Famous speech after failed Johnson impeachment.

Author: Greyparrot ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 41
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,965
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Once set the example of impeaching a President for what, when the excitement of the hour shall have subsided, will be regarded as insufficient causes, as several of those now alleged against the President were decided to be by the House of Representatives only a few months since, and no future President will be safe who happens to differ with a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate on any measure deemed by them important, particularly if of a political character. Blinded by partisan zeal, with such an example before them, they will not scruple to remove out of the way any obstacle to the accomplishment of their purposes, and what then becomes of the checks and balances of the Constitution, so carefully devised and so vital to its perpetuity? They are all gone.
    -Senator Lyman Trumbull 

    Wise words stated 150 years ago, and they are just as valid today.

    The president is a check on the Congress, and you can't impeach a president for being "Orangemanbad" and disagreeing with the way Congress normally governs without destroying those checks and balances.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    "Congress shall have the sole right to impeach orange man bad"

    -Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,965
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Imagine if Congress impeached a SCOTUS Judge because "they thought" her rulings put the nation "at risk."

    That's banana republic right there.
  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 898
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    Johnson was attempted to be impeached because he removed an official from his office that was in charge of a cabinet position that currently no longer exists, and did so in a way that didnt strictly meet protocol... Arguing impeachment over who a president wants or doesnt want to have in his cabinet wouldnt even crack the list of top 15 serious things Trump has done during his administration, partly because Trump goes through incompetent cabinet officials he selects himself almost more then he goes through wives. 
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Greyparrot
    Doesn't Bernie support rotating the Supreme Court, essentially allowing it to be stacked?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,965
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Imabench
    A SCOTUS failed to be impeached as well...Judge Chase...Impeaching a judge because you don't like his rulings wasn't sufficient grounds for removal.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 840
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @bmdrocks21
    The current method of seating the SCOTUS already allows it to be stacked as has been seen with McConnell stonewalling Obama.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @dustryder
    The liberal method of lying about being a gang rapist didn't work. Now you all want to just stack it every presidency defeating the whole purpose of life terms(not making decisions for job security).

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    The president is a check on the Congress, and you can't impeach a president for being "Orangemanbad" and disagreeing with the way Congress normally governs
    What are you even talking about? If the majority of congress and 2/3rd of the senate all agree the president has committed offenses worthy of impeachment you absolutely can, and should be able to, impeach him. A president is not a dictator or a kind. He is 1 of the 3 branches of of government. If you can get that much support to remove him, then removing him is warranted. And if removing him was in some way corrupt or unjust, then the people will judge congress and the senate.

    Saying that congress can't impeach the president, and that the president is above the law would make the President closer to a temporary King than an elected official. 

    And that is only if we were willing to even consider the idea that trump is innocent. He has released a memo (partial transcript) where he has already confessed. There is no question if trump is guilty, because he released a memo showing he is. The moment he asked a foreign government to look up dirt on a political rival he committed a crime and an impeachable offense. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,965
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Way to leave off the rest of the quote.

    Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

    I mean Trump can nuke the planet, right?

    It is absolutely clear the ONLY reason Trump was elected was as a check on a massively corrupt, inept, and anti-American Congress.

    If Congress can simply remove that check because it interferes with the status quo, that is the end of the government's system of checks and balances.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,965
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    One of Trump's quotes that applies here is: "No future President should ever have to go through this."

    An impeachment inquiry shouldn't occur the moment a president comes down an escalator.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
    Of course not. You should wait until you have reasonable grounds to do it. Trump has released a memo confessing to a crime. That is a very good reason to start an impeachment inquiry. 

    I mean Trump can nuke the planet, right?
    Yes he can. And having a man with the emotional maturity of an 6 year old with that ability makes most of the world uncomfortable. 

    It is absolutely clear the ONLY reason Trump was elected was as a check on a massively corrupt, inept, and anti-American Congress.
    1) Trump proceeded to fill his cabinet with a bunch of corrupt people. if he was elected to do something, then immediately made it clear he wasn't going to do it, why would that be relevant? 
    2) the blue wave in 2018 were elected to counter the growing tyranny of trump. You are attempting to argue the narrow election 3 years ago is more relevant that the clearly one sided election 1 year ago. That is some pretty extreme cherry picking.
    3) what he was elected to do is irrelevant. He committed a crime and has released documents confirming he committed that crime. This means he needs to be impeached. 

    If Congress can simply remove that check because it interferes with the status quo, that is the end of the government's system of checks and balances.
    Do you not understand how the government works? The president is not supposed to be able to override congress. The power of impeachment is extremely clear that only congress shall have this power. This is exactly how the system of checks and balances was intended to function. People claiming that trump is above the law and it is a coup to remove him for him crimes are attempting to remove any checks and balances on the power of the president. That would be the end of the US' democratic system. 
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 840
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Not one thing you have said addresses the fact that the current method of seating the SCOTUS is vulnerable to stacking. 

    Are you actually concerned with court stacking? Or do you actually support court stacking when it favours the party you support?
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @dustryder
    It is highly unlikely that there will be 5 appointments in one term. What would be more vulnerable to stacking would be a president having the ability to rotate the court at their liking to reach verdicts that push their agenda. The current method shields judges from outside influence. They will make the correct decision, rather than the popular one.

    There are justices from multiple presidents' terms and they were appointed by people of both political parties. I don't see how that is a problem.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 840
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Yeah.. no one is arguing for a system where presidents can rotate the courts at a whim so you can drop that now. What people are arguing for is a robust and fair system where certain ideologies aren't entrenched in the courts for years just because the judges who own those ideologies can't be removed.

    The current system can be abused, as evidenced by the addition of an extra conservative justice.

    Of course a simpler solution might be to just patch up the areas where the current system falls short. For example, a bit of legislature stating that the presidents nominee must be voted upon within x days
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @dustryder
    Ahh.... now we get to the crux of your problem with the current system. The fact that there is a conservative majority. I bet you had no criticisms of this system before. 

    Bernie proposed rotating courts.

    How would voting within a certain amount of days help? The Senate has filibusters.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 840
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Ahh.... now we get to the crux of your problem with the current system. The fact that there is a conservative majority. I bet you had no criticisms of this system before. 
    So if you had actually read my previous responses, I think it is plainly evident that the issue is not with a conservative majority, but with how the conservative majority came to be..

    Or to be more plain, I personally value honesty and keeping good faith. The current system does well when assuming for good faith on both sides, however Republicans have demonstrated that they cannot keep good faith. And hence this has created a vulnerability in the current system which has been exploited that I think should be patched.

    Bernie proposed rotating courts.
    How does the contradict what I said? Did Bernie advocate for courts that can be rotated at a whim, or courts that can be rotated? Has Bernie suggested rotations of the kind that you mentioned? What sort of implementation did Bernie suggest?

    Because it sounds like to me you are conjuring up a worst-case scenario boogeyman, and holding it up as if it's a reasonable scenario of what might occur with an implementation of a rotating court.

    How would voting within a certain amount of days help? The Senate has filibusters.
    To me it's just a quick fix to prevent what McConnell did. It might not be comprehensive, but it prevents him or anyone else from doing the exact thing again
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 31
    Forum posts: 8,152
    4
    5
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    Impeachment angers the party they are impeaching
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @dustryder
    Let's not try to pretend that Democrats never stacked the courts before with their own ideologues. 

    Here is exactly what Sanders said: "We’ve got a terrible 5-4 majority conservative court right now. But I do believe constitutionally we have the power to rotate judges to other courts and that brings in new blood into the Supreme Court and a majority I hope that will understand that a woman has a right to control her own body and that corporations cannot run the United States of America."

    It is all about control and putting people in power that you agree with. 
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 840
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Let's not try to pretend that Democrats never stacked the courts before with their own ideologues. 
    What does this have to do with anything? No one denies that the courts have swayed left and right over history depending on the party affiliation of the president at the time. That's not the issue here. The issue is that the Republicans in this instance did not want to abide by the gentleman's handshake that has lasted for the entirety of America's history up till 2016 in filling up vacant SCOTUS seats and resorted to cheating instead.

    Here is exactly what Sanders said: "We’ve got a terrible 5-4 majority conservative court right now. But I do believe constitutionally we have the power to rotate judges to other courts and that brings in new blood into the Supreme Court and a majority I hope that will understand that a woman has a right to control her own body and that corporations cannot run the United States of America."

    It is all about control and putting people in power that you agree with. 
    Rotating judges for your own agenda obviously isn't a good thing. That said, there are plenty of conservatives who believe in women's rights and the general idea behind a rotating court to keep it from stagnating is obviously still good.


  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @dustryder
    Meh, I'd say that FDR's little attempted court stacking fiasco violated it far before 2016, but whatever. 
    Tell me exact what McConnell did and how that was far worse than anything else in history regarding the SCOTUS.

    Being on the Supreme Court pays well and it is one of the most prestigious positions anyone can hold. To think that rotating courts is a good idea is incredibly naive. You think they won't pander to their boss to keep that job? Their duty is to interpret the constitution, not play along in some damn popularity contest to keep their job.
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 840
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Meh, I'd say that FDR's little attempted court stacking fiasco violated it far before 2016, but whatever. 
    Tell me exact what McConnell did and how that was far worse than anything else in history regarding the SCOTUS.
    It's quite simple. Upon a SCOTUS seat being vacated, the president nominates a new judge upon which the senate votes to confirm or reject. The senate majority leader in this particular instance has the ability to decide whether or not something is to be voted upon. In this case, the senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell decided that under no circumstances would Obama's nomination be voted upon.

    As for why I think it was far worse than anything else in history regarding the SCOTUS, I don't. I have no idea where you got this notion from and I will thank you to actually pay attention to my words instead of inventing random things.

    I think the move was incredibly depraved, but more importantly it stacked the court. Which has been my entire point all along since you brought up court stacking in the first place.

    Being on the Supreme Court pays well and it is one of the most prestigious positions anyone can hold. To think that rotating courts is a good idea is incredibly naive. You think they won't pander to their boss to keep that job? Their duty is to interpret the constitution, not play along in some damn popularity contest to keep their job.
    Determining problems that can occur with any given system is a great skill to have. However giving up on those problems at the first hurdle is incredibly lazy and in your case, incredibly intellectually dishonest so let's go through this slowly.

    You think rotating courts is a bad idea, because the sitting justices will pander to their boss to keep that job, because that job provides wealth and prestige.

    How might one fix this problem? I can think of two solutions to this problem. What about you?
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,635
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @dustryder
    The fact you said that this one thing violated the "gentlemen's handshake" but that nothing else EVER before did kinda makes it the worst thing. You said "The issue is that the Republicans in this instance did not want to abide by the gentleman's handshake that has lasted for the entirety of America's history up till 2016 in filling up vacant SCOTUS seats and resorted to cheating instead."

    Cheating? Lol. They are running a country, not playing a game of wiffle ball.

    The nomination was tossed down because of both parties "due to the blockade on confirmations imposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Democratic objections to expediting Russell's nomination without confirming longer-pending Democrats"

    This also states that the nominee, Ronald G Russell was a Republican, so this wasn't made on party lines.

    Finally, this passed the House in May of 2016. Why should we allow a president with about half a year remaining make a decision like that?


    One solution is to keep things the way the Founding Fathers intended it ^_^
  • dustryder
    dustryder avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 840
    2
    2
    4
    dustryder avatar
    dustryder
    --> @bmdrocks21
    The fact you said that this one thing violated the "gentlemen's handshake" but that nothing else EVER before did kinda makes it the worst thing. You said "The issue is that the Republicans in this instance did not want to abide by the gentleman's handshake that has lasted for the entirety of America's history up till 2016 in filling up vacant SCOTUS seats and resorted to cheating instead."
    Not at all. A gentleman's handshake is but an informal agreement. The fact that it was violated might make it the worse thing in terms of honourable conduct, but it's hard to quantify it as being the worst thing in terms of the SCOTUS. Any insinuation you think I might've made that it was the worst thing is entirely imaginary on your part.

    Cheating? Lol. They are running a country, not playing a game of wiffle ball.

    cheat
    1. act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
    I don't see the problem


    The nomination was tossed down because of both parties "due to the blockade on confirmations imposed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Democratic objections to expediting Russell's nomination without confirming longer-pending Democrats"

    This also states that the nominee, Ronald G Russell was a Republican, so this wasn't made on party lines.
    Russell wasn't a SCOTUS nominee.

    Finally, this passed the House in May of 2016. Why should we allow a president with about half a year remaining make a decision like that?
    Why should a president not? It's one of his/her duties as laid out in the constitution with no reference to time remaining.

    Do you have a better argument than an arbitrary time limit where a president should not perform his role?


    One solution is to keep things the way the Founding Fathers intended it ^_^
    Keeping things the way the founding fathers intended it isn't a solution

    1. Because it's a simple and mindless appeal to authority
    2. Because I don't believe the constitution is all that specific on the structure of the supreme court, only that there is one
    3. Because keeping the status quo isn't a solution because the problem has not been fixed

    How about you try again instead of being lazy.



  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,965
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    Cheating? Lol. They are running a country, not playing a game of wiffle ball.
    From what I understand, Harry Reid was the person (a Democrat) who set up most of the existing rules regarding appointment confirmations.