OK this is a small bonfire but a good one. We got some DUMMIE impeachment wet dreams!!!1111!!!!ELEVENTY!
Never mind the fact that the wicked witch of San Fran, named Nan, is now balking on sending the articles to the senate (link:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/475284-democrats-rally-behind-pelosi-on-delay-of-articles and the senate can't even agree (link:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475375-senate-leaders-punt-impeachment-trial-deal-until-after-holidays Dummies are having wet dreams!
Link:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212801740The OP:
NewsCenter28 (1,121 posts)
The solution to the McConnell/Pelosi impasse is crystal clear and just struck me
I am confident that there would be 51 votes in the senate to throw it to Chief Justice John Roberts to decide if and what witnesses should be called. Throw it to the Chief to decide after hearing arguments from the house managers and Toad's attorneys. It's a gamble but I'm pretty sure Roberts will allow witnesses. That also is a compromise to the GOP position.
So, the deal would be for the senators to take themselves out of the process and allow Roberts to decide, perhaps with a caveat that 51 senators can still overturn his decisions if it is deemed too outrageous somehow.
Except that the US Senate don't give a rats ass about Roberts.
Let's go check out the small bonfire.....
PoindexterOglethorpe (11,583 posts)
1. Why would the Supreme Court get involved?
The Constitution only talks about the responsibilities of the House and the Senate in this regard. Which would mean Roberts, even if asked to get involved, can't.
Paging Lazerrrhassss!!!
NewsCenter28 (1,121 posts)
2. You forget that the chief justice presides over the senate impeachment trial of a POTUS
As per the constitution. He is also given the opportunity to make rulings on evidentiary motions, etc., during the trial. He has a choice, he can make the ruling himself or he can take himself out of it and say that the senate must decide on its own. If he decides, it takes 51 votes to overrule his decisions.
Dammit! This is a
real trial with witnesses, a judge and everything!!!
kentuck (94,866 posts)
5. Much will depend on what role Roberts chooses to play in this trial...
Rehnquist did nothing....and did it well.
Ken****
pissing raining on the impeachment parade.
PoindexterOglethorpe (11,583 posts)
7. Interesting. I hadn't read carefully enough.
So then the real question is, given that he would preside over the impeachment trial, would he be anything other than a toady to Trump, McConnell, and the rest?
Unless he has President Trump drawn and quartered, shot, keel hauled, hung, put in an iron maiden and burned at the stake alive... then your answer is no.
Pesky facts show up:
Blue_true (19,067 posts)
11. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is constitutionally required to be the Judge
at the Senate trial of an impeached President. Rehnquist was the Judge at Bill Clinton's trial.
As well as reality:
TwilightZone (13,835 posts)
3. It's not up to Roberts.
Besides, it's highly unlikely that any GOP Senators would vote to give up control of the process, so I have no idea where you're getting 51.
Dummie still having wet dreams:
NewsCenter28 (1,121 posts)
4. Well that should still be our offer
If the senate GOP rejects it, then we should never transmit the articles. Making the argument that the judge should decide would resonate with a lot of the public and it is within the senate rules for Roberts to make evidentiary decisions.
Dammit!!! We will take our impeachment and go home if we don't get our way!!!!
So do we understand the process?
TwilightZone (13,835 posts)
6. We should offer something that makes no sense?
Suggesting something that isn't an option would just make us look like we don't understand the process.
Well no... no we don't. At least most of us.
stopbush (21,101 posts)
8. Pelosi doesn't need to be gambling anything. She's in control, not Yertle, not the Asshole.
Gonna impeach orange man. Gonna be prezident cause dummies want it. Grunt, grunt. Give me more weed and cheetos! Grunt, grunt. Impeach orange man!
Kablooie (15,560 posts)
9. That would go against everything Republicans believe
Roberts is likely to run the trial with decorum at honesty which is exactly what the Republicans don’t want. Their whole defense is based on chaos and confusion so they need to keep control themselves.
Obeekaybee!
FBaggins (19,484 posts)
10. Roberts' role begins when the trial starts
And the Rehnquist precedent was to follow Senate rules (and refer many decisions to the full Senate - which can overrule him anyway).
So the proposal boils down to letting the trial begin and trusting that there are three or more Republicans who would insist on a fair process.
And the dems control absolutely nothing! Sucks to be you, dummies!
That is all. Might grow, might not.
