“In spite of what he said was pervasive corruption in the White House, Charlie Rangel, the dean of New York’s congressional delegation, said today he wouldn’t want President Bush impeached. ‘God forbid!‘ he said.” The reason?
“I would vote against impeachment of Bush too because the corruption of the Vice President Cheney would even be worse,” Rangel said.
rofl
July 29th, 2007 at 7:09 pmAnd this is precisely why Cheney should be impeached first.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:09 pmThen impeach Cheney first.
It’s not that difficult.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:11 pmDeep thinker, that Rangel.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:12 pmActually, impeach Gonzales first (so Bush can’t keep him from going to jail for perjury), impeach Cheney second, then, before Bush can get a new Vice President through Congress, impeach Bush. Three up, three down, the Mets are up to bat next! Can’t stay, got a lot of research to do. Check in later.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pm**Sighs…**
July 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pmWhy do they have to be so f*cking short-sighted…?
July 29th, 2007 at 7:14 pmHi, Wayne!
July 29th, 2007 at 7:14 pmBye, Wayne!
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 29, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
I’m really starting to think Gonzo’s gonna resign soon.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pmActually, this brings up an important question..perhaps the other TP regulars (trolls need not apply) could weigh in:
If the VP is successfully impeached, who becomes the next VP? Would it be the Speaker of the House, or does the President have the option of appointing a replacement?
A while ago, another poster said that for this reason, a simultaneous impeachment of the President and the VP would be the only way to go. I replied that there was probably no mechanism in place to allow for such a “tandem” impeachment. Does anyone know if such a thing would be possible?
Also, where does the fatally compromised Justice Department fit into all this? If impeachment proceedings need to go through Gonzo, you can bet they’ll go nowhere.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pmDo them all at once.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pmDo a political surge.
If it supposidly works in Iraq, why wouldn’t it work in the US.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
I would imagine that the President would appoint a new VP. This is what happened when Agnew resigned.
Legally, a VP’s impeachment would not necessarily reflect on the president himself. So I would assume Bush would have the right to appoint Cheney’s replacement.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:21 pmIf impeachment proceedings need to go through Gonzo, you can bet they’ll go nowhere.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
Impeachment is a function of the Congress. I don’t believe the DoJ would need to be involved in any meaningful way.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:23 pmTripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
Impeachment is handled SOLEY by the Congress…….
If the VP is impeached, then Bush gets to select the replacement VP.
This is another reason why BOTH need to be impeached.
I am so tired of the Dems doing nothing over this, that they have lost my vote.
I will vote for ANYONE who runs as an Independant before I vote for a Dem now! I will not vote at all if there are no Independants to vote for…….
Unless they begin standing up and protecting the Constitution, they are done as far as I am concerned.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:24 pmI replied that there was probably no mechanism in place to allow for such a “tandem†impeachment. Does anyone know if such a thing would be possible?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
My guess would be that you are right about this one.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:24 pmEgreggious, RemoveBush,
Thanks for setting me straight….I was mixed up. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is involved in contempt of Congress proceedings, not impeachment proceedings.
So many violations of the law going on…it’s difficult to keep up. It seems that that is the strategy of the administration lately.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:30 pmgreasy, sleazy rangel condemns greasy sleasy Bush and Cheney…..no hope for amerika
July 29th, 2007 at 7:36 pmIt seems that that is the strategy of the administration lately.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
Break so many laws the rest of us can’t keep track, so we don’t know which person to prosecute for which crime? Sadly enough, it seems to be working.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:38 pmGonzo will resign.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:39 pmCheney will have to be impeached, followed by Bush. But
I don’t think we can accomplish both, however, before the 2008 election.
So, let’s force Gonzo to resign.
Impeach Cheney.
Bush wil resign because his brain (Cheney) and his ass (Gonzo) would be gone and he can’t make it without them.
Perhaps impeach Bush, then begin impeachment proceedings against Cheney the moment he is sworn in. It might be possible to limit his term as president to two days, one day for the House to impeach, and another for the Senate to convict. This leaves the question of whether Cheney can appoint a VP before he is removed from office. And of course the Senate has to convict, which means that a lot of Republicans have to get on board (slim chance of that, though).
Suppose, though, that enough Republicans get on board to remove Bush from office before he does anymore damage to the GOP. If the votes are already lined up, a deal might be struck wherein Cheney is impeached and removed from office, then Bush is made an offer: appoint a VP that is acceptable to the impeachment bloc in the Senate (a non-crazy Republican seems likely), then resign, else be impeached and dragged out of the White House in chains.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pm#10 TMM
July 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pmIf Cheney resigns, Bush will appoint another VP.
When Spiro Agnew resigned, Nixon appointed Gerald Ford.
Bush wil resign because his brain (Cheney) and his ass (Gonzo) would be gone and he can’t make it without them.
Comment by Marie — July 29, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
I always thought KKKarl was Bush’s brain. Wouldn’t that make Cheney his… well, you know.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pmGee, thanks for nothing Charlie. This isn’t rocket science–you either impeach the Dick first, or better, impeach the Dick and the Chimp together. Dems need to grow a spine *and* a pair and stand for the Constitution, our legal system, and this nation. Now that they have some power, their rhetoric has become extremely weak, and they don’t seem to be interested in listening to the people who actually put them in power–the voters.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pmOoops! Egreggious and Remove Bush — sorry, I didn’t see your posts before I wrote mine. We all said the same thing.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pmwhy worry about impeachment, what is coming their way is an INDICTMENT. The impeachment can happen later.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:43 pmImpeach Gonzo, then bring Bush and Cheney up on charges of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in the USA scandal.
I notice MSM is avoiding the Tillman story and the WH claim of EP completely.
That is sickening and shows that the 4th estate is supporting this criminal regime.
Comment by Marie — July 29, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Don’t sweat it. It happens all the time.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:45 pmHey Justice–Agreed. Gonzo/Fredo could go immediately–indictment and impeachment are important to make sure that he can’t hold office or a high-level execposition once he gets out of jail. And the claim of exec priviledge over the Tillman death-killing-possibly murder? WTF is going on this country? 99% of the media needs to be fired and off the air/out of print forever.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:47 pmRangel has no intention of impeaching anybody to begin with.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pmHe is just using a pacifying langauge which became a trade mark of this Democratic Congress.
While he is trying to look deep in his thoughts in explaining his position and ahead of everybody, the reality is this Congress has shown no strength so far in confronting and winning against either Bush or Cheney. This Congress cannot even force people to testify,..can’t handle even Gonzalez.
Rangel (along with all the other Dems in Congress) needs to have a little get-together with Bruce Fein so he can explain it to him that Congress CAN impeach Bush AND Cheney at the same time. He explained it pretty well in his discussion with Bill Moyers Journal along with John Nichols. Two birds with one stone. I’m for it.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pmDear Sir; Impeach the abu, then the shooter and by then the thing they call president will have to come clean or implode.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:52 pmeven those of us that aren’t in your lofty perch can see the order of battle. Why don’t you?
Once Bush and Cheney are gone NOBODY else will want to keep Gonzales around. He is only useful as a cover for Bush’s activities. He is a weasle and an incompetent dweeb.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:54 pmMaybe if Rangel had read H.R. 333 he would realize that it is for the impeachment of Dick Cheney, not George Bush.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:54 pmrangel, according to link, was speaking on CNN’s “Late Edition”…
surely there’s a video clip… it would be worth it to see
this exchange in context…
it sounds to me as if rangel is attempting some humor,
some levity into the conversation…
they can’t come out and say it’s gonna happen, not yet…
they are doing so much to gather information and evidence…
i have a feeling they are waiting for the massive amount of
wrongdoings to get out to the public…
they need the people behind them to get the ball rolling…
sure wish they could start before this august recess…
July 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pm…
Regarding Chimpy appointing a replacement in the event of Deadeye’s successful impeachment…is such an appointment subject to ratification by the Senate, as is the case with justice appointments. If so, the Senate could stall the process long enough to impeach Chimpy by denying the appointee an “up or down” vote.
If not, the House would have to move quickly to impeach Chimpy before he had a chance to appoint a replacement, but knowing Rove, he’s got the replacement’s name written on Chimpy’s hand by now.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:56 pmDesperate men do desperate things.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:57 pm“why worry about impeachment, what is coming their way is an INDICTMENT. The impeachment can happen later.
Impeach Gonzo, then bring Bush and Cheney up on charges of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in the USA scandal.
I notice MSM is avoiding the Tillman story and the WH claim of EP completely.
That is sickening and shows that the 4th estate is supporting this criminal regime.
Comment by Justice — July 29, 2007 @ 7:43 pm”
Because they CAN’T be indicted while in office!!!
The ONLY means to charge a siting president is by Impeachment!
Articles of Impeachments are the INDICTMENT and the Senate tries the case.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:59 pmDuh! you impeach both. both have committed crimes against the laws of the constitution. besides Bush-Cheney have been one word for a long time.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:02 pmas in, Impeach Bush-Cheney!
Feeling a little evil
July 29th, 2007 at 8:03 pmFeeling a little mean
Move to the Village
Whores of Pillage
Feeling a litte rotten
Feeling a little obscene
Come to DC
Come to the Green
Feeling a little bad
Feeling a little sin
Don a diaper
Pay the viper
If not, the House would have to move quickly to impeach Chimpy before he had a chance to appoint a replacement, but knowing Rove, he’s got the replacement’s name written on Chimpy’s hand by now.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
I sometimes wonder if Fred Thompson might not end up as president if impeachment and conviction succeeded.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:09 pmActually, impeach Gonzales first (so Bush can’t keep him from going to jail for perjury), impeach Cheney second, then, before Bush can get a new Vice President through Congress, impeach Bush
So you want to steal the Presidency. Weren’t lefties whining about how that South Dakota Dem might be replaced by a Republican despite the people electing a Democrat?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:11 pmAs this seems to be the most unprecedented administrations, why not do another unprecedented move… IMPEACH them together.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:13 pmRegarding Chimpy appointing a replacement in the event of Deadeye’s successful impeachment…is such an appointment subject to ratification by the Senate, as is the case with justice appointments. If so, the Senate could stall the process long enough to impeach Chimpy by denying the appointee an “up or down†vote.
He will just recess appoint a new Vice President, perhaps Jeb Bush. No way Nancy Pelosi is usurping the Presidency!
July 29th, 2007 at 8:14 pmm12 sez:
First of all, it’s not “stealing” when it’s carried out according to the rule of law. Familiar with that term, m12? “Rule of law”?
Second, whining about getting something “stolen” that was never rightfully yours in the first place is intellectually dishonest…not to mention pathetic.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:15 pm1. Go after Darth first.
2. Then the Chimp
3. Put Pelosi in
3. Then install Feingold.
Feingold/Sheehan ‘08!!!!
July 29th, 2007 at 8:16 pmhttp://www.pbs.org/ moyers/ journal/ 07132007/ transcript2.html
(Below is a little excerpt from the transcript of the Moyers/Fein/Nichols discussion):
BILL MOYERS: You’re saying you want the judiciary committee to call formal hearings on the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney? (my emphasis, but when Bill Moyers asked the question, he emphasized this word).
BRUCE FEIN: Yes. Because there are political crimes that have been perpetrated in combination. It hasn’t been one, the other being in isolation. And the hearings have to be not into this is a Republican or Democrat. This is something that needs to set a precedent, whoever occupies the White House in 2009. You do not want to have that occupant, whether it’s John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or John Edwards to have this authority to go outside the law and say, “I am the law. I do what I want. No one else’s view matters.”
July 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pmm12,
When I started asking serious questions back in post #10, I stipulated that “trolls need not apply”. That means you, and it still applies.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pmSo you want to steal the Presidency. Weren’t lefties whining about how that South Dakota Dem might be replaced by a Republican despite the people electing a Democrat?
Comment by m12
We have 540 more days of this increasingly criminal insane administration. The point is to put an end the insanity before it worsens…
July 29th, 2007 at 8:19 pmI notice MSM is avoiding the Tillman story and the WH claim of EP completely.
Not totally. Michael Duffy mentioned the new evidence of Tillman’s death on the chris matthews show today…in the section about news stories that will arrive shortly in the press. We’ll see.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:25 pm“down in the DUngeon with the 9-11 nutz.”
And those WMD’s that made you soil your shorts are located at …
July 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pmm12: Steal the presidency? America and the world needs a strong and serious President. In Bush–we have neither. I guess when he takes his advice from people like Wolfowitz, Libby, Rove, Perle, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, the best he can expect is what he has ended up with–failure.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pmI agree with the earlier poster that Congress needs to impeach Gonzo first and then the Shooter and George the Second, if there is time left in his criminal administration. The health and safety of our constitution depends on taking these actions soon. Just look at the Exexcutive Order of July 17th which allows the Treasury Secretary to steal our assets without notice and without judicial review. Congress needs to open their eyes.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:29 pmComment by JG — July 29, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
That’s a great interview. Anyone who hasn’t seen it really must watch it.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:31 pmWhat was the secret NSA program that was so Illegal that the attorney general balked.?? My bet is… the Data Mining project on American Citizens without warrants that congress specifically outlawed when Adm. Poindexter suggested it. It’s serious enough to have Gonzales babbling incoherently before congress.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:33 pmWe’ll see if it is serious enough to impeach Bush.
Amendment XXV
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
That should remove any doubts. Sorry, got more writing to do.
I’m really starting to think Gonzo’s gonna resign soon.
Comment by Egreggious — July 29, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
I think that if the Congress officially goes into a “Recess”, then Gonzo will resign and Bush will get another horrible Recess Appointment.
I will vote for ANYONE who runs as an Independant before I vote for a Dem now! I will not vote at all if there are no Independants to vote for…….
Unless they begin standing up and protecting the Constitution, they are done as far as I am concerned.
Comment by RemoveBush — July 29, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
GIVE ‘EM THE BIRD,
VOTE FOR A THIRD!
:)
Catch you later. Thanks.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:33 pmCut the crap Rep. Rangel > Kucinich knows that Cheney must be impeached first, so if you vote to halt impeachment of Bush, then we the people will fire your ass in next election.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:34 pmCome on, Charlie! You know the drill: First we impeach Cheney and THEN we impeach Chimpya.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:35 pmDoes anybody know a Democrat in Harlem, New York, who can replace Rep. Rangel in 2008 primary election? Charlie has had a free ride in Congress for almost 40 years. Only Rep. Conyers has been in longer than old Rangel.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:41 pmGonzo or Cheney first - doesn’t matter. In either case, Bush’s replacement choice would have to be approved by Congress.
Heh, heh, heh… good luck getting another NeoCon lickspittle past the 110th Congress House of Representatives.
Then go after Bush and prevent him from doing any more damage to the country over the next 1 1/2 years.
I have a lot of respect for Rangel, but like many in Congress, they are too busy to read ANYTHING apparently. Everyone in the impeachment movement is actively going after Cheney first at this point. Rangel is arguing against a point that has been adequately responded to months ago when Kucinich introduced H. Res. 333 to impeach Cheney.
One troubling thing. If the House approved an impeachment trial to begin against Cheney in the Senate, Cheney, as president of the Senate would preside. Logic would seem to be that Cheney would recuse himself, but with this crew??!?!? Who knows?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:42 pmOne troubling thing. If the House approved an impeachment trial to begin against Cheney in the Senate, Cheney, as president of the Senate would preside.
Comment by Mikael Rudolph — July 29, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Please don’t make my head hurt.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:46 pmhttp://rawstory.com/ news/ afp/ Mystery_money_in_Japan_appears_in_m_07282007.html
Off topic. Sorry. But perhaps this is a sign. =P
July 29th, 2007 at 8:46 pmTMM,
I think you skeeered away the m12 troll. Good job!
July 29th, 2007 at 8:50 pmOff topic. Sorry. But perhaps this is a sign. =P
Comment by La Cuckoo Rot Ya — July 29, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Crazy stuff!
July 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pmFirst of all, it’s not “stealing†when it’s carried out according to the rule of law. Familiar with that term, m12? “Rule of law�
So you agree that the entire Tim Johnson replacement argument is bs?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pmI think you skeeered away the m12 troll. Good job!
Comment by Zooey — July 29, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
mommy12 came with nothin’ and left with even less.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pmAccording to Wikipedia:
The impeachment-trial procedure is in two steps. The House of Representatives must first pass “articles of impeachment” by a simple majority. (All fifty state legislatures as well as the District of Columbia city council may also pass articles of impeachment against their own executives.) The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been “impeached.”
July 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pmNext, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant wouldn’t be permitted. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.
So who would the President Pro Tempore be?
Also, would the person in charge possibly be the Chief Justice? If so, this Administration covered their bases well there..
m12: Steal the presidency? America and the world needs a strong and serious President. In Bush–we have neither. I guess when he takes his advice from people like Wolfowitz, Libby, Rove, Perle, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, the best he can expect is what he has ended up with–failure.
That’s your opinion. It’s not the opinion of 62 million voters!
July 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pmWhen I started asking serious questions back in post #10, I stipulated that “trolls need not applyâ€. That means you, and it still applies.
Who did you want to answer your question? More ignorant left winged fools like yourself?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:55 pmI’ve noticed that some people’s arguments around here are incredibly lame.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:55 pmWe have 540 more days of this increasingly criminal insane administration. The point is to put an end the insanity before it worsens…
Is that your defense for your obvious hypocritical argument regarding the replacement of a Democratic Senator by a GOP governor?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:56 pmSome people here have no ability to think for themselves.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:57 pmImpeaching this Pres and VP is not trying to ’steal the presidency’. It is not even about being vindictive. It is the cure for this Constitutional crisis this Administration has created by their criminal behavior and pursuits.
Another excerpt:
JOHN NICHOLS: Bill Moyers, you are making a mistake. You are making a mistake that too many people make.
BILL MOYERS: Yes.
JOHN NICHOLS: You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don’t mistake the medicine for the disease. When you have a constitutional crisis, the founders are very clear. They said there is a way to deal with this. We don’t have to have a war. We don’t have to raise an army and go to Washington. We have procedures in place where we can sanction a president appropriately, do what needs to be done up to the point of removing him from office and continue the republic. So we’re not talking here about taking an ax to government. Quite the opposite. We are talking about applying some necessary strong medicine that may cure not merely the crisis of the moment but, done right-
BRUCE FEIN: Moreover, it’s–
JOHN NICHOLS: –might actually cure–
BRUCE FEIN: It’s not an attack on Bush and Cheney in the sense of their personal– attacks. Listen, if you impeach them, they can live happily ever after into their-
JOHN NICHOLS: And go to San Clemente.
BRUCE FEIN: Yes, go to San Clemente or go back to the ranch or whatever. But it’s saying no, it’s the Constitution that’s more important than your aggrandizing of power. And not just for you because the precedent that would be set would bind every successor in the presidency as well, no matter Republican, Democrat, Independent, or otherwise.
JOHN NICHOLS: The fact of the matter is that, again, the genius of impeachment is it tells the president that, wow, there is a Congress. And that Congress is on your case. And it causes, I think at its best, it causes a president to want to prove he can cooperate, to want to prove he can live within the law.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:57 pmm12 sez:
Someone capable of rational thought…which, again, rules you out. Shoo.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:58 pmComment by JG — July 29, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
Thanks for reminding me of that part of the interview.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:00 pmSo who would the President Pro Tempore be?
Comment by JG — July 29, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Senator Robert “Barbaric!” Byrd.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:01 pmI have to laugh at you lefties though. On one hand you claim its not stealing if its done by the rule of law.
But when the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 in accordance with the rule of law, you claimed Bush stole the election!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:01 pmImpeaching this Pres and VP is not trying to ’steal the presidency’. It is not even about being vindictive. It is the cure for this Constitutional crisis this Administration has created by their criminal behavior and pursuits.
If this is truly your rationale, you would allow President Bush to choose a new Republican Vice President.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:02 pmIt’s no secret vp man and his gang stuck this guy in office to fill the space.Take out the quarterback.But in reality they have a back-up and back-up plan.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:04 pmDon’t ever forget they have had over 30 years to put this whole mess together.All of it including the massive deception/s.
All the same names have been in rotation through the whole game.
They are really the only ones “for us”.
There is no outside threat.
Only pissed off people who get mad when you steal their gold(oil) and rape their country.
If this is truly your rationale, you would allow President Bush to choose a new Republican Vice President.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
If he were not, himself, tainted and due for his own impeachment, we would certainly give him another try at choosing a vice president with a modicum of respect for the rule of law. But his own impeachable offenses (I won’t repeat them; they’re all over the web; you can find them yourself if you really need to know what they are) have stripped him of that perogative.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:06 pmm12 sez:
The bolded text above is where you went wrong. If you’re honestly this clueless, go educate yourself. If you’re being deliberately obtuse, just go.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:07 pmBut when the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 in accordance with the rule of law, you claimed Bush stole the election!
That would have something to do with the fact that ALL the votes, votes by registered American voters, were not allowed to be counted. That is NOT lawful. Why the problem with allowing ALL the votes to be counted if Bush was so sure that he had won?? That one still stuns me..
July 29th, 2007 at 9:07 pmIf this is truly your rationale, you would allow President Bush to choose a new Republican Vice President.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
Not if they are both impeached both at the same time (as Bruce Fein strongly recommends).
July 29th, 2007 at 9:08 pmBoth at the same time right after Gonzales. God this is too stupid for words. Do we have a constitution or not?!?!?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:08 pmThat would have something to do with the fact that ALL the votes, votes by registered American voters, were not allowed to be counted. That is NOT lawful. Why the problem with allowing ALL the votes to be counted if Bush was so sure that he had won?? That one still stuns me..
Not lawful according to who?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pmNot if they are both impeached both at the same time (as Bruce Fein strongly recommends).
So, in other words, you are trying to implant Nancy Pelosi in the Presidency.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:10 pmIf he were not, himself, tainted and due for his own impeachment, we would certainly give him another try at choosing a vice president with a modicum of respect for the rule of law. But his own impeachable offenses (I won’t repeat them; they’re all over the web; you can find them yourself if you really need to know what they are) have stripped him of that perogative.
Where in the constitution does a President have any perogative stripped of him?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:11 pmI’m often intrigued by the fact that hypocrisy often cuts both ways.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:11 pmIf this is truly your rationale, you would allow President Bush to choose a new Republican Vice President.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
Yeah, and then we’ll just impeach THAT one too! ^_^!!!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:11 pmYeah, and then we’ll just impeach THAT one too! ^_^!!!
On what grounds? This should be interesting?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pmWhere in the constitution does a President have any perogative stripped of him?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
I believe he was saying Bush has lost all credibility at this point.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pmSo you want to steal the Presidency.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
No, the adults here are talking about how to save our country and its Constitution. So get lost, freak.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:13 pmOn what grounds? This should be interesting?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
Curious… you seem totally devoid of any sense of humor, or irony, or sarcasm… just a stuffy, self-righteous little prig, aren’t ya? Bet ya wear a bowtie too!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:13 pmQuestion: If Cheney is removed and Shrub boy names a replacement VP, is that choice subject to Congressional Oversight / Hearings ?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:15 pmI believe he was saying Bush has lost all credibility at this point.
If you say so. But I am not aware of any law that says a man who has lost credibility (whatever that is) loses his Presidential powers.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:15 pmComment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 7:18 p
Actually, this brings up an important question..perhaps the other TP regulars (trolls need not apply) could weigh in:
I’d like a shot, please.
If the VP is successfully impeached, who becomes the next VP? Would it be the Speaker of the House, or does the President have the option of appointing a replacement?
As you can see from Amendment XXV above, the president nominates a replacement who must be confirmed by both Houses. Only in the case of both the president and voce [president being unable (or unavailable) to perform their duties, would the Speaker of the House become President. (Or possibly just Act as President.)
A while ago, another poster said that for this reason, a simultaneous impeachment of the President and the VP would be the only way to go. I replied that there was probably no mechanism in place to allow for such a “tandem†impeachment. Does anyone know if such a thing would be possible?
It’s never been done before because there has never been an administration as thoroughly corrupt and dismissive of the constitution and rule of law as this one. (With the possible exception of Grant’s.) The trials in the Senate do not have to be held concurrently, they can be held consecutively.
Also, where does the fatally compromised Justice Department fit into all this? If impeachment proceedings need to go through Gonzo, you can bet they’ll go nowhere.
My understanding is that impeachment is purely a function of the Legislative Branch, except in the case of the president where the Chief Justice presides. Remember, the president cannot give out pardons in cases of impeachment. I believe that this applies even once smeone has been convicted and removed (specifically because of an impeachment). I believe that thsi is why Nixon resigned rather than get convicted and removed, so that Ford could give him a pardon, because it no longer involved a case of impeachment. For that reason, impeach both Gonzales and Cheney now, before Bush issues either of them a pardon, which would negate any jail time they deserve to serve.
I hope this helps. I also hope I’m right. makes sense to me, but I’m no lawyer.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:15 pmOh, and don’t forget, m12: I expect to see you drag your sorry ass here on November 5, 2008. So much crow will be forced down your throat so fast we’ll be able to make foie gras out of your exploded liver.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pmI guess on Sunday evenings the Troll Patrol only fields a skeleton crew. He’s12 drew the short straw tonight, huh?
That’s like sending the coach’s son out to the mound to face the league champs, with no infielders behind him.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pmThat’s like sending the coach’s son out to the mound to face the league champs, with no infielders behind him.
Comment by spit take — July 29, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
More like the bat boy.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:18 pmOh, and don’t forget, m12: I expect to see you drag your sorry ass here on November 5, 2008. So much crow will be forced down your throat so fast we’ll be able to make foie gras out of your exploded liver.
I will, VerbalKint. Hypothetically though, if Romney wins, what will you say?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:18 pmBut I am not aware of any law that says a man who has lost credibility (whatever that is) loses his Presidential powers.
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
m12, there are not enough hours in the day to compile a list of everything you are not aware of.
Credibility? Like, for instance, you don’t have any. No one here takes you seriously, yet here you are again, glowering, making a pain of yourself. Why? What do you accomplish? You seem to thrive on rejection.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:19 pmWow, I’m disappointed in Rangel. He has no imagination. I’m betting that congress could impeach both of them at the same time. Just because it has never been done before doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. I would like to see them Impeach Gonzales first, to get their feet wet and then impeach both Chaney and Bush at the same time. The only problem with that argument is that the Republicans will start screaming that the Democrats are trying to overturn the election and grab the presidency.
On the other hand Congress can impeach Chaney and then when Bush tries to nominate another Vice President, Impeach Bush. He won’t be able to get his new Vice President confirmed while he is being impeached. But, then, the Republicans would again say that the Democrats were trying to overturn the election.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:19 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Thank you for trying, stupid. Have a nice day!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:21 pmHypothetically though, if Romney wins, what will you say?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Hypothetically speaking, I’m guessing that VerbalKint would be more gracious in defeat than you will be when Hillary/Obama/Gore/Edwards wins.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:21 pmThe Dems won’t Impeach Bush because he is much too valuable as reason to NOT vote Republican. It’s Ironic how the Dems are using Bush the same way that the Republican’s used Bin Laden.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pmThank you for trying, stupid. Have a nice day!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
Gosh… what a personality. You must have so many friends.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pmHypothetically speaking, I’m guessing that VerbalKint would be more gracious in defeat than you will be when Hillary/Obama/Gore/Edwards wins.
I highly doubt it. Back in 2004 all the left winged blogs were spewing venom!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pmWhy do some people here ask questions that have already been answered in the thread? It seems rather obtuse.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:24 pmA while ago, another poster said that for this reason, a simultaneous impeachment of the President and the VP would be the only way to go. I replied that there was probably no mechanism in place to allow for such a “tandem†impeachment. Does anyone know if such a thing would be possible?
Well, I am just thinking that if Bruce Fein, who is a staunch conservative and highly respected and recognized Constitutional scholar/attorney believes and suggests that there are grounds for them to be impeached together, suggests they should be impeached together, then I would take him on his word. He should know.
Just because it has NOT been done before does not mean it CANNOT be done.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:24 pmWayne, thanks for your explanations. They are most helpful. :-)
July 29th, 2007 at 9:26 pmI highly doubt it. Back in 2004 all the left winged blogs were spewing venom!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
Since this is all hypothetical, who cares?
And since you have no credibility, your assessment of “all the left wing blogs” isn’t worth the paper you wipe yourself on (if indeed you wipe yourself).
July 29th, 2007 at 9:26 pmRep. Charlie Rangel was first elected to Congress in 1970, so is in his 19th term of office. He has run unopposed in Harlem for at least the last 9 terms. He gets reappointed to his position every election year. He therefore believes he can spit on everybody and get away with it. He must be told otherwise!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:28 pm“In case of a Vice Presidential vacancy, the Amendment permits the President to appoint, with the approval of both Houses of Congress a new Vice President.”
Both houses of Congress would have to approve a new Vice President. The Democratically controlled House of Representatives could hold up the appointment of a Vice President long enough to impeach Bush.
It is not that hard, and it doesn’t have to take that long. I don’t know why everyone thinks that impeachment takes a long time. Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, the trial lasted from January 7, 1999, until February 12.
Impeaching Chaney and then Bush is entirely doable, especially if they start real soon!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:28 pmComment by bilbobaggins — July 29, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
Do you know if the time frame you mentioned included the Senate trial as well?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:31 pmIs that your defense for your obvious hypocritical argument regarding the replacement of a Democratic Senator by a GOP governor?
Comment by m12
What does that have to do with the urgent need of impeachment of our Ex branch? Damn….. give it up… you are washed up.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:31 pmWhat does that have to do with the urgent need of impeachment of our Ex branch? Damn….. give it up… you are washed up.
Everything, if you are trying to push Queen Pelosi into the Presidency!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:31 pmComment by spit take — July 29, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
Why are you pulling assertions of ‘gracious’ leftwingers out of your rear?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:34 pmEverything, if you are trying to push Queen Pelosi into the Presidency!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
Huh??? This makes no sense at all.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:35 pmBut when the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 in accordance with the rule of law, you claimed Bush stole the election!
The bolded text above is where you went wrong. If you’re honestly this clueless, go educate yourself. If you’re being deliberately obtuse, just go.
I am still waiting for an answer to this question!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:37 pmSo, what happens if they (one or both) are impeached but not removed? Is there any hope at all that this would be enough to reign in their abuse of power and overreaching (as well as all-out lawbreaking)?
Can both (or either) claim Executive Privilege when it comes to giving up documents for an impeachment hearing? Of course this doesn’t include Cheney who isn’t actually in the Executive Branch…;-)
July 29th, 2007 at 9:37 pmWhat happens if they pull a Harriet Miers and just don’t show up (thumbing their nose at the House)?
m12 > only way Pelosi can become president is if Bush and Cheney both resigned together, or if they both dropped dead for some reason. If Cheney is impeached first, then a new VP would replace him, then if Bush was impeached the new VP would take his place and then a new VP for him.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:38 pmHuh??? This makes no sense at all.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
It’s m12….remember? Dumber than a bag of toenails.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:38 pmthe idiocy is becoming unbearable
July 29th, 2007 at 9:40 pmThe Republic of Stupidity sez:
Welcome to Mr. Pee’s sad little world.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:40 pmWhy are you pulling assertions of ‘gracious’ leftwingers out of your rear?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
One, I thougt you made it clear this was all “hypothetical”? Isn’t that why you posited a Romney presidency? Was that pulled “out of your rear”?
And two, just because YOU pull things out of your rear with frightening regularity, don’t assume everyone does. That’s called “projection”. I know you think it works for you, but it really doesn’t. It just makes you look stupid.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:41 pmJG > the President cannot block his own impeachment. If he does not cooperate, and 67 Senators vote to remove him, then a military guard is sent to remove him from the White House. Bush could refuse to leave the residence, in which case the place would be stormed by FBI and military too.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:42 pmm12 sez:
And you’re still an idiot. Congrats.
I’m not going to do your homework for you, jackass.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:42 pmBut when the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 in accordance with the rule of law, you claimed Bush stole the election!
The bolded text above is where you went wrong. If you’re honestly this clueless, go educate yourself. If you’re being deliberately obtuse, just go.
I am still waiting for an answer to this question!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
I’m still looking for a question!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:42 pmHuh??? This makes no sense at all.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Should I spell it out for you further? Liberals claimed that the voters of South Dakota elected a Democrat, and so the Republican governor should not be able to switch the seat if Tim Johnson died or resigned.
Yet if you impeached Bush/Cheney you are switching the seat of the Presidency!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:43 pmBut when the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 in accordance with the rule of law, you claimed Bush stole the election!
The bolded text above is where you went wrong. If you’re honestly this clueless, go educate yourself. If you’re being deliberately obtuse, just go.
I am still waiting for an answer to this question!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
I know you desperately need to believe you’re right… BUT…
http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelection.com/bush-supreme-court.htm
July 29th, 2007 at 9:44 pmEverything, if you are trying to push Queen Pelosi into the Presidency!
I think if you are following this thread you would understand this isn’t about Nancy Pelosi. This is about dealing in a Constitutional way with serious over reaching and abuse of power, let alone law breaking. Congress has the duty to protect and defend the Constitution from Imperial Presidencies and abuse of power. It is all built in. Congress just has to stand up and do its part to set a precedent for future presidencies. This is about protecting our laws and protecting the rights of every single American, both now and in the future.
This isn’t about Nancy Pelosi.
If both Bush and Cheney are Impeached AND removed (the removed part isn’t likely to happen), then they have nobody to blame but themselves for the consequences of THEIR actions. Whoever moves into the Presidency at that point has just witnessed Congress and the Constitution in action and are not likely to follow in Bush’s footsteps. They will have their hands full with repairing all the damage of these two scoundrels.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:44 pmI’m still looking for a question!
Comment by spit take — July 29, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
Sure. On what grounds was what the Supreme Court did in 2000 illegal?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:44 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
TRoS, if we keep doing m12’s homework for him, how is he ever going to learn?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:46 pmSure. On what grounds was what the Supreme Court did in 2000 illegal?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Read my post above. Paste the URL into your browser and go read it, if you’ve the stomache to, which I don’t think you have.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:47 pmI thought OJ was guilty even thought the jury acquitted him.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:48 pmI know you desperately need to believe you’re right… BUT…
http://www.iknowwhatyoudidlastelection.com/bush-supreme-court.htm
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
I don’t need to believe I am right. I know I am. Nowhere in your link does it say what the Supreme Court did was illegal!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:48 pmTRoS, if we keep doing m12’s homework for him, how is he ever going to learn?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
if we don’t keep trying, he’ll never learn anything.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:48 pmIf Bush and Cheney were both removed, then a caretaker President and VP would fulfill the remaining 17 months of their term of office. McCain might agree to be caretaker President, since he will never be elected to that position.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:49 pmThis isn’t about Nancy Pelosi.
If both Bush and Cheney are Impeached AND removed (the removed part isn’t likely to happen), then they have nobody to blame but themselves for the consequences of THEIR actions. Whoever moves into the Presidency at that point has just witnessed Congress and the Constitution in action and are not likely to follow in Bush’s footsteps. They will have their hands full with repairing all the damage of these two scoundrels.
Comment by JG
I know that i’m12 will never grasp this and wouldn’t believe it because “power” is all he’s about but, you are absolutely correct. This has nothing to do with which party is in power, it has to do with the preservation of our republic.
If I thought the troll would actually do so, I’d admonish him to listen to Bruce Fein on that NPR program explaining why impeachment is the process by which the republic heals itself. It’s a real eye-opener, but a person’s mind also has to be open, and neocons are not known for open minds.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:51 pmif we don’t keep trying, he’ll never learn anything.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
He’s not here to learn!!
Remember…..dumber than a bag of hair.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:51 pmTRoS, if we keep doing m12’s homework for him, how is he ever going to learn?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
What homework? You’re just pulling out random liberal nonsense because you don’t like the decision.
The Supreme Court has been the final arbiter on the Constitution since the early 1800s!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:52 pmIf Bush and Cheney were both removed, then a caretaker President and VP would fulfill the remaining 17 months of their term of office. McCain might agree to be caretaker President, since he will never be elected to that position.
Comment by Jay Randal
Under the current terms of law, the successor would be the Speaker of the House. There is no provision for a “caretaker”. After Agnew resigned, Nixon appointed a non-threatening VP, who eventually succeeded him, but the Constitution doesn’t provide for a regent.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:53 pmRoe versus Wade was a legitimate decision.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:53 pmI think if you are following this thread you would understand this isn’t about Nancy Pelosi. This is about dealing in a Constitutional way with serious over reaching and abuse of power, let alone law breaking. Congress has the duty to protect and defend the Constitution from Imperial Presidencies and abuse of power. It is all built in. Congress just has to stand up and do its part to set a precedent for future presidencies. This is about protecting our laws and protecting the rights of every single American, both now and in the future.
It is about Nancy Pelosi. The only person here to suggest otherwise is JayRandal, who suggested that McCain fill the seat!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pmm12 sez:
And in this case, The Supreme Court abused their authority to stop the recounting of Florida votes, essentially appoint Chimpy President.
You may not see anything wrong with this, but that’s because you’re a troll.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pmThe Supreme Court has been the final arbiter on the Constitution since the early 1800s!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
And all their decisions are good ones, right?
Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind….
July 29th, 2007 at 9:58 pmJay,
Did you see above where I suggested Fred Thompson might take the presidency if Bush and Cheney were impeached?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:59 pmAnd all their decisions are good ones, right?
Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind….
Comment by Zooey — July 29, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
Who said anything about good or bad? Bad things aren’t always illegal, such as income taxes!
July 29th, 2007 at 10:00 pmIf Bush and Cheney were both removed, then a caretaker President and VP would fulfill the remaining 17 months of their term of office. McCain might agree to be caretaker President, since he will never be elected to that position.
Comment by Jay Randal — July 29, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Isn’t that sort of what happened with Gerald Ford? He was appointed to VP when Spiro Agnew resigned and confirmed by House and Senate, and then when Nixon resigned, moved up to the Presidency and appointed Nelson Rockefeller as VP, who was confirmed by House and Senate. Ford was never elected.. He then lost to Carter.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:00 pmHe then lost to Carter.
Comment by JG — July 29, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
That history is why I suppose my Thompson hypothesis is not a good one. He would likely go the way of Ford.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:02 pmTRoS, if we keep doing m12’s homework for him, how is he ever going to learn?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
if we don’t keep trying, he’ll never learn anything.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
You guys really think he’s capable of learning?
Oh, I get it — joke.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:03 pmAnd in this case, The Supreme Court abused their authority to stop the recounting of Florida votes, essentially appoint Chimpy President.
Sucks to be the Goracle, eh?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:04 pmWho said anything about good or bad? Bad things aren’t always illegal, such as income taxes!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Income taxes…..ooga booga
July 29th, 2007 at 10:04 pmRemember…..dumber than a bag of hair.
Comment by Zooey — July 29, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
LOL! I haven’t heard that one. So, is that worse than dumber than a bag of rocks? Dumber than a sack of hammers? I like yours better. I will have to remember that one.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:04 pmGummitch if the VP was replaced first, then the VP is replaced by a new one, then if President is replaced the new VP takes his place, then a new VP for him. It becomes a caretaker government till a new President and VP are elected. President Ford and his VP were a caretaker government. Ford ran for president in 1976, but was defeated by Carter.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:05 pmJG you are correct in post 149 > Ford was a caretaker President and then lost to Carter in 1976 election.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:07 pmOne troubling thing. If the House approved an impeachment trial to begin against Cheney in the Senate, Cheney, as president of the Senate would preside.
Comment by Mikael Rudolph — July 29, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Please don’t make my head hurt.
Comment by Egreggious — July 29, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
According to the Constitution, the Chief Justice (Roberts) would preside.
I did not go through the chaff to determine whether someone else had offered this detail.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:07 pmWho said anything about good or bad? Bad things aren’t always illegal, such as income taxes!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
My point is that if Plessy v. Ferguson were decided today, you’d be pleased as punch, and would believe whole-heartedly in it’s correctness.
Sheep.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:08 pmAnd in this case, The Supreme Court abused their authority to stop the recounting of Florida votes, essentially appoint Chimpy President.
You mean like how they abused their authority with the Texas Death Penalty and abortion?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:09 pmm12 sez:
Sucks to not have a rational rebuttal, doesn’t it?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:09 pmMy point is that if Plessy v. Ferguson were decided today, you’d be pleased as punch, and would believe whole-heartedly in it’s correctness.
Gore accepted the Supreme Court decision. Why can’t you?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:10 pmLOL! I haven’t heard that one. So, is that worse than dumber than a bag of rocks? Dumber than a sack of hammers? I like yours better. I will have to remember that one.
Comment by JG — July 29, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
It’s my thinking that a bag of hair is much dumber than bags of rocks or hammers. If one were carrying a bag of rocks or hammers, one might be going to a job, or about to build a wall.
There is certainly no point to carrying a bag of hair — hence it’s dumbness. :-)
You must have missed my earlier reference to m12 being dumber than a bag of toenails. :D
July 29th, 2007 at 10:10 pmIt is about Nancy Pelosi. The only person here to suggest otherwise is JayRandal, who suggested that McCain fill the seat!
Its about the process and ensuring that is is both preserved, protected, and showing the American people that it works.
These guys in office knew what they were doing all long. I know they have tried labeling all these abuses ‘necessary tools in the War on Terror’, but those are words and smoke. These are men with an agenda that is self serving. The American people are the ones that are paying the price, and it is dear. There are consequences for our actions and our choices. At least, that is what I try to teach my children every day. When you make a choice to cross the lines then you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:11 pmI don’t need to believe I am right. I know I am. Nowhere in your link does it say what the Supreme Court did was illegal!
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
Apparently, the majority saw no irreparable harm in denying Gore his lawfully required recount.
Critics also argued that Court’s decision itself was a perversion of the Equal Protection Clause that it claimed to defend and contrary to the political question doctrine.
The decision has been widely discredited by the majority of legal scholars and law professors as a deeply flawed and politically motivated decision.
The decision itself was criticized by Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, asserting in Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 that “the decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.”
July 29th, 2007 at 10:11 pmGore accepted the Supreme Court decision. Why can’t you?
Comment by m12 — July 29, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
Do you take medication for your condition?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:11 pmSucks to not have a rational rebuttal, doesn’t it?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 29, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
Rebuttal to what? You have not offered a single point to explain why the Supreme Court decision was illegal!
July 29th, 2007 at 10:12 pm