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.
McConnell isn’t going to lift a finger to stop Obama or Reid, he is too busy fighting the TEA Party
Megyn Kelly not too bright, is she.
>> The House can force a Senate trial but what’s the use of that when we all know what the verdict will be? 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.
What a loser attitude.
“Megyn Kelly to McConnell: If Obama’s executive power grabs are so terrible, why not impeach him?”
I’m surprised Ole Gas Bag didn’t faint at the suggestion.
.....ell only 5% can spell it
Why not impeach him?
Because he’s “black”.
Next question?
Smart & hot in my book...
Mitch needs to be impeached.
Good Megyn. Give the old toad a heart attack.
p.s. are you making a statement with your name - Me-gyn.
“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?”
How about because it’s the RIGHT THING TO DO?!? Gutless pubbies, and a whole administration that is a criminal enterprise, from gun-running to malfeasance, nonfeasance, and political extortion.
The whole damn bunch of them should be in prison. Along with the pubbies who won’t take up the issues.
I saw that, she was asking that rhetorically.
She was trying to point out in her opinion the futility of going to the courts to stop Obama, saying that Holder would be the one to enforce the courts rulings.
She must know that Reid controls the Senate.
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.
Clinton weathered it and came out stronger because the RINOs in the Senate, led by Chester "Henry, you're not going to dump this garbage on us" Lott, completely undermined the House managers and refused to conduct a real trial. That allowed the Clintonistas and their media sycophants to claim the entire proceeding was groundless and really just a witch hunt by puritanical conservatives over sex.
That right there is "Bullshit!"*
Impeachment is entirely the House's responsibility.
Conviction and penalty is the Senate's job. Low information voters don't know the difference, and also, apparently some RINO politicians far up the food chain.
Woud it be a waste of time?
Only if you consider that the accusation process, listing his illegal acts, is a waste of time. It's exactly as when an organized crime kingpin has bought the jusdge. Doesn't make the crime any less important.
“A punishment as severe as removal from office...” ?
This common misperception has got to change. Hanging is severe; removal from office is nothing more than an administrative remedy.
Did Mitch twitch?
What a feeb.
America’s so infiltrated and compromised, that won’t happen either; they control the majority of the Judiciary.
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.