Posted on 01/30/2020 6:56:48 PM PST by deplorableindc
A vote for witnesses is a vote to be the minority party and a vote to not have a committee chairmanship. Mitch is not stupid.
It continues to astound me that the Pearl Clutchers thought Turtle wouldn’t be able to whip this.
It’s time for a support group; Pearl Clutchers Anonymous.
He’s the tie breaker
Hey WTF Bud, I told you I’d send you the video. Trust me, I’ve had enough of you.
You obviously didn’t hear Murkowski’s question in the senate. Roberts votes to break a tie. Get someone to do the math for you.
“You obviously didn’t hear Murkowski’s question in the senate. Roberts votes to break a tie. Get someone to do the math for you.”
Good grief are you freakin ignorant or just plain obtuse?
Her question means nothing and indicates nothing.
A tie (50/50) if Murkowski votes FOR witnesses results in the measure to call witnesses FAILING!!!!!!!!! Roberts has absolutely NO part to play in a tie scenario PERIOD.
Look it up.
Yes, Roberts could insert himself into this in case of a tie. Look it up where? Show me the ironclad rule. Murkowski’s question does show her state of mind as she “sleeps on the question”. Are you always such an asshole?
Some just have to be trolls.
I really dont blame you youngster for being ignorant. It is the education system that failed you.
At least you should not display it for all to see.
Sorry, do not suffer fools gladly...
After hearing that question, knowing Murkowski’s record, my hat’s off to you being so supremely confident while this Never Trumper RINO slept on it.
I wasn’t “supremely confident” nor was I ridiculously defeatist making hyperbolic and mindless speculative comments such as this...
“Doesn’t much matter, Romney, Collins, Murkowski and Chief Justice DS will vote for witnesses. The only real question is whether they will allow only democrat witnesses. I’m beginning to believe, more than likely, that will be the case. House Impeachment/Kavanaugh 2.0”
Most of the folks on this forum are well informed, thoughtful and realistic when offering assessments to the group and expect the same from others.
Whatever. You bet on a rabid anti Trump RINO, who went against everything she’s stood for in regard to Trump, and got lucky.
Hate to keep making you look foolish but perhaps you’ll learn something before posting silly nonsense the next time. Now it appears as though both your posting conjectures were dead wrong...
“Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rejected Democratic efforts to rope him into possibly playing an active role in the impeachment trial of President Trump, saying he will not cast any tie-breaking votes.”
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3812685/posts
You were of course wrong on whether the CJ could have made the tie breaking vote. It was his decision to make. It is not law as you said. Had Murkowski thrown in with Romney and his tie breaking vote mattered, you have no idea which way he would have went. Ok, I get it, you called how Murkowski went. Now stop your pompous ass crowing. You guessed right on Murkowski but were dead wrong about whether the CJ could have cast a tie breaker, it was his call to make. I guess I need to msg you constantly about how friggin stupid you were in making such a stupid and wrong statement about Roberts not having the ability to vote. How stupid you were. Some of us aren’t as stupid as you, etc., etc., etc., over and over. Where was the constitutional law you stupidly quoted about the CJ not being able to vote. Its happened before! How stupid of you. Wise up like the rest of us. F off
It is the “law” of the Senate as anything he attempted along the lines you stated “would” have been without precedent and could easily have been overridden by a Senate vote.
Read the article I sent you Einstein:
“Sen. Charles E. Schumer, Democrats’ floor leader, had suggested the chief justice could break ties, pointing back to the trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, where the chief justice at that time did cast votes to break two ties on PROCEEDURAL ISSUES.
Senators rebelled against that involvement, and Chief Justice Roberts said he didn’t consider those two “isolated episodes” to be sufficient precedent for him to get involved.
He said he would not cast a vote in case of a 50-50 tie, and in that case whatever the motion was would fail for lack of a majority.
“It would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed,” he said from the chair.”
It can be argued that the Constitution gives him limited procedural authority, but only to a point. In the end, he is NOT a Senator and does NOT get a vote, just like the judge in a trial does not get to vote with the jury. And just like the judge in a trial he does NOT call witnesses for the prosecution or the defense.
You not only stated in your ridiculous posting that he not only could but WOULD vote to break the tie. He could and would do neither.
Oh goody, more enlightenment from the renowned constitutional scholar.
What a putz.
I going to take Mark Twain’s advice now concerning “arguing with a fool.”
Have a wonderful day.
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.