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.
More like a realistic one.
Wedding ring on her finger? Why do married women pose for such public things?
Of course it’s a waste of time. It’s political theater, and would accomplish nothing of any significance, besides giving every House R the ability to go back home and say “I voted for impeachment”.
Perhaps her husband took the picture before dinner?/sarc
Because they can.
When you allow a president to thumb his nose and act lawlessly you’re on a slippery slope to losing everything. These Rinos are worthless. And we’re all going to suffer because of it
I understand the leadership’s reluctance, given the history of Clinton’s impeachment, but President Obama’s violations of his oath of office are stark and numerous.
It would be interesting to see how it would play out if the House just put forward an impeachment motion without any histrionics whatsoever. Just list the articles of impeachment and the evidence that supports each article. Stick to clear examples of his lawlessness and skip over any that suggest that he was simply unaware, such as F&F, Benghazi, etc. Instead, go for the ones where he clearly contravened existing law, of which there are plenty of examples.
The benefit of doing this would be the list itself, that and then getting most Democrats to vote against it. His failure to bring the IRS to heel should be included. Let the Dems vote to let the IRS keep hammering citizens for political reasons.
Stick to the facts, keep it serious and apolitical. This is just what the Constitution calls for, etc.
By election day, every Dem would be on record supporting what many voters think is clearly lawless behavior with regard to illegal aliens, IRS harassment, cutting breaks for unions on Obamacare as well as for Congressional staff, etc. Pick the issues that voters will support, but leave out the histrionics. Do it dispassionately and seriously as though it has to be done out of respect for the Constitution, which is true.
An added benefit would be getting the MSM on record supporting his behavior in each issue, as opposed to sweeping it all under the rug as they’ve been doing so far. It will be hard for them to ignore each issue included in an impeachment article.
Yeah.
Just like they did against the blatantly illegal Obamacare power grab.
What good is having an opposition party if they don't have the balls to oppose anything?
Its the same thing as when the House impeached Billy Jeff. The Senate will not try him so its a waste of time. Unless he can be removed I would not fool with it. Dems wear impeachment like a badge of honor. When you have no sense of shame nothing can shame you.
The Democrats will BEG the Republicans to do it after 2014 so they can have their scapegoat.
Unfortunately talk of impeachment is a complete and utter waste of time that will serve as little more than a get out the vote campaign for democrats.
I’d rather see criminal convictions that can stick when these marxist traitors return to civilian life.
I know she’s married....but, I thought the same thing....guess that’s today’s FOX foxes PR methods...
It’s her job to flaunt her body and it pays $millions.
You’re thinking of McConnell. Megyn is the smart one.
Obama and his Democrat’s greatest wish is that Republicans will try to impeach the first Black President. Media Shit Storm doesn’t begin to describe what will follow.
How “realistic” is Obamacare?
Democrats push forward. Republicans “can’t” do. The 20th century has been a long slow retreat by inarticulate compromising dolts, with a few notable exceptions (Reagan).
How about put the Democrats on defense? Make the case, for the record.
The Republicans are rudderless.
FOX News, in keeping with obtaining qualified people to be on their news team, gets another female member with an impressive resume.
Check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/dG7fiKTKGwI?feature=player_detailpage
Wow. All that, and a lawyer, too!
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.