• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Alito = No Bush Impeachment

changintimes

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Does Alito getting into The Supreme Court mean we will never be able to impeach Bush? Even if we get a majority in the 2006 elections?

Any guilty decision would just bounce to The Supreme Court, and Alito would presumably help Bush stay in power and The Supreme Court would slap down any impeachment decision.

Could this be the Bush Administration's plan?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
changintimes said:
Does Alito getting into The Supreme Court mean we will never be able to impeach Bush? Even if we get a majority in the 2006 elections?

Any guilty decision would just bounce to The Supreme Court, and Alito would presumably help Bush stay in power and The Supreme Court would slap down any impeachment decision.

Could this be the Bush Administration's plan?
How would a guilty decision "bounce to the Supreme Court"? Are you reading the same US Constitution that I'm reading?
 

changintimes

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Kandahar said:
How would a guilty decision "bounce to the Supreme Court"? Are you reading the same US Constitution that I'm reading?
remember how bush first got into office?

by a supreme court ruling, for the 2000 election,
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
changintimes said:
remember how bush first got into office?

by a supreme court ruling, for the 2000 election,
The impeachment proceedings start in the house and given a majority vote the proceedings then move on to the senate and if the senate votes for impeachment by a 2/3 majority vote then the President will be impeached, the supreme court doesn't have anything to do with it, and as for Bush winning in 2000 he got the majority of electoral votes that's our system of government lump it or leave it.
 

changintimes

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
thanks sweetie,

so then i guess you're saying there would be no "impeachment trial"?

and the elections were stolen, how many republican scandles must there be before you realize they may have stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections as well? as the left has been saying and supporting with all types of evidence for years,
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
changintimes said:
thanks sweetie,

so then i guess you're saying there would be no "impeachment trial"?

and the elections were stolen, how many republican scandles must there be before you realize they may have stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections as well? as the left has been saying and supporting with all types of evidence for years,
How's your tin foil hat? The Supreme Court has nothing to do with Impeachment, and Bush and the Republicans didn't steal anything the left wing psychos do a pretty good job of turning off the American people all on their own.

As for a Republican scandal I take it that you know all ready that former minority leader Tom "the hammer" Dashle, as well as, the current minority leader Harry Reid, allong with a slew of other Democratic senators recieved upwards of 1.5 million dollars from Jack Abramoff.

This isn't a Republican scandal it is a bi-paritisan scandal. Oh and the left hasn't been supporting anything they've been misrepresenting the truth and just plain lying.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
changintimes said:
remember how bush first got into office?

by a supreme court ruling, for the 2000 election,
What does that have to do with impeachment?
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
changintimes said:
Does Alito getting into The Supreme Court mean we will never be able to impeach Bush? Even if we get a majority in the 2006 elections?

Any guilty decision would just bounce to The Supreme Court, and Alito would presumably help Bush stay in power and The Supreme Court would slap down any impeachment decision.

Could this be the Bush Administration's plan?
In order to be impeached you would have to have committed a crime like "Slick Willie" did.........Since President Bush has not been convicted nor has he committed any crime no impeachment...........
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I think you need to study your civics lesson a litte more, that's not how an impeachment and vote to remove works, the Supreme Court has not role and cannot interfer.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
changintimes said:
thanks sweetie,

so then i guess you're saying there would be no "impeachment trial"?
ROFL he's saying go read your constitution, it's all spelled out quite clearly and it's nothing like you think it is.

and the elections were stolen,
Bush won the most states and in particular in Florida won the most votes, that's the facts, that's reality.


how many republican scandles must there be before you realize...............
Maybe when they catch up with the Democrats...............
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Navy Pride said:
In order to be impeached you would have to have committed a crime like "Slick Willie" did.........Since President Bush has not been convicted nor has he committed any crime no impeachment...........
Actually you don't have to commit a crime. The Congress can pretty much impeach a President for anything they can muster the votes for, but it's a pretty high bar requiring a 3/4 vote. And then they have to face the voters afterwards so they better not do it lightly. Misdeameanor, back in the days the constitution was written, meant nothing more than misbehavior. So for instance say a President decides he just doesn't want to go to work anymore and heads off to Monoco to lead the good life. Won't take calls won't do his job, congress can impeach him for misdeameanors. AND in my opinion Clinton should have been impeached because of his misdeameanor behavior let alone the fact that he actually broke the law and engaged in felonious behavior.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
changintimes said:
thanks sweetie,

so then i guess you're saying there would be no "impeachment trial"?

and the elections were stolen, how many republican scandles must there be before you realize they may have stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections as well? as the left has been saying and supporting with all types of evidence for years,




Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, and even Nixon are among those leaders who have been elected without a majority of the popular vote. Why is it that, with President Bush, all we hear from the left is how he "stole" the elections. The Democratic Party have started a wonderful global tradition. After elections, it is the duty of the opposition to declare voter frauds and controversies. See Iraq, "Palestine," Germany, etc...
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I love this thread! The liberals are already setting their lame excuse up for why this silly impeachment talk will never get wings. Brilliant.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
In order to be impeached you would have to have committed a crime like "Slick Willie" did.........Since President Bush has not been convicted nor has he committed any crime no impeachment...........
No, in order to be impeached the House of Representatives has to vote to impeach you. You certainly don't have to commit a crime.

PS Bill Clinton was not convicted of any crime.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kandahar said:
No, in order to be impeached the House of Representatives has to vote to impeach you. You certainly don't have to commit a crime.

PS Bill Clinton was not convicted of any crime.
Oh yes he did. It's called perjury.
 

changintimes

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
this thread is so warped to the right i really feel it could be controlled by the bush administration, kind of like fox,
 

changintimes

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
this thread is so warped to the right i really feel it could be controlled by the bush administration, kind of like fox,

money is the bottom line here, isn't it, not people,
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
changintimes said:
this thread is so warped to the right i really feel it could be controlled by the bush administration, kind of like fox,

money is the bottom line here, isn't it, not people,
How is pointing out that the impeachment proceeding has nothing to do with the Supreme Court have any thing to do with left and right politics?
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
changintimes said:
thanks sweetie,

so then i guess you're saying there would be no "impeachment trial"?

and the elections were stolen, how many republican scandles must there be before you realize they may have stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections as well? as the left has been saying and supporting with all types of evidence for years,
I'm very comfortable in stating that I am one of the most liberal posters in this community BUT your entire premise of this thread is wrong, completely. The Supreme Court has NOTHING to do with the Impeachment Process other than the Chief Justice would be the presiding judge should Bush be impeached and stand trial in the Senate.

The Court itself has no bearing on the final result, and there isn't any way for The Court to affect the outcome....
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
In order to be impeached you would have to have committed a crime like "Slick Willie" did.........Since President Bush has not been convicted nor has he committed any crime no impeachment...........
Typical diversion for you, again! This thread has nothing to do with judging Bush and has absolutely nothing to do with Clinton...why must you divert every damn thread with your one line posts? How hard is it to stay on topic?????:roll:
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
Actually you don't have to commit a crime. The Congress can pretty much impeach a President for anything they can muster the votes for, but it's a pretty high bar requiring a 3/4 vote.
Amazing that people don't know the rules of impeachment! You're not close to the truth...Let's set the record striaght!

The House can impeach the President with a MAJORITY vote, not 3/4 vote! Then The Senate has a trial presided over by The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. To convict a 2/3 majority is needed and then the President is removed from office. Your 3/4 thing is wrong.
Stinger said:
And then they have to face the voters afterwards so they better not do it lightly. Misdeameanor, back in the days the constitution was written, meant nothing more than misbehavior. So for instance say a President decides he just doesn't want to go to work anymore and heads off to Monoco to lead the good life. Won't take calls won't do his job, congress can impeach him for misdeameanors.
What! Are you kidding me! This is totally ridiculous! Incredible!
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
26 X World Champs said:
Amazing that people don't know the rules of impeachment! You're not close to the truth...Let's set the record striaght!

The House can impeach the President with a MAJORITY vote,
I was speaking of the high bar for removal, not the impeachment vote

not 3/4 vote! Then The Senate has a trial presided over by The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. To convict a 2/3 majority is needed and then the President is removed from office. Your 3/4 thing is wrong.
The point being a supermajority and I stand corrected (in a hurry and guessed of the top of my head whether it was 3/4 or 2/3)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
And then they have to face the voters afterwards so they better not do it lightly. Misdeameanor, back in the days the constitution was written, meant nothing more than misbehavior. So for instance say a President decides he just doesn't want to go to work anymore and heads off to Monoco to lead the good life. Won't take calls won't do his job, congress can impeach him for misdeameanors.

What! Are you kidding me! This is totally ridiculous! Incredible!
No that is fact. It is surprising how many come to this not knowing that historical fact. For instance where in Art. X against Johnson the charge is the he spoke disparagingly about the congress and did so too loudly.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
And then they have to face the voters afterwards so they better not do it lightly. Misdeameanor, back in the days the constitution was written, meant nothing more than misbehavior. So for instance say a President decides he just doesn't want to go to work anymore and heads off to Monoco to lead the good life. Won't take calls won't do his job, congress can impeach him for misdeameanors.

No that is fact. It is surprising how many come to this not knowing that historical fact. For instance where in Art. X against Johnson the charge is the he spoke disparagingly about the congress and did so too loudly.
with all due respect...you're really stretching here. You wrote that if Bush decided to chainsaw shrub for the rest of his term and did nothing else he could be impeached. I say that is like saying if he was caught stealing gum from a candy store he could be impeached...except that your and my two scenarios would never happen so it's a foolish statement, sorry.

As far as Johnson goes, that was 140 somthing years ago and has no basis on what would or could happen today.

The truth is that articles of impeachment in the 21st century would have to be against a specific real event, not a non-event like a permanent sabbatical. Now if you want to argue that the partisan GOP House overreached their authority in 1998 I would agree with you wholeheartedly. That truly was a partisan attempt at a Coup D'Etat that had no support from the American public and was soley enacted to get votes. You'll never admit this truth, but so what! It was like Navy Pride was given the authority to impeach Clinton, that's about all the creditability that those actions had.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
I was speaking of the high bar for removal, not the impeachment vote
Actually this is exactly what you wrote:
Stinger said:
Actually you don't have to commit a crime. The Congress can pretty much impeach a President for anything they can muster the votes for, but it's a pretty high bar requiring a 3/4 vote.
To again clarify, IMPEACH means INDICT. To convict as you did later admit it is a 2/3 vote and then the President is removed. That is a CONVICTION. The IMPEACHMENT is the INDICTMENT that leads to the Senate trial and a simple majority is all that is required for an IMPEACHMENT.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
changintimes said:
thanks sweetie,

so then i guess you're saying there would be no "impeachment trial"?

and the elections were stolen, how many republican scandles must there be before you realize they may have stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections as well? as the left has been saying and supporting with all types of evidence for years,

The "impeachement trial" is carried out by the senate.

The House indicts, the Senate Tries. I do believe, the Chief Justice "presides" over the trial, but not the whole SCOTUS. Any Judicial intervention in any Impeachement would be that of the Chief Justice, currenty Roberts.
 
Top Bottom