Why is Impeachment such a forbidden topic?

I am not mistaken about timing...............timing is everything in politics, as in life.

It seems to me that it is the Obamazombies who don't understand the concept of timing. When they were crowing about the shutdown hurting the GOP, I don't recall anyone putting the caveat of - "only for a limited time".......

People who are saying "impeachment is a disaster for the GOP" are parroting the same - I say baloney. And the shut down is proof.

I am not mistaken about timing...............timing is everything in politics, as in life.

It seems to me that it is the Obamazombies who don't understand the concept of timing. When they were crowing about the shutdown hurting the GOP, I don't recall anyone putting the caveat of - "only for a limited time".......

. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What the shutdown did was galvanize the establishment wing of the GOP against the Tea Party wing to win in the primaries. That is wtf they did. So you may not think it hurt you TeaPeckers but it did. GOP leadership whipped you like a stepchild.

Everything is limited....you think this so called victory of yours is forever?

People who are saying "impeachment is a disaster for the GOP" are parroting the same - I say baloney. And the shut down is proof. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You better shut it down now and not anywhere near 2016!

Besides it ain't going to happen. Nobody likes Ted Cruz , including the majority in his own party.

You prove my point; in politics, the axiom is everything is temporary and changing.....

For the left loons to claim the "shutdown", "impeachment", yada yada will destroy the GOP is stupidity....glad you are now changing your tune and putting qualifiers - backing away from such stupid think.

...For the left loons to claim the "shutdown", "impeachment", yada yada will destroy the GOP is stupidity.... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

"destroy" yes, but it's not the "left loons" who are concerned about it.

#1: Why would the "left loons' try to discourage the self-destruction of the GOP?

#2: Any "mandate" of the voters in 2014 elections regarding the Republican victory was NOT a directive to "shutdown" or "impeach" .. it was to get shit done to move the country forward. Neither one of those do that.

The "arrogance" of the liberals after 2008 and 2012 should not rub off on the conservatives. This "mandate" talk is bullshit.

When people get in a shit fight everyone smells like shit when its over.

It's astonishing that someone who starts so many threads in a political forum has such an insular view of recent political machinations.

Republicans scored heavily in the recent elections in spite of, not because of, debt ceiling confrontations and government "shutdowns."

Democrats shot themselves in the foot in spectacular fashion with the ill-considered health care "reform" bill of 2010. It's the gift that keeps on giving -- for Republicans.

Wiser Republicans will do all they can to keep people like Ted Cruz sidelined. A drumbeat for impeachment would bring smiles to the faces of many Democrats.

Wiser Republicans will do all they can to keep people like Ted Cruz sidelined. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

IMO Ted Cruz only will hurt the Republicans if the rank-n-file endorse his every word .... at the moment he seems to be dismissed Nationally as "a Texan."

Through early November 2016 the Republicans need every vote they can get. It would not be good tactics to alienate or marginalize any group or block of voters interested in voting against a Democratic candidate, and open negative responses could result in a third-party movement to draw away votes or people simply sitting out the election .... as the Democrats experienced this year.

The more Cruz is "isolated" the the more independent and stronger he gets.

First, you need to show me the post in which I wrote:


"some entity other than the House has any power ... to impeach the president."

Or even anything close to it.

Youngstown, et seq, confirms Congress has the "sole power" to legislate, but that does not mean at all, as stated by Roberts for the majority in Federation , that the Courts cannot review the decision and set the decision aside if it is contrary to the authority or outside the authority of Congress as enumerated in the Constitution.

Do yourself a favor .... don't fabricate something and attribute it to me in order to appear "correct" .... just like don't fabricate what the Constitution says to appear "correct" .... Originally Posted by LexusLover

There is no "false attribution" or "fabrication" involved, LL, for as you can plainly see, one need search no further than your current post to see where you repeated your erroneous assertion that an entity other than Congress has final say in regards to impeachment:

the Courts can[...] review the decision and set the decision aside if it is contrary to the authority or outside the authority of Congress as enumerated in the Constitution. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Preeminent jurist Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833, made these assertions putting your POV on its ear, LL:

§ 761.[T]he Supreme Court is not the most appropriate tribunal to be invested with authority to try impeachments.

§ 763. In the next place, it is obvious, that the strictness of the forms of proceeding in cases of offences at common law are ill adapted to impeachments. The very habits growing out of judicial employments; the rigid manner, in which the discretion of judges is limited, and fenced in on all sides, in order to protect persons accused of crimes by rules and precedents; and the adherence to technical principles, which, perhaps, distinguishes this branch of the law, more than any other, are all ill adapted to the trial of political offences in the broad course of impeachments.

§ 788. If impeached for his conduct, while in office, he [the president, etc.] could not justly complain, since he was placed in that predicament by his own choice; and in accepting office he submitted to all the consequences.

§ 795. [T]here are many offences, purely political, which have been held to be within the reach of parliamentary impeachments, not one of which is in the slightest manner alluded to in our statute book. And, indeed, political offences are of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined, or classified, that the task of positive legislation would be impracticable, if it were not almost absurd to attempt it...

§ 797. Congress have unhesitatingly adopted the conclusion, that no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct; and the rules of proceeding, and the rules of evidence, as well as the principles of decision, have been uniformly regulated by the known doctrines of the common law and parliamentary usage. In the few cases of impeachment, which have hitherto been tried, no one of the charges has rested upon any statutable misdemeanours.

§ 798. In examining the parliamentary history of impeachments, it will be found, that many offences, not easily definable by law, and many of a purely political character, have been deemed high crimes and misdemeanours worthy of this extraordinary remedy.

§ 810. The jurisdiction to impeach is placed, where it should be, in the possession and power of the immediate representatives of the people. The trial is before a body of great dignity, and ability, and independence, possessing the requisite knowledge and firmness to act with vigour, and to decide with impartiality upon the charges...And the final judgment is confined to a removal from, and disqualification for, office; thus limiting the punishment to such modes of redress, as are peculiarly fit for a political tribunal to administer, and as will secure the public against political injuries.

In this instance, Congress "is not final because it is infallible; it is infallible because it is final."

....

"in spite of"......in other words, it wasn't a factor.

Like I said, and it appears some agree. The shutdown (and debt ceiling confrontation) didn't hurt the GOP in the 2014 elections....maybe if the GOP hadn't forced Obama to shutdown the government, they would have won 55 seats ? IDK, maybe they would have picked up New Hampshire and another seat. But the shutdown DIDN'T HURT THE BRAND.

... one need search no further than your current post to see where you repeated your erroneous assertion that an entity other than Congress has final say:

Preeminent jurist Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833, made these assertions.... Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your premise that I suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court try an impeachment is spurious at best ..... at actually is an attempt to revise what I said in order for you to dig up some "commentaries" to support your position based on your fallacious rendition of what I posted .... in order to look "correct" ....

... you really do think I am an idiot .. do you think everyone else is.

Here's what the Current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court quoted:

"And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176."

200 years of jurisprudence ... and you want to cite a "commentary"!

Why not drag out the Free Dictionary again?

You are advocating the very thing about which you accuse Obaminable .... overreaching his authority ... and want the House to brand that conduct as ... a "high crime or misdemeanor"!

IMO Ted Cruz only will hurt the Republicans if the rank-n-file endorse his every word .... at the moment he seems to be dismissed Nationally as "a Texan."

Through early November 2016 the Republicans need every vote they can get. It would not be good tactics to alienate or marginalize any group or block of voters interested in voting against a Democratic candidate, and open negative responses could result in a third-party movement to draw away votes or people simply sitting out the election .... as the Democrats experienced this year.

The more Cruz is "isolated" the the more independent and stronger he gets. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Perhaps I should clarify.

I would never advocate "isolating" Cruz to the extent that he'd be shoved into a chair somewhere in a back room and discouraged from ever speaking on TV or playing a role in the policy debate. I'm merely suggesting that GOP Senators may likely make it clear to him that few are on board with the sort of impeachment or shutdown talk that would likely backfire in the court of public opinion.

"in spite of"......in other words, it wasn't a factor.

Like I said, and it appears some agree. The shutdown (and debt ceiling confrontation) didn't hurt the GOP in the 2014 elections....maybe if the GOP hadn't forced Obama to shutdown the government, they would have won 55 seats ? IDK, maybe they would have picked up New Hampshire and another seat. But the shutdown DIDN'T HURT THE BRAND. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It may not have been a significant factor in the 2014 election because other issues (especially health care) simply outweighed it. But I doubt that Republican candidates will be seeking a shutdown encore performance -- or a loud drumbeat for impeachment -- as the run-up to the 2016 campaign gets underway.

Your premise that I suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court try an impeachment is spurious at best ..... at actually an attempt to revise what I said in order for you to dig up some "commentaries" to support your position based on your fallacious rendition of what I posted ....

... you really do think I am an idiot .. do you think everyone else is.

Here's what the Current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court quoted:

"And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176."

200 years of jurisprudence ... and you want to cite a "commentary"!

Why not drag out the Free Dictionary again? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are you or are you not claiming that the Court has final say by way of review, LL? From your posts, as cited above, it is quite apparent that you are claiming that the Court can overturn the results of an impeachment proceeding, LL. And if that is your position, you have no standing in the history of jurisprudence in this country. The power to "impeach" belongs to Congress and Congress alone: no second guessing by the Court.

Perhaps I should clarify.

I'm merely suggesting that GOP Senators may likely make it clear to him that few are on board with the sort of impeachment or shutdown talk that would likely backfire in the court of public opinion. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Now that 2014 is "behind" .... I suspect a chat will occur.

If for no other reason than to mention as a potential example the demise of one Louisiana Senator when her Party abandoned her.

Are you or are you not claiming... Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I have posted what I am going to post on the topic ....

.. you keep citing the Free Dictionary and dead commentaries. OK?

May be you didn't read it the 3rd time ...

Here's what the Current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court quoted:

"And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175–176."

Let's hope, shall we, that in neither one of our life-times will Congress be so arrogant and stupid as to create a "test case" for the U.S. Supreme Court to hand them their ass back for overreaching ("transgressing") the "limits" on Congressional authority established by the U.S. Constitution with regard to impeachment proceedings.

Your "claim" has been that Congress has "full discretion" ... the majority in National Federation thinks otherwise with regard to the "limits of Federal power" imposed upon Congress.

If you want to hang your hat on being as smart as CJ Roberts, I feel sorry for you. He's a politician, not a scholar. And do you know the history behind Marbury? Obviously not. Marshall should have recused himself if he had an ounce of integrity. The ONLY function the SCOTUS has in impeachment is to preside over the trial. They have no say whatsoever in the grounds of the action. Learn your Constitution and history. I rarely agree with BigAssSux, but he's got you pegged.