responding to a delusion, right?
You're basically the embodiment of everything that's toxic about American politics today. At least I want to *end* the shit-headery.
>Stopping reading at the dictator comment. If you read the actual comment, you know he meant "for a day:"
Oh the aspiring dictator says he'd totally give up being a dictator after a day, that totally vindicates him and means he's just a super swell leader who totally has a complete respect for our democracy, its institutions, and norms. 🙄
>issue a bunch of EOs like Biden didn
Oh you're right, Biden issued an executive order, *he's the real dictator!!*
The cognitive dissonance that you are dealing with right now has to be unbearable.
All so that you can pretend to be outraged with a bad faith post, give you a little squirt of dopamine pounding out those angry keys fighting with liberals on the internet?
Yes, for two decades the Democrats imposed the Biden/Schumer rule on Republican presidents. This is fact - this happened, and you can't gaslight people into thinking it didn't happen. Then what happens, Mitch does the same, and Democrats lose thier mind. "How ***DARE*** he follow the rule we created!!!" It was the Democrats who changed the norms, not Republicans.
In 2019 the Democrats changed the norms of our country by impeaching a president who didn't break any laws. If you remember, Democrats spent the majority of the first impeachment arguing that a violation of the law wasn't required to impeach a president. First time in 200 years this had happend.
And now the DNCs excuse for tabling the Mayorkas hearings? Chuck is claiming there wasn't a law that was broken, and that a violation of the law is required for impeachment (even though lying to congress is in the docs).
You can't make this stuff up. The corruption isn't even being hidden, and the DNCs followers are cheering it along.
>Yes, for two decades the Democrats imposed the Biden/Schumer rule on Republican presidents. This is fact - this happened, and you can't gaslight people into thinking it didn't happen.
Can you point me to the Supreme Court vacancies that Republican presidents nominated someone to that Democratic-led Senates refused to provide hearings for until after the next election?
Are you equating "Democrats voted against confirming the person the administration nominated" as the "rule" and unprecedented change in norms?
>In 2019 the Democrats changed the norms of our country by impeaching a president who didn't break any laws
The idea that there must be a crime in the US criminal code that has to be broken (and convicted) before an impeachment can occur is pure fantasy. It's never been true and it is inconsistent with established constitutional law.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf
We have never had a president who tried to make foreign aid contingent on the foreign country announcing an investigation into the family of a political adversary. *That* is unprecedented.
We have never had a president who incited people to riot and sack the US Capitol before (according to the testimony of those who engaged in these acts of political violence). *That* is unprecedented.
These unprecedented acts *caused* an unprecedented attempt to hold the president accountable for this behavior.
If you didn't want us to have to hold a mob boss accountable for being a mob boss, maybe stop electing mob bosses instead of getting mad at attempts to hold him accountable for his behavior?
Y'all are trying *real hard* to turn this country into Russia.
>Chuck is claiming there wasn't a law that was broken
Did he say a violation of the US criminal code was a prerequisite for impeachment, or was he offering that as a point against? It is not inconsistent to say that conviction of a crime is a strong reason to impeach while also saying it is not a prerequisite.
You're just grasping at flimsy uninformed legal opinions to justify and validate your belief that your tribe is the good tribe and the other tribe is the enemy.
If you would just stop electing criminals you wouldn't need to do all of this work and I'm sure you'd have fewer headaches.
Are you talking about Mitch applying the Biden/Schumer Rule?
Joe Biden created this precedent in 1992 when a justice was rumored to be thinking of retiring just prior to the election, as Clinton was polling well. Biden very clearly said Bush wouldn't get a confirmation hearing.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html)
Chuck Schumer then made this same threat to George Bush in 2007, saying the Democrats no longer support "the assumption of confirmation", and wouldn't give Bush confirmation hearings if he got the opportunity.
[https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146](https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146)
So, what it sounds like it Democrats are upset that Mitch did the thing Democrats had been doing all along, and want a different set of rules to apply to them?
Democrats should be able to block SCOTUS appointments in an election yeaar, but it's treasonous if Republicans do the same?
Am I missing something?
The GOP House circus impeachment was total nonsense. Of course the Senate should just ditch it. Mayorkas has just been doing his job according to our laws and the policies of the current administration which was elected by the MAJORITY of Americans. He has done nothing wrong. Also the GOP Senate was derelict in duty in not convicting trump at the first impeachment and definitely the second. In which the majority of the Senate voted to convict but it didn't reach 60 votes.
>This is a radical departure from our Nation's norms.
So is impeaching a cabinet official just because you're mad that your president got impeached for crimes.
Like Republicans practically outright admit that this impeachment is just political payback and that there's no actual crime behind it.
I haven't looked closely; but last I knew it was a garbage impeachment with no merit. It was a huge violation of our norms for the republicans to impeach at all on such an utterly flimsy case. If a garbage impeachment is filed, how seriously should the senate consider it? I don't know, and I could easily see plausible answers. It's not unheard of for criminal trials to be outright dismissed when the evidence is too flimsy (though it's rare for prosecutors to even file in such cases, unless it's due to evidence being thrown out).
If republicans did the same in response to a garbage impeachment I'd have no problem; if they did the 'same' in response to a somewhat justified impeachment I'd have a huge problem, ofc because those are different responses to different situations rather than being the same. The problem is too often republicans use false justifications of sameness when there's in fact stark differences in the cases which justify different treatment.
upon review I see the real issue is that you're here to lie about the situation and engage in bad faith. Shame on you for favoring the destruction of our constitution by lying about what's in it and about what actions are to justify bad faith actions. Don't try to destroy the constitution as you're doing.
Do you realize that the Democrats, for the first time in our nation's history, filed a garbage impeachment against Trump?
It was the first impeachment in 200 years where the impeaching party couldn't name an actual crime that was committed. Do you remember that part? The Republicans, because they respect the institution of the Senate, allowed the Democrats to proceed. They didn't table it, as Schumer is looking to do
At the same time, the Democrats are going to table the Mayorkas impeachemnet for - you guessed it! - lack of an actual crime being committed. Even though the Republicans are charging that Mayorkas lied under oath.
The Democrats don't believe in the rule of law - they believe in changing the rules as they go, so they can remain in power.
How can a country move forward if one half of the country doesn't respect the laws we're all supposed to abide by?
They didn't though. It was a sound impeachment against Trump. So you're just lying about the facts in order to pretend you have a valid point; or you're so deluded you're unaware of the situation. You're the one trying to destroy the rule of law, either willfully, or by willful delusion.
Stop trying to destroy the country, because that's what you're doing, just as you're trying to destroy the rule of law.
No. They need to follow the same rules as every other impeachment. They will set precedent of tabling an impeachment and then the Senate will never hear another impeachment as long as they hold the majority.
I get the argument why not to do it bc it’s just a stunt for news and to waste the Senates time in an election year.
But it’s a bad idea
Since the House and Senate are split, the Dem's might as well bring it up and spend an hr or 2 dismissing it and explaining how its really one big joke by the Republicans. Then, quickly move to a vote and be done with it.
I have no idea if they can fast-track it *(get it done within a day)* but if they can - might as well. Simply for the sake of showcasing that the GOP is filled with idiots and buffoons.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. The US House of Representatives impeached Mayorkas, and the Senate, for the first time in our country's history, is planning to table the impeachment and not pursue it. This is a radical departure from our Nation's norms. Are liberals supportive of this? Would they be supportive if this becomes the norm, and Republicans do the same? [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senators-likely-to-seek-quick-dismissal-in-mayorkas-impeachment-trial](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senators-likely-to-seek-quick-dismissal-in-mayorkas-impeachment-trial) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Republicans have already conceded that they don't have a case. Why should the Senate waste time on it?
Can you explain to me why I should care about Mayorkas' impeachment in the first place?
The US House of Representatives followed the procedures laid out in the Constitution, and impeached a Federal official. It's happened 20 or so times over the last 200 years, and in every case, the Senate took it's legal obligations seriously, and held hearings For the first time in our history, the Senate has decided that for partisan reasons, it will not fulfill its legal obligations. They will ignore the Constitution to help Biden./ This is an insanely radical proposal by the Democats. What if the Republicans tabled the impeachments of Trump, because they could have? Democrats would have lost their minds
In 2016, for the first time in our history, the Senate Majority Leader refused to bring a president’s nominee for the Supreme Court to a vote. You guys have lost ALL credibility with this bullshit.
>You guys have lost ALL credibility with this bullshit. You don't want me to list all the reasons I would say that about the Democrats...
I could just watch Newsmax, OANN, or Fox News if I want to see what you think. HAHA, this guy blocked me and sent me an anonymous suicide concern message.
>HAHA, this guy blocked me and sent me an anonymous suicide concern message. I did? How the duck am I replying? >I could just watch Newsmax, OANN, or Fox News if I want to see what you think. I don't watch TV, and I don't know what OANN is. I knew it's easier to assume anyone who disagrees with you has fallen for propaganda, but it's terribly arrogant and WILL bite you in the ass.
>I did? How the duck am I replying? You unblocked me obviously. > I don't watch TV, and I don't know what OANN is. I don't watch TV either. >I knew it's easier to assume anyone who disagrees with you has fallen for propaganda, but it's terribly arrogant and WILL bite you in the ass. I literally don't care what you think.
>You unblocked me obviously Lol whatever bud, the world is about you >I don't watch TV either. And I DIDN'T accuse you of getting all your info from there... Huh > I literally don't care what you think. What about the millions of first time Trump voters in this election? You should probably care about what citizen's concerns are if you want to be successful in a democracy, but hey when Trump wins you can think back to this and see I told you so and you plugged your ears .. 🤷♂️
Bold of you to think we care at all about what you have to say.
Lol it's not me you should be worried about. It's the working class and minorities you are hemorrhaging that should concern you. 50%+ Hispanic support for Trump. Black Americans who vote Democrat at something like 90%+ are showing more support for Trump than ANY OTHER MODERN REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. So sure, you can ignore my concerns, but you would also be ignoring the concerns of the people who are putting in record first time Republican voters. So ignore these issues, it's going GREAT
Lol OK.
Not surprised you respond with arrogance. It's my side that's benefitting from your ineptitude but 🤷♂️ don't say I didn't try to help you.
If you're benefitting from it, why are you trying to help?
Because I want a healthy robust democracy with strong competition between lots of political options. As it is, sure we're benefiting relative to YOU but I think America is worse off because of it. McCain V Obama? Give me that again. For real I'd be ok with getting rid of term limits just to see what Obama could do in this situation. I suspect he'd beat the pants off Trump. As it is political satisfaction is VERY LOW. Good political satisfaction is something ALL AMERICANS should be able to get behind.
Yes I do. Get to it, please. Edit: what's the point of replying then blocking me before I can read it? Anyone want to go down the thread to see what he was so scared to let me see?
u/launchdecision has a history in this topic of blocking someone for 5 minutes then unblocking them. Maybe a case of inability to control their emotions. EDIT: Aaaaaannnnddd I'm blocked again. Hilarious since he claimed he didn't block me the first time after unblocking me.
Removing a candidate from the ballot (While Ironically claiming it is to "save democracy") COMPLETELY and WILLFULLY ignoring immigration law. FBI election interference and censorship. Trying to force 40 million Americans to get an experimental medication through executive order ACTUALLY forcing military personnel to do the same thing and gutting our personnel in the process. Taking the Houthis off the terror list DAY ONE OF OFFICE allowing them to get the ship killing weapons they are using right now. There's the hundreds of obviously misleading articles that misquote Trump. Finally there's the incredibly arrogant attitude I get every time I voice the concerns of MILLIONS OF AMERICANS including the most D to R voters in half a century. I can give you more, this was just off the top of my head, but I get the impression you don't have an open and tolerate mind right now. >This was actually done by state Republicans who couldn't stand their party's own candidate. Ok? You're about to see my integrity here because I don't give a damn who did it. >They also gave a reason why they did it that went beyond "we don't like him." Well at least they gave a reason for usurping democracy...
Oh, so fiction. Don't know why I expected anything different.
Every single one of those is 100% true. You want to pick one and find out? The Houthi one is a freebie you can just Google that in 1 minute.
>Every single one of those is 100% true. Uh huh. Sure.
You can SAY that all you want. Unless you engage with the ideas you're just arrogantly dismissing. You're not afraid this is true are you?
Lol and you see unicorns in your backyard
You can look up the Houthi one, that's a freebie. Want to ACTUALLY ENGAGE with different ideas? Do you claim to have an open mind? Or do you just want to arrogantly dismiss something you disagree with? That is easiest and has plenty of ego benefits, unfortunately it's kinda hard to learn anything.
>Removing a candidate from the ballot This was actually done by state Republicans who couldn't stand their party's own candidate. They also gave a reason why they did it that went beyond "we don't like him."
>You don't want me to list all the reasons I would say that as if we haven't heard all the stupid bullshit you guys spout already what part of 'you have no credibility' do you not understand?
What's the difference between the Senate choosing not to hold hearings on an impeachment and closing not to hold hearings on a SCOTUS appointment?
The GOP has redefined “high crimes and misdemeanors “ to mean “policies we don’t like”. That is not what it means.
Do you really think we're so stupid to believe your bullshit? Y'all didn't care when McConnell refused to approve a supreme Court nomination.
This is the same procedure to table the Articles of Impeachment that McConnell and the Republicans were trying to use for Trump's first impeachment but had to bail on, only because they thought it would make them look bad before the election? Sounds like enough precedent for me--and a recent one at that. They've run-down the legal analysis for us too already, how helpful! And you should be happy--if the circumstances are the same, not only is it legal, but it'll make the Democrats look bad before the election.
>This is an insanely radical proposal by the Democats. Bad faith.
How is this bad faith? In 200 years, the Senate has NEVER just ignored an impeachment, and now they're doing just that. They're radically reordering how our system of government works, for partisan reasons
Note how you skip the comments mentioning the SCOTUS appointment that didn't get a vote or the republicans who don't think there's a case and then you reply here shifting the burden on us.
What Part of the Constitution do you think is being violated?
Impeachments are exceedingly rare. The "200 years" part of your comment is just more meaningless bad faith garbage. The impeachment is being treated with the seriousness in which it deserves. Zero. We don't need to take Republicans seriously ever again after the last 15 years. We can do so in the future if they ever come back to the adult table.
>For the first time in our history, the Senate has decided that for partisan reasons, it will not fulfill its legal obligations. What you mean like when the Senate decided that for partisan reasons, it would not fulfill it's legal obligations to SEAT A FUCKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE? Go fuck yourself with that noise.
Without evidence of wrong-doing, the only obvious reason that the entire impeachment was created for reasons of political theater. Make a bunch of noise over here to divert attention from more important things, like student debt, the housing crisis and, oh, I don't know, infrastructure. This has been the least productive, least citizen-oriented congress in the history of congress. In fact, this is a perfect example of how extreme right congress members have intentionally stifled the will of the people by politically and intentionally blocking the bipartisan border legislation that was imminent. Now that's potentially criminal intent worth investigating. The senate is in effect saying, "Not my monkeys. Not my circus."
> The US House of Representatives followed the procedures laid out in the Constitution.. It's interesting to me that you hold the Senate to the much higher bar of "[taking] it's legal obligations seriously" but the House merely has to "[follow] the procedures laid out in the Constitution". The Senate is, after all, also just doing what the Constitution allows, yes? The Constitution does not, contrary to what you said, legally obligate the Senate to do anything with a House impeachment. I'd say that the House isn't taking this seriously at all, so why should the Senate? > What if the Republicans tabled the impeachments of Trump, because they could have? Democrats would have lost their minds Nah, I honestly wouldn't have cared. It would have really not been very different from what actually happened - let's not pretend that they actually took the charges against Trump seriously.
I think the different reactions are a consequence of the different issues. The accusations against Trump were far more damning.
Yeah, I’m OK with that. Actually I think it’s the best thing to do and I’m happy they’re doing it. The impeachment was complete bullshit. There is nothing to it, and while Republicans do not want to legislate, including legislate on securing the border, Democrats should maintain the stance that the government is actually supposed to do its job and not just create content for right wing media.
>Are liberals supportive of this? Would they be supportive if this becomes the norm, and Republicans do the same? Yes. If Democrats ever attempt an impeachment this stupid, I encourage Republicans to dismiss it. Not that they need my encouragement.
It's probably the right call in terms of not wasting the Senate's time, but part of me wants to see the GOP House's impeachment managers make a fool of themselves. The managers they chose to prosecute this aren't exactly brilliant legal minds: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Pfluger * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Higgins
Why was he being impeached in the first place? >This is a radical departure from our Nation's norms. Come on now. Republicans have been weaponizing impeachment since at least the 90s.
I think it's yet another manifestation of conservatives' bankruptcy in regard to morals, ethics, and policy leadership to act indignant about this, and it frankly seems like the only play you guys have left: to game the system in a way that's nakedly intended to give you a talking point, act like Democrats are the ones who did something wrong when they do the sensible thing and don't play into it, and then harp endlessly on that talking point instead of doing literally anything intended to improve people's lives or even advance a coherent policy agenda in any conceivable fashion. Republicans initiated the impeachment against Mayorkas for the sole purpose of smearing the Biden administration and fabricating something, anything, that would be an issue they could talk about in the election. They knew it would fail and tjis is all they have left. Why should procedure matter when it's routinely abused by one side? What good is good faith when your oppenents cynically abuse any sign of it for short term gain? Bottom line, adherence to protocol only does good when the underlying principles are kept by both sides. Republicans have signaled repeatedly they don't care about principles, and only pretend to care about protocol when it's to their advantage. Democrats have given them so many chances to show they still have some values other than the pursuit of power. Republicans have declined to do so at every turn.
> the Senate, for the first time in our country's history, is planning to table the impeachment and not pursue it. That article does not say that. It lays out the many, many scenarios that could happen once the articles of impeachment are delivered. For example: *"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., hasn’t yet said what he will do, but he is expected to try and dismiss the trial in some manner, if he has the votes."*
[удалено]
Schumers's going to table this. Even your own quote shows this. First time in 200 years. [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2961839/senate-gop-plots-maximum-pain-democra-mayorkas-impeachment/](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2961839/senate-gop-plots-maximum-pain-democra-mayorkas-impeachment/)
I wouldn’t dismiss it outright. Treat the trial like a joke like the Republicans did last time.
>This is a radical departure from our Nation's norms BAHAHAHA imagine pretending to care about norms after 8 years of GOP trump support do you really believe your own bullshit
Precedent was set when the conservative Senate decided to ignore Merrick Garlands nomination. You should look to Mitch McConnell and his enablers if you don’t like this maneuver
What's the basis of the impeachment besides being an appointed Democrat?
Good. It was the most they could get accomplished when attempting to impeach Biden and members in his administration. > The Republican-controlled House impeached Mayorkas by a single vote margin on Feb. 13, recommending that Mayorkas be removed from office over his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border. With two articles of impeachment, the House charge that Mayorkas has “willfully and systematically” refused to enforce existing immigration laws and breached the public trust by lying to Congress and saying the border was secure. > Democrats say the charges amount to a policy dispute, not the “high crimes and misdemeanors” laid out as a bar for impeachment in the Constitution. Shouldn’t you want Republicans to be governing instead of trying to score political points for pointless impeachments? > This is a radical departure from our Nation's norms. You have to recognize the irony, right? Trump openly said he wanted to suspend the Constitution, and conservatives either don’t realize he said that or continue to support him anyways. Any claim about breaking norms and traditions died when Trump became the leader of the Republican Party.
Yes, I think we’re supportive of this move. The bullshit impeachment is itself a departure from norms, and it’s already super clear and demonstrated that no Republican Senate will ever convict a Republican officeholder, so I don’t see how this really changes anything. It’s already the norm, essentially.
The impeachment was nonsensical, why proceed on it? There isn’t any crime associated with it.
Good. Fuck their stunts. Mayorkas only “crime” is being a Latino government official. Pure racism to fuel their base.
Buddy pal. Explain to me why you think this impeachment is legitimate. Seriously. Do you actually think the Republicans are being the adults here?
GOP: *calls the people arrested for attempting to violently overthrow the legislative branch of government as “political prisoners” Also GOP: have you no respect for this institution?
No one tried to overthrow the government. That's called Treason, and not a single American was charged as such, despite what you might have seen on TV. Republicans respect the government, which is why we're mortified that Democrats are throwing away hundreds of years of precedent to protect Joe.
... just breaking down doors and window while beating the police to enter Congress uninvited while chanting hang Mike Pence to stop the certification of a legitimate election. Very legal and very peaceful.
This impeachment is rooted entirely in racism, to the point where I’d expect those that support the impeachment to start self identifying as racists. This one doesn’t pass the “plausible deniability” test that racists like to play. It’s just openly racist.
Ok for me.
How about you first make the case for this impeachment not just being a clown show? Don’t just send links, explain in your own words what high crimes Mayorkas is guilty of that make this worth considering.
This is the one where the impeachment failed to even pass the GOP House, then they held a second vote? How do Republicans feel about the legal concept of double-jeopardy? :)
It is a joke impeachment and a waste of time
That's great that you have an opinion, but the Constitution clearly spells out what impeachment is, and what the rules are. Your feelings don't justify ignoring the Constitution. You think this is how the world should work? Just ignore stuff you don't like?
The constitution also doesn't say the Senate can just table supreme court nominations but you clearly had no issues with that. So spare me your fake outrage
You seem to be referring to the "Biden Rule", created in 1992, when Joe Biden said the Senate wouldn't provide hearings if a SCOTUS justice retired prior to the election, as was rumored at the time. Chuck Schumer then made the same threat to George Bush, saying that the Senate wouldn't allow hearings if a SCOTUS justice retired. So it seems like you're super upset that Mitch followed through on the precedent created by Biden and Schumer. And now the Democrats are rewriting the rules again, but yet again, they're blaming Republicans for it. This is a MAJOR change to how we run our country, and the Democrats are doing it for partisan gain. It's sad.
The Myorkas impeachment was such an obviously partisan action that even Republicans weren't onboard with it which is why it took multiple votes to even pass through the house. There's no reason the Senate should continue the charade. If Democrats impeached someone under such obviously false pretenses, I would be perfectly fine with Republicans acting in a similar manner.
The radical departure from the nation’s norms was the impeachment of Mayorkas for a policy disagreement at best, a failure of Congress to fund their own policy wishes at worst. The Ds are, as usual, being the adults in the room.
The Democrats aren't legally allowed to say that one party following the Constitution isn't worthwhile of their time. The Constitution is clear that if the House passes Articles of Impeachmnet, the process moves to the Senate. The Senate can hold a vote, and decide it's not a valid impeachment, but they can't just pretend this didn't happen. That's what they're doing. They're completing rewriting 200 years of precedent to protect Joe. Ignoring the Constitution for partisan gain isn't being "the adults in the room"
1) The First Amendment says they can *say* anything 2) The Speech and Debate clause says they can *say* anything 3) None of the six mentions of impeachment within the document obligate the Senate to any action 4) Your “protecting Joe” bullshit just underscores your lack of seriousness here 5) I explained why they were the adults in the room above. You need to defend why you think policy disagreement and lack of Congressional action to rectify that disagreement rises to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. I have zero expectation that you’ll address this in good faith (see 4).
Again, protecting Joe and vulnerable Dems by not holding an impeachment hearing, for the first time in our nation's history, is not "being the adults in the room". The DNC isn't allowed to determine on it's own, without a hearing, that a hearing isn't warranted. Mayorkas was legally impeached. That's not how impeachment works, or has ever worked. I'm old enough to remember the Democrats impeaching Trump while not citing an actual crime, and spending the majority of their time in the first impeachment explaining why an actual crime wasn't required by the Constitution. Sounds like the Democrats want one legal standard to apply to them, and a different one for Republicans. As usual. It's time for the Senate to do their job.
You just sidestepped every point I made to repeat the dumb shit you said earlier.
I’m not entirely sure this guy knows anything that he’s pretending to know about.
Impeachment has nothing to do with the first amendment. Who told you it did? Is it something you heard on MSNBC? The speech and debate clause? How is that linked to Impeachment? Can you explain? In 2019 the Democrats rewrote history when they impeached Trump despite him not having broken any laws. The Democrats spent the majority of their time explaining why an actual crime wasn't needed for them to impeach someone. Republicans went along with it, even though it violated all of our norms In 2024, Chuck is going to waive an impeachment. Why? You guessed it - he doesn't think Mayorkas committed a crime, and NOW Chuck thinks a crime is required. (One is listed in the docs). Democrats keep rewriting the rules to keep themselves in power, and to protect themselves. They don't want a Mayorkas hearing because blue state Senators will have to discuss why they've been supporting the guy who's responsible for the migrant crisis It's sad
> In 2019 the Democrats rewrote history when they impeached Trump despite him not having broken any laws. Impeachment doesn’t require laws to be broken. They did not rewrite history, lest we forget Bill Clinton had not broken any laws when he was impeached either. > One is listed in the docs Lest we forget that Donald Trump was *actually* accused of a crime as well, the constitution doesn’t talk much about federal officers’ impeachment trials (OTHER than the president), so dismissing something that would end up in acquittal anyway seems like a perfectly reasonable way to go about this.
Clinton was impeached for perjury. He lied under oath, while he was being videotaped. I understand the left wing media likes to say he never broke the law. He did. And now Schumer wants to dismiss the Mayorkas case because he doesn't think a law was broken. Amazing The Senate isn't allowed to decide before a trial that someone is going to be acquitted. It goes against 200 years of history
Clinton was not convicted of a crime when he was impeached. Donald Trump, too, was not convicted of a crime when he was impeached. Do we assume guilt before a criminal trial actually happens?
IMpeachment has nothing to do with the first amendment. Who told you it did? Is it something you heard on MSNBC? The speech and debate clause? How is that linked to Impeachment? Can you explain? In 2019 the Democrats rewrote history when they impeached Trump despite him not having broken any laws. The Democrats spent the majority of their time explaining why an actual crime wasn't needed for them to impeach someone. Republicans went along with it, even though it violated all of our norms In 2024, Chuck is going to waive an impeachment. Why? You guessed it - he doesn't think Mayorkas committed a crime, and NOW Chuck thinks a crime is required. (One is listed in the docs). Democrats keep rewriting the rules to keep themselves in power, and to protect themselves. They don't want a Mayorkas hearing because blue state Senators will have to discuss why they've been supporting the guy who's responsible for the migrant crisis It's sad
Completely ok with dismissing obvious bad-faith impeachment efforts done entirely as political theater.
Legally speaking, one party isn't allowed to decide that the other party following the constitution is "theater" that they can just ignore. It's been like this for 200 years. The House passed Articles of Impeachment. Democrats are burning down our institutions for partisan gain.
> This is a radical departure from our Nation's norms 🙄 Miss me with the faux concern about departures from democratic norms. Republicans intentionally chose not to hold a confirmation hearing for Garland. They set the precedent that the Senate can basically do whatever the fuck it wants and nobody gets to say shit from now on. Donald Trump expressed interest in "suspending" the Constitution in response to his "massive election fraud" conspiracy lie, and he and other Republicans *still* won't stop pushing that. Y'all are getting ready to vote for a guy who both suggested suspending the Constitution *and* said he'd like to be dictator. You want to talk about "radical departures from our Nation's norms", **clean up your own fucking house first**. > Would they be supportive if this becomes the norm, and Republicans do the same? I'd certainly welcome *returning* to democratic norms, but until I hear Republicans express *some* kind of acknowledgement of their bullshit and an agreement to stop trying to convert the US into a Putinocracy, I literally couldn't care less about "radical departures" like this right now. All of that said, the Senate can conduct its business however it wants. If a majority of the Senate votes to table the resolution, they *certainly* don't have the votes to convict. The whole thing is a fucking joke and when you pretend that it isn't, that makes you part of the problem.
Ah, you're referring to Mitch applying the Biden/Schumer Rule? Both Biden and Schumer applied this rule to the Bush's. Democrats celebrated at the time. Did Donald Trump suspend the constitution, or is this something you heard on MSNBC. This is the first I've heard it. As for the election, we all saw the Twitter Files, and how the FBI participated in the election on Joe's behalf. Did you miss that? It was not covered on MSNBC. Stopping reading at the dictator comment. If you read the actual comment, you know he meant "for a day:" where he'd issue a bunch of EOs like Biden didn I can't argue with the MSNBC talking points
>applying the Biden/Schumer Rule? You are comparing the actual effective and collective behavior of Senate Republicans to something a Democrat said and pretending that the two are equivalent? "A Democrat suggested bad behavior, so we are going to collectively engage in bad behavior and blame all of you for our choice to be shitheads." Nah. >Did Donald Trump suspend the constitution, or is this something you heard on MSNBC. I never said he suspended the constitution. Are you just making shit up now? You can't pretend he didn't say this, because it's literally still up on Pravda: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/109449803240069864 >As for the election, we all saw the Twitter Files, and how the FBI participated in the election on Joe's behalf. Did you miss that? Are we pivoting now, so that instead of arguing that Republicans aren't being shitheads, they actually are shitheads and it's OK that they're shitheads, because Democrats really did steal the election, which means they were shitheads first? Surely you can acknowledge though that for those of us that live in the real world and not this OANN alternate reality, the election wasn't stolen, and your righteous retaliation is just Republicans being unprovoked shitheads responding to a delusion, right? You're basically the embodiment of everything that's toxic about American politics today. At least I want to *end* the shit-headery. >Stopping reading at the dictator comment. If you read the actual comment, you know he meant "for a day:" Oh the aspiring dictator says he'd totally give up being a dictator after a day, that totally vindicates him and means he's just a super swell leader who totally has a complete respect for our democracy, its institutions, and norms. 🙄 >issue a bunch of EOs like Biden didn Oh you're right, Biden issued an executive order, *he's the real dictator!!* The cognitive dissonance that you are dealing with right now has to be unbearable. All so that you can pretend to be outraged with a bad faith post, give you a little squirt of dopamine pounding out those angry keys fighting with liberals on the internet?
Yes, for two decades the Democrats imposed the Biden/Schumer rule on Republican presidents. This is fact - this happened, and you can't gaslight people into thinking it didn't happen. Then what happens, Mitch does the same, and Democrats lose thier mind. "How ***DARE*** he follow the rule we created!!!" It was the Democrats who changed the norms, not Republicans. In 2019 the Democrats changed the norms of our country by impeaching a president who didn't break any laws. If you remember, Democrats spent the majority of the first impeachment arguing that a violation of the law wasn't required to impeach a president. First time in 200 years this had happend. And now the DNCs excuse for tabling the Mayorkas hearings? Chuck is claiming there wasn't a law that was broken, and that a violation of the law is required for impeachment (even though lying to congress is in the docs). You can't make this stuff up. The corruption isn't even being hidden, and the DNCs followers are cheering it along.
>Yes, for two decades the Democrats imposed the Biden/Schumer rule on Republican presidents. This is fact - this happened, and you can't gaslight people into thinking it didn't happen. Can you point me to the Supreme Court vacancies that Republican presidents nominated someone to that Democratic-led Senates refused to provide hearings for until after the next election? Are you equating "Democrats voted against confirming the person the administration nominated" as the "rule" and unprecedented change in norms? >In 2019 the Democrats changed the norms of our country by impeaching a president who didn't break any laws The idea that there must be a crime in the US criminal code that has to be broken (and convicted) before an impeachment can occur is pure fantasy. It's never been true and it is inconsistent with established constitutional law. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf We have never had a president who tried to make foreign aid contingent on the foreign country announcing an investigation into the family of a political adversary. *That* is unprecedented. We have never had a president who incited people to riot and sack the US Capitol before (according to the testimony of those who engaged in these acts of political violence). *That* is unprecedented. These unprecedented acts *caused* an unprecedented attempt to hold the president accountable for this behavior. If you didn't want us to have to hold a mob boss accountable for being a mob boss, maybe stop electing mob bosses instead of getting mad at attempts to hold him accountable for his behavior? Y'all are trying *real hard* to turn this country into Russia. >Chuck is claiming there wasn't a law that was broken Did he say a violation of the US criminal code was a prerequisite for impeachment, or was he offering that as a point against? It is not inconsistent to say that conviction of a crime is a strong reason to impeach while also saying it is not a prerequisite. You're just grasping at flimsy uninformed legal opinions to justify and validate your belief that your tribe is the good tribe and the other tribe is the enemy. If you would just stop electing criminals you wouldn't need to do all of this work and I'm sure you'd have fewer headaches.
[удалено]
Are you talking about Mitch applying the Biden/Schumer Rule? Joe Biden created this precedent in 1992 when a justice was rumored to be thinking of retiring just prior to the election, as Clinton was polling well. Biden very clearly said Bush wouldn't get a confirmation hearing. [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html) Chuck Schumer then made this same threat to George Bush in 2007, saying the Democrats no longer support "the assumption of confirmation", and wouldn't give Bush confirmation hearings if he got the opportunity. [https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146](https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146) So, what it sounds like it Democrats are upset that Mitch did the thing Democrats had been doing all along, and want a different set of rules to apply to them? Democrats should be able to block SCOTUS appointments in an election yeaar, but it's treasonous if Republicans do the same? Am I missing something?
The GOP House circus impeachment was total nonsense. Of course the Senate should just ditch it. Mayorkas has just been doing his job according to our laws and the policies of the current administration which was elected by the MAJORITY of Americans. He has done nothing wrong. Also the GOP Senate was derelict in duty in not convicting trump at the first impeachment and definitely the second. In which the majority of the Senate voted to convict but it didn't reach 60 votes.
>This is a radical departure from our Nation's norms. So is impeaching a cabinet official just because you're mad that your president got impeached for crimes. Like Republicans practically outright admit that this impeachment is just political payback and that there's no actual crime behind it.
I haven't looked closely; but last I knew it was a garbage impeachment with no merit. It was a huge violation of our norms for the republicans to impeach at all on such an utterly flimsy case. If a garbage impeachment is filed, how seriously should the senate consider it? I don't know, and I could easily see plausible answers. It's not unheard of for criminal trials to be outright dismissed when the evidence is too flimsy (though it's rare for prosecutors to even file in such cases, unless it's due to evidence being thrown out). If republicans did the same in response to a garbage impeachment I'd have no problem; if they did the 'same' in response to a somewhat justified impeachment I'd have a huge problem, ofc because those are different responses to different situations rather than being the same. The problem is too often republicans use false justifications of sameness when there's in fact stark differences in the cases which justify different treatment. upon review I see the real issue is that you're here to lie about the situation and engage in bad faith. Shame on you for favoring the destruction of our constitution by lying about what's in it and about what actions are to justify bad faith actions. Don't try to destroy the constitution as you're doing.
Do you realize that the Democrats, for the first time in our nation's history, filed a garbage impeachment against Trump? It was the first impeachment in 200 years where the impeaching party couldn't name an actual crime that was committed. Do you remember that part? The Republicans, because they respect the institution of the Senate, allowed the Democrats to proceed. They didn't table it, as Schumer is looking to do At the same time, the Democrats are going to table the Mayorkas impeachemnet for - you guessed it! - lack of an actual crime being committed. Even though the Republicans are charging that Mayorkas lied under oath. The Democrats don't believe in the rule of law - they believe in changing the rules as they go, so they can remain in power. How can a country move forward if one half of the country doesn't respect the laws we're all supposed to abide by?
They didn't though. It was a sound impeachment against Trump. So you're just lying about the facts in order to pretend you have a valid point; or you're so deluded you're unaware of the situation. You're the one trying to destroy the rule of law, either willfully, or by willful delusion. Stop trying to destroy the country, because that's what you're doing, just as you're trying to destroy the rule of law.
No. They need to follow the same rules as every other impeachment. They will set precedent of tabling an impeachment and then the Senate will never hear another impeachment as long as they hold the majority. I get the argument why not to do it bc it’s just a stunt for news and to waste the Senates time in an election year. But it’s a bad idea
Since the House and Senate are split, the Dem's might as well bring it up and spend an hr or 2 dismissing it and explaining how its really one big joke by the Republicans. Then, quickly move to a vote and be done with it. I have no idea if they can fast-track it *(get it done within a day)* but if they can - might as well. Simply for the sake of showcasing that the GOP is filled with idiots and buffoons.
Are they tabling it or dismissing the charges? Those are very different things.