Printable View
The Dems are looking at the fact that Mitch has openly stated publicly that he will not be impartial (as have a few other republican senators) to see if there is a legal way to remove him from the process as he cannot swear to the oath required.. :geek:
Considering the fact it remains to be seen what kind of impact impeachment is going to have on the Democrats, I don't think they should do anything that can perceived as spiking the ball. Not allowing him to give the State of the Union would fall under that category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Articles in The Guardian that reveal Evangelical Christians take the view their President is flawed and that they accept these flaws for his policies, not only begs the question about those policies, but more pertinently, what, as Christians are they doing to remedy his flaws? What would be the purpose of a Presidential Pastor if she is not challenging him to stop using filthy language -describing Americans as 'Human Scum' for example; to stop making outrageous claims about The Speaker of the House of Representatives, telling lies, threatening to kill people with bombs, and so on.
What is a committed, Evangelical Christian for if not to change people? So after three years, where is the change?
My thought of the day is that I read about a new epidemic or potential pandemic and don't really know what kind of threat it is. Has anyone read anything about Coronavirus? I've read it's an airborne virus that has killed more than a dozen people in China, that the Chinese have quarantined many large cities and are building hospitals just to deal with it. There is speculation that it may have originated in a "wet market", where exotic animals are slaughtered in conditions that are unsanitary and promote the spread of disease. Beyond that, we'll see in the coming weeks whether the hospitals in China are able to treat it, whether the antivirals we have are effective against it, or if supportive measures can keep people alive.
WHO has some useful Q&A here-
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-de...-coronaviruses
Ps if you are ever in Geneva, the WHO has an excellent library- open to the public-, and the view from the 6th floor is stupendous. Also recommended is the International Red Cross Museum near the old League of Nations building.
First case in Australia has just been confirmed (Chinese man who had visited Wuhan). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...rises/11900428
I'll make sure I do that one day. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Stavros had a good idea, which is that we can use an amendment fleshing out what is impeachable, and whether the President can be held accountable for crimes. I apologize if I misrepresented the post, but I didn't want to take credit for the idea, and I don't recall all of the details of it.
I think there should be an amendment codifying what is impeachable, with guidance about what is a high crime and misdemeanor. I think there should be an amendment specifying what the procedures are for impeachment, and I think the amendment should state that all statutes of limitations for crimes that would prevent the President from facing criminal prosecution should be tolled while he or she is President. If there are Constitutional concerns about a President facing jeopardy while in office, don't allow that to preclude prosecution after the fact because the statutes of limitations ran even though he or she did not actually face jeopardy.
As an alternative, I think impeachment and removal should be decided by the Supreme Court. The framers rejected this idea because the President appoints Justices but the appointments are for a lifetime, which means they are no longer beholden to anyone and in any given Presidential term most have been appointed by previous Presidents. Impeachment is not meant to look like a vote of no confidence, or a review of the job the President has done generally. It's a decision about whether the President engaged in misconduct, using standards that are constitutionally based, though not fully articulated. That's not something legislators are especially qualified for, and what's more, the requirement that Justices write opinions stating the reasons for their decisions provides accountability, to posterity and history, that a single vote by hundreds of members in a chamber never could.
Actually, the place for my last post should have been the impeachment puzzle thread, where many of these ideas have already been discussed. I still feel this is a reasonable synthesis and it's becoming more apparent that the entire process suffers both from a lack of honesty on one side, but also a lack of rigor in spelling out what to look for.
Another reason it would be better if impeachment were judicial is that opinions don't just provide accountability, but future consistency. Once a decision is made based on a fact set, standards are laid out that can provide a useful comparison that might cut through partisanship. Imagine if Justices wrote full sets of opinions on the Clinton impeachment trial. There would be a record, with reasons, that could be compared to the present set of facts...