From b2: it’s of course possible for the house to do that, the questions is whether it’s legal. Perhaps we are discussing separate points
Posted by
JackDawson (aka dawson)
Sep 25 '19, 13:24
|
I’m not interested in what’s possible as I fully agree and have stated repeatedly that of course politicians can do what they want
I’m sorry but I’m not interested in not advancing a legal argument I believe in it simply because it may “give fodder to the other side@— your mind may have crossed into complete win at all cost hyper partisan reading of every breadth but I can tell you mine has not and I just don’t think in those terms
As for history— Johnson was acquitted and there’s no serious scholarly argument that the senate violated the constitution by not holding a hearing on garland - people view it as breaking constitutional norms that protect democratic institutions not as an actual violation of the law
I concede anything in the world is possible. If that’s your argument, I have no beef with it— you are correct
Whether it’s LEGAL to impeach a president for insulting the nation and whether such approach is advisable for the good of our democratic system are different questions to which I’ve heard no persuasive rejoinder (but again if that’s not your point then that’s fine, no need to further engage if we are just discussing two different concepts— in which case the confusion was mine at the outset and I apologize)
|
Responses:
|
