The Urgency of Impeachment

[kentuck]

Because no President should be permitted to nominate a Supreme Court Justice if he is in the process of being impeached. It would be wrong and fool-hardy, contrary to what Mitch McConnell would argue. Democrats would have no choice but to block it in every way possible, if it was to happen?

Three Supreme Court nominees by Donald Trump would not be acceptable to our system of government. It could not stand. The politicization of the Supreme Court will need to be addressed in one way or another.

If the House were to initiate impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, he would not have the standing to nominate anyone until the proceedings were finished. The country has operated with 8 SC Justice before and it will need to do it again.

[Kid Berwyn]

1. Trump is Putin's Puppet.

Plain as the plan to divide NATO and pick judges to bring back the antebellum south.

[StarfishSaver]

2. Impeachment wouldn't affect his standing to nominate judges

Or to do anything else, for that matter.

Even if he's impeached, he'll go right on doing just as he pleases until he's removed by the Senate, which won't happen, or by the voters next November, which we have the power to do

[kentuck]

3. What other argument would Democrats have?

None?

[StarfishSaver]

5. An argument won't stop him

The Democrats would have no more power to block The confirmation of a Supreme Court nomination by an impeached Trump than they did to block the confirmations of Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch or to force the confirmation of Merrick Garland.

[orangecrush]

19. Exactly.

[brutus smith]

4. The time to impeach is now!

[StarfishSaver]

6. That may will be. But impeachment won't stop a Supreme Court nomination.

[saidsimplesimon]

16. You are correct.

Speaker Pelosi is clear, no impeachment efforts are planned.

If we had the power to end the boring vaudeville on display daily with a yank on the tie of the buffoon, I would do so. The only power we have is at the ballot box.

[StarfishSaver]

17. The Speaker has never said "no impeachment efforts are planned." In fact, impeachment's underway

The Judiciary Committee is conducting an impeachment inquiry now, with Pelosi's approval and support.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

43. Absolutely!

[myohmy2]

7. good point...

...impeach...

[TwilightZone]

8. Impeachment wouldn't negate his ability to nominate SC justices.

The president only loses the ability when he is removed from office, in this case by Senate conviction (not happening) or by being voted out.

Otherwise, the House could just impeach a president whenever they wanted to stop a particularly egregious justice (i.e. Kavanaugh) from being nominated.

[kentuck]

11. It would be a political matter.

After all, Mitch McConnell would not permit hearings on Garland because it was in the last year of Obama term and it just wouldn't be right.....

[deurbano]

14. If McConnell wasn't a shameless hypocrite (in addition to a thoroughly corrupt, amoral,

Last edited Sat Aug 24, 2019, 02:13 PM - Edit history (1)

traitorous, depraved bigot)... well, he would no longer be Mitch McConnell (aka Moscow Mitch). I think our only hope is to pick off confirmation votes from some senators fearing their reelection chances. Maybe impeachment would provide added pressure on them, but even then (if even that is possible), it would probably only work with the most egregiously unsuitable nominees (like Kavanaugh), so we'd still be f*cked. Hang in there, RGB!!!

[FakeNoose]

24. We're entering into what will certainly be Chump's last year

He will not be re-elected, and there's even talk of him not getting the Republican nomination. That remains to be seen but it's almost a certain thing he won't be re-elected. So the question is McConnell, can he agree that the stupid rule he invented for Obama's last year, also holds true to Chump's last year?

I think it's time McConnell was put on the spot ans asked this pointed question. After all he's the asshole who invented the "last year" rule.

[deurbano]

26. Unfortunately, already asked and answered: "Oh, we'd fill it."

https://www.courier-journal.com/media/cinematic/video/1270304001/mcconnell-on-potential-2020-supreme-court-vacancy-oh-wed-fill-it/


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/05/28/mcconnell_would_fill_supreme_court_vacancy_in_2020.html

<<Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said the Senate would fill a Supreme Court vacancy if there is an opening in 2020. McConnell warned in 2016 that the next justice would have a "profound impact" and that is why he put a vote on hold to let the electorate decide.

"If a Supreme Court Justice was to die next year, what would you do?" an attendee asked.

"Oh, we'd fill it," McConnell responded.

"What can't be undone is a lifetime appointment to a young man or woman who believes in the quaint notion that the job of a judge is to follow the law,” McConnell said at the Paducah Area Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday. "That’s the most important thing we’ve done for the country, which cannot be undone.">>

Senator Schumer then called him a hypocrite on Twitter, but since Moscow Mitch revels in shameless hypocrisy, I'm sure he was quite flattered.

[TwilightZone]

31. McConnell has already said that the same wouldn't apply to Trump.

He's transparently hypocritical and obviously doesn't care. If you're putting your hopes on McConnell being consistent, you will be disappointed.

[spanone]

10. K&R...

[Martin Eden]

12. Removal by impeachment will become possible, IF ...

... Trump's trade wars and other insanities hurt corporate profits enough for the oligarchs to instruct their Repuke servants in Congress to get rid of him.

[PatrickforO]

15. Indeed. The oligarchs will do fine with the market volatility because they can sell short.

Only if Trump's actions threaten the profits of the Military Industrial Complex or other major corporations will he be ousted.

Can't mess with the rich people's money, you know.

[yaesu]

18. plus they have their picturesque shelters in New Zealand when things get real bad. nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Impeach and then pack the courts in 2021 nt

[Pepsidog]

22. Agree. Payback is a bitch.

[Grasswire2]

35. Puerto Rico and DC get statehood, too. nt

[ehrnst]

37. How does impeachment allow us to pack the courts? (nt)

[Fiendish Thingy]

40. They're not connected, just two essential steps to restore democracy nt

[azureblue]

20. forget impeachment

That will be a long drawn out process with a dubious chance of happening. Likewise investigations into his corruption and laundering Russian money. And pedo, too. Don has always known how to work the legal system, and he will use it to delay until he can weasel his way out of the situation. What needs to happen is to declare him unfit for office (nuts). He is mentally unstable.

[kentuck]

23. It is probably true that Republicans would be more likely to vote for insanity

Before they would vote with Democrats to impeach?

Defending Donald Trump will not make them stronger, contrary to what many may think.

[ehrnst]

38. Yep. (nt)

[grantcart]

25. You do realize that impeachment does not change the party that controls the WH right?

Of all the things that impeachment does, changing the nature of the SC nominee before 2020 is not one of them.

[egduj]

27. To quote Nancy Pelosi:

"No."

Besides, how much more damage can this orange turd do in the next year and a half?

[brutus smith]

28. Weak

If we don't impeach, Dems will once again be perceived to be weak among independents.

[TwilightZone]

32. Independents don't think he should be impeached.

Support for impeachment among Is is currently 39%. There's no basis for your assertion.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/majority-of-americans-dont-want-trump-to-be-impeached-new-poll-finds/

[Grasswire2]

34. every historic indicator tells us that would change as hearings are held.

PLUS ----- the goal need not be for removal at this time.

The goal is to deprive Republicans of the power to appoint another SCOTUS in Trump's term.

D'oh.

We need to do what's right.

[uponit7771]

39. That's higher than Nixon post Saturday Night Massacre, more than enough support. The false bar ...

... here is half, there has never been half for impeachment to begin.

[ehrnst]

36. Flaccid

If we do impeach, then we look like we were stupid to pick a fight we can't win, and handed him an "exoneration."

Not only that we back him in a corner, where we know he reacts like an animal, and he ramps up the hate rhetoric to rally his base, or starts a war, or stages a Reichstag Fire, and more people die.

But other than that, all good. Nothing but positives... But I guess you know way more about what an Independent thinks of the Democratic Party than I do.

[cwydro]

29. Rec.

Interesting, the posters who continually argue against impeachment.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. Yes. In the days before Mueller released his report,

Never ever in a zillion years did I think we'd have to convince Democrats. Republicans yes, Democrats never.

At the absolute minimum...since it is extremely unlikely we will move forward with Impeachment, we could at least censure him. The only issue I see with that is trying to figure out when to stop. A final copy would be ready and someone would run in and say "wait, he just did x"

[Joe941]

30. We must impeach now. This is so frustrating!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

42. +1

[Grasswire2]

33. excellent nt