Why is Impeachment such a forbidden topic?

Per Rehnquist, the intent of the Founding Fathers was reiterated and upheld -- not overruled -- by Nixon in 1993, LL. There is nothing on record like a 15th or 19th Amendment changing that intent.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Again, Nixon had to do with the authority of the Senate. The authority of the House was never at issue ... and Nixon made no complaint about the House.

On a hooker board blog you can play that cherry-picking game of quoting lines out of an opinion .... that are dicta and not relevant to the "holding" of the case. But in the real world of providing precedent for the court to rule upon it doesn't work. What you are doing is fixating on a conclusion you want and then looking for dicta to support your conclusion.

Contrary to what you say about me, and what I have posted about your focus in this thread, you on the other had are shifting the substance of what I have been saying away from the original statements I have made, because you can't find any holdings that support your opposition to what I said, which is:

the House does not have "full discretion" to impeach, but is restricted to the legal basis within the standards imposed in the Constitution, and Rhenquist AND Roberts have said if Congress acts outside the guidelines set in the Constitution the Court can and will look at it.....the same as the Court did in Nixon....(in the sense of examining and interpreting the provisions of the Constitution.)....because the Constitution gives the Court that jurisdiction over "all cases" arising out of acts of Congress.

Now don't take what I just said and distort it, like you've done before. And now you have WTF chihuahua yapping and snapping trying to prove what you distorted by changing the words I posted before.

You find the words I posted and give me the link with it where i said what you called a "lie" about what you posted. Not how you characterize what I posted, but quote all of the paragraph and/or sentence with the link to what I posted.

And then quit trying to refocus the discussion to a non-issue.

And now you have WTF chihuahua yapping and snapping.... Originally Posted by LexusLover

WTF is a half-breed poodle, not a chihuahua...

Contrary to what you say about me, and what I have posted about your focus in this thread, you on the other had are shifting the substance of what I have been saying away from the original statements I have made, because you can't find any holdings that support your opposition to what I said, which is:

Now don't take what I just said and distort it, like you've done before. And now you have WTF chihuahua yapping and snapping trying to prove what you distorted by changing the words I posted before.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

I can't believe that you never realized that that is IB's modus operandi.

But Bush and Cheney were okay, right? No high crimes or misdemeanors there. No, sir. </sarcasm>

What quote? Be specific. You want to bet on what? Give me the quote in which you claim I was "lying"! We will go from there. (FYI .. not what IBH said I said, but my actual post on which you desire to piss off your money.)



I posted what I posted. Now you find my post and claim it's a lie. Don't expect me to pull up everything I've posted and play gotcha with your childish ass. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Post number 144 , the one where you quoted IB and posted the following...

But you all go about your fantasy of "impeaching" Obminable.

It's not a "forbidden topic."

It's a waste of time, if which "we" don't have a lot. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You quoted IB and then wrote But you all go about your fantasy of "impeaching" Obminable.

Like I had stated earlier, IB has said it would not be a good political move. You kept implying that he wanted to impeach.

he's senile, wtf...

I can't believe that you never realized that that is IB's modus operandi. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

He's not alone, and that is not a veiled reference to you, at all, btw.

he's senile, wtf... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Not really ...

IBH:
"IMO: ".. if Odumbo were white, I'd urge my Congressman to impeach." Post #12

Translation: I want to impeach him, but he's the wrong color!

You all play your word games and waste another week.

But take it up with IBH... not me.

My posting was academic in response to the obsession with impeaching Obaminable. I have been opposed to impeaching any President since Nixon.

Again, Nixon had to do with the authority of the Senate. The authority of the House was never at issue ... and Nixon made no complaint about the House.

On a hooker board blog you can play that cherry-picking game of quoting lines out of an opinion .... that are dicta and not relevant to the "holding" of the case. But in the real world of providing precedent for the court to rule upon it doesn't work. What you are doing is fixating on a conclusion you want and then looking for dicta to support your conclusion.

Contrary to what you say about me, and what I have posted about your focus in this thread, you on the other had are shifting the substance of what I have been saying away from the original statements I have made, because you can't find any holdings that support your opposition to what I said, which is:

the House does not have "full discretion" to impeach, but is restricted to the legal basis within the standards imposed in the Constitution, and Rhenquist AND Roberts have said if Congress acts outside the guidelines set in the Constitution the Court can and will look at it.....the same as the Court did in Nixon....(in the sense of examining and interpreting the provisions of the Constitution.)....because the Constitution gives the Court that jurisdiction over "all cases" arising out of acts of Congress.

Now don't take what I just said and distort it, like you've done before. And now you have WTF chihuahua yapping and snapping trying to prove what you distorted by changing the words I posted before.

You find the words I posted and give me the link with it where i said what you called a "lie" about what you posted. Not how you characterize what I posted, but quote all of the paragraph and/or sentence with the link to what I posted.

And then quit trying to refocus the discussion to a non-issue. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Founding Fathers, per the Constitution, unequivocally granted "sole power" to impeach to Congress, LL. That's the text in the Constitution, and that intent is supported by all extant notes in regards to the convention. Nixon was the only case in the last 50 years to challenge the Founding Father's intent, LL, so it it is relevant. In Nixon, Rehnquist was unequivocal when he reiterated what was in the Constitution: the judiciary has no role in the impeachment process per the intent of the Founding Fathers, LL. That opinion is a bald statement of fact, LL, and all of your semantical quibbling does not change what Rehnquist said.

BTW, LL, you were lying when you falsely equated Story, Justia, Cornell, Rehnquist, C. J., Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, J., Stevens, J., White, J., Blackmun, J., Souter, J. etc., as being "Wikipedia sources" and when you lyingly claimed that I advocated that Odumbo -- the first "black" president in the WH -- be impeached

I can't believe that you never realized that that is IB's modus operandi. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The only modus operandi I subscribe to, speedy, is to factually repudiating your stupid notions.

IBH:
"IMO: ".. if Odumbo were white, I'd urge my Congressman to impeach." Post #12 Originally Posted by LexusLover

You do dissemble, don't you, LL, because I quite clearly stated that impeaching Odumbo would hurt -- not help -- this Republic, which directly and pointedly refutes your statements and implications that I said I wanted to impeach "Odumbo", LL.

The subject of this thread is now and has been none other than "Odumbo", LL: the one in the WH. So are you now arguing that Odumbo is "white", LL? Because such a character doesn't exist, LL. To prove you are not lying, LL, you need to show where I said I was for impeaching "Odumbo": the "black" Odumbo that actually lives in the WH, LL, because Odumbo considers himself to be "black", LL, not white, brown or yellow.

Until you produce such a quote wherein I stated I was for impeaching "Odumbo", the real and "black" Odumbo that currently lives in the WH rather than some imaginary "white" Odumbo as you contend, LL, you are lying.

My posting was academic in response to the obsession with impeaching Obaminable. I have been opposed to impeaching any President since Nixon. Originally Posted by LexusLover

As have I but that was not my point in regards to you implying that IB thought is would be political a good option to impeach Obama.

Not really ...

IBH:
"IMO: ".. if Odumbo were white, I'd urge my Congressman to impeach." Post #12

Translation: I want to impeach him, but he's the wrong color!
. Originally Posted by LexusLover

What you posted in fact proves exactly what I have said.

While I do not agree with IB on the skin color being the deciding factor , he is not a proponent on impeaching Obama.

You all play your word games and waste another week.

But take it up with IBH... not me.

. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Words are all we have . I am not trying to twist IB words to fit an agenda. I am trying to be truthful. You are the one who seems to try and twist others words or accuse them of drinking or trying to impress bimbo's. Every time you do those kind of things , people know you have lost the debate and are resorting to trying to distract from that fact.

"...what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.” Odumbo, Chicago, 25 November 2014.

.. in regards to you implying that IB thought is would be political a good option to impeach Obama. Originally Posted by WTF

You are trying to be "truthful"?

I NEVER implied or stated ...

"that IB thought is (sic) would be political a good option to impeach Obama."

That is an absolute lie.


I ONLY said he wanted to impeach Obaminable.

And he says he wants to impeach, but his skin color is wrong!

He even says he would go to his congressman. That sounds like he wants to impeach him to me. And that is what I said.

Go "prove it" to your bimboes.

And spend the next month pissing, whining, and moaning.

Impeach deez nuts in you mouf, MF'kerssss!!!!!!!

Impeach deez nuts in you mouf, MF'kerssss!!!!!!! Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

Does that mean you don't want to impeach Obminable either?

I ONLY said he wanted to impeach Obaminable.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

you all go about your fantasy of "impeaching" Obminable. Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's what he wants, which means he really wants Biden to be President. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You guys want the House to indict Obama .... Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Constitution establishes for what the House can impeach and for what the Senate can convict. Period.

And you guys really don't want "to go there"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

You lie when you say or insinuate such, LL. And my full statement -- in context -- directly refutes your lie regarding impeaching Odumbo, LL, just as the Founding Fathers and Rehnquist refute your interpretation of the Constitution.

IMO if Odumbo were white, I'd urge my Congressman to impeach. But Odumbo isn't white, and the political fall-out -- violence in the streets -- would off-set any imaginable political reward. Originally Posted by I B Hankering