Posted on 01/14/2014 12:45:29 PM PST by SeekAndFind
She’s asking rhetorically, not egging Senator Mitch McConnell on. The obvious logistical problem, as many a Republican officeholder has noted when asked about this by an angry constituent, is that impeachment is DOA in the Senate as long as it’s controlled by Democrats. The House can force a Senate trial but what’s the use of that when we all know what the verdict will be? (For that reason, this question is better aimed at Boehner than at McConnell.) And no, retaking the Senate next year doesn’t solve the problem. You need two-thirds of the chamber to convict an impeached president; Republicans won’t be remotely close to 67 seats, no matter how big this year’s November wave is.
The political problem is that Republicans fear impeaching O would do more to hurt them than it would the president. Not only did Clinton weather the storm, so did his approval rating. If you’ve got a weak president in office like Obama who’s facing a debacle from his signature legislation between now and the next presidential election, why make any sudden moves to mess with that dynamic if you’re a Republican? They’re probably going to get a good result from SCOTUS on Obama’s NLRB power grab; if they want to push back against executive overreach, court battles might be fruitful high-publicity ways of doing it with minimal political risk — certain difficulties notwithstanding.
To solve their political problem, the GOP would have to convince a majority of the public (probably a big majority) that impeachment is warranted. But that’s the thing — even when the president’s guilty of encroaching on another branch’s powers or suspending parts of the law that are politically inconvenient to him, you’ll never find a majority of Americans willing to entertain a punishment as severe as removal from office for that. To make impeachment stick, you need to show that the president’s motives for acting were rotten and selfish, like Nixon’s; O, by contrast, always takes care to present his motives for ignoring Congress as civic-minded, something he does for the good of the people, not for himself. Tim Scott once suggested that Obama could be impeached if he tried to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, but the public would never support that, I suspect. He’d simply say that he was driven to desperate measures to protect the country’s creditworthiness; at best you’d get a 50/50 split in public opinion on whether he should be punished, and I doubt the ratio would be even that good. Ron Paul once suggested that impeachment should be on the table for O’s drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, who was, after all, a U.S. citizen. O defended that by insisting he was acting to protect America from a particularly dangerous terrorist. I’d be surprised if you could get even 20 percent of the public angry enough to support impeachment over that one. A constitutionalist would wave his hand at all of the above and say that motives are irrelevant — if you violate due process or separation of powers, impeachment is an obvious remedy, however allegedly virtuous the motives. That’s what it means to follow the rule of law. How many constitutionalists are out there in the voting booth on election day, though? Fifteen percent of the electorate, maybe? Less?
Exit question: Will any big-name Republican pound the table for impeachment next year? Ted Cruz’s language about Obama’s lawlessness has been especially strong lately. He knows, of course, that the votes aren’t there in the Senate, but he knew they weren’t there for the “defund” effort either and he pushed that anyway. The key, then and now, was getting the House to act. O would survive but some conservatives would love Cruz for making the effort, which would be helpful to him when the primary campaign starts in 2015.
>> What do you think it would accomplish, exactly?
Impeachment removes a lawless Executive.
“Impeachment removes a lawless Executive.”
No, impeachment just sets us up for defeat in the Senate and leaves Obama still in office.
>> Instead you can devote those resources to something that might accomplish something.
Like what? The Republicans are rolled up in a ball doing nothing.
Thy can draw up individual articles of impeachment and when the senate fails to convict on one they can bring forth another... and another... and another. It’ll drive home the lawlessness of the administration and the senate democrats and put on display the direct dereliction of their sworn oaths to uphold the constitution. Plus, it’ll take up a lot of time and effort and derail the administration’s plans for further destroying this nation and congress will be so busy with the steady flow of impeachments that they can’t pass any more crappy multi-thousand page laws. Gum up the works and show the low info voters what a tyrant 0bama has been.
>> No, impeachment just sets us up for defeat in the Senate and leaves Obama still in office.
How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball?
“Like what?”
Taking back the Senate in 2014 and getting a Conservative nominated for President in 2016. For a start. Those we at least have some hope of accomplishing.
>> Those we at least have some hope of accomplishing.
So you do have a crystal ball.
Someone should ask Sarah Palin what would be her first ten executive orders during her first month of office now that the precident has been set.
A crystal ball isn’t necessary, just basic arithmetic. There are not enough Senate seats in play in 2014. Even if we won every single seat (and we won’t), we would still be shy of the votes needed to remove Obama from office.
We would need to:
a) win every single Senate seat up for play in 2014
b) get every wishy-washy liberal RINO to vote for removal
and
c) get some socialist Independents and Democrats to switch sides and vote with us for removal
I think I can safely say this is not going to happen before Obama’s term is up.
The problem with winning in court is that the courts themselves are relatively powerless. They can issue judgments and decisions but without an enforcement mechanism those are only words on paper. Who is going to enforce court verdicts at the federal level? The DoJ? And who heads that up? Anyone want to take bets that Eric Holder will do anything to cross his bro-ham?
I have won any number of judgments in court as a plaintiff but if the defendant simply ignores the judgment where does that leave you? I had to hire a P.I. to track a deadbeat down and then go back to court to get liens and garnishments and by the time you added it all up I was on the losing end financially.
As far as impeachment goes, my guess is Obama's reaction will be, just try it. He knows he could kill his family in broad daylight on the front lawn of the WH and not a single 'Rat in the Senate would vote to convict him.
Well, I will concede that there must be evidence of presidential perfidy like that revealed by the Nixon oval office tapes. You assume this can never be. But there is a lot that we do not know about Obama, and one may assume a lot of dirt under the carpet. If the Republicans do not choose to look for it, or to reveal it, then One must assume they won’t to reserve to themselves the power that Obama has seized.
Hey, I’m just looking at reality, informed by very simple logic and common sense. I have absolute certainty that when I say it won’t happen, it won’t happen. Perhaps you’d be more comfortable if I said: “it would take a miracle for it to happen”?
I’m so certain this won’t happen, that I am willing to lay money on it. Are you willing to do the same on your longshot bet?
Impeachment is a political act. The goal must be to raise doubts about the President in the public, to discredit him. No one in the Republican leadership has done the least thing to do this.
So, basically, political theater. That’s about the best you can hope for pursuing this route, and there is no guarantee it will have the PR effect that you hope, or that it won’t backfire on us.
If that’s what we want to try, let’s at least be honest about that to ourselves before we make the decision.
You omit one very important factor: public pressure.
The point is: make the case. With the exception of Lee and especially Cruz NO ONE stands up to Obama. The Republicans make no effort to oppose Obama. They will not make the case for his removal. They are his allies.
That is the problem. Cowering can’t-do Republicans. They make me sick.
If they would stand and fight then if the senate failed to convict it will be to their shame... and electoral defeat. Make the case. Build public support. TRY.
Is that you John Boehner?
“Well, I will concede that there must be evidence of presidential perfidy like that revealed by the Nixon oval office tapes. You assume this can never be.”
Not quite. I assume that, no matter what perfidy might be unearthed, you will never get the rats to switch sides and vote with us against one of their own. I don’t think that is a very radical assumption, at all.
Gee, I might not be able to finish typing up that thing I was going to do at work today, guess I might as well stay home.
You are exactly correct here. It should not be about “throwing Obambi out of office.” It should be about upholding and preserving the Constitution: nothing more and nothing less.
Doing what you suggest will get every Congressman on record. The voters can then vote accordingly in 2016.
If this is not done, we are not living under a Constitutional republic anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.