Forget Trump: Impeach Mitch McConnell

Mitch McConnell Says He’d Go After Supreme Court Vacancy In 2020: ‘We’d Fill It’

If you don’t think this is exactly the abuse of partisan party politics that they founders wanted to stamp out, your reading in history is inadequate.

This is the smoking gun that the case against Trump lacks. The entire public can get this, in simple terms, black and white.

Harvard Constitutional Law Professor Unloads On ‘Flagrant Dickhead’ Mitch McConnell.

“Flagrant dickhead” is a term of art, BTW. It was approved as an impeachable offense 19-6 in the Constitutional Convention.

Unfortunately, you give 40+ percent of the US public far too much credit. In fact, Tribe’s ad hominem will probably be the only thing that penetrates their consciousness and, as such, will simply serve to solidify their Eid auf den Führer.

You can’t impeach a Senator. You can’t recall a Senator. You can vote him out of office (if you live in KY) or he could be expelled by his fellow Senators, but given that he’s the elected Republican leader it’s kind of hard to see how that happens.

But, if nothing else, this illustrates how whatever high-sounding pronouncements might issue forth from Republican mouths, they’re all merely rationalizations to cover their true motivations. Remember that and don’t respond to the rationalizations, only the motivations. Don’t be the stupid bull that wears itself out on the cape and doesn’t see the sword coming.

“Flagrant Dickhead”? IMO, the professor’s being awfully polite.

I’d be all for impeaching Mitch if it were a thing that could be done. Unlike Trump, he’s both evil and exceedingly competent at what he does. He’s the true soulless face of the Republican Party.

Senator McConnell is the Republican reaction to Harry Reid. You’re reaping what you sowed.

You should have told the founders that.

In fact, the very first impeachment trial was of a Senator, William Blout of Tennessee, in 1797.

McConnell was the leader of the Senate GOP before Reid was the leader of the Senate Dems. Guess you guys mastered time travel and haven’t shared it with the rest of us.

McConnell filibustered practically all the legislation passed by the Democratic-controlled House in 2007-2008 for no purpose other than to save Dubya the hassle of having to veto it. Tell me how that was a reaction to Harry Reid.

What’s wrong with Harry Reid?

I don’t think that’s true.

What, you want McConnell to be responsible for his own actions? (Or in the case of Garland, inaction.) There has to be a Democrat responsible for the Republican, see?

Aside from his lying, are you familiar with the “nuclear option”?

It’s a ridiculous argument. Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees because the Republicans were using Senate rules to prevent even the consideration of nominees, preventing the Senate from actually fulfilling their constitutional duties. So Reid acted in response to McConnell’s actions.

Yeah, but he’s also a straight shooter:

Republicans are never responsible for their own actions. They were always forced to do it by the evil Democrats.

Same logic abusive spouses use. I didn’t want to, but you made me do it.

The party of personal responsibility my ass.

If treating judicial nominations based on partisanship was enough to get you kicked out of the Senate, they wouldn’t have a quorum. On either side of the aisle.

Regards,
Shodan

Ah, you’re right. Wikipedia’s summary of Reid’s time as minority leader listed his stints in that role in reverse chron order, so I missed his first go-around.

Still, my other point stands. Mitch was an obstructionist not only from the get-go, but for no purpose other than to save Dubya the hassle of vetoing legislation. What did Harry Reid do to bring that on?

The impeachment of Blount was brought by the House on the same day Blount was expelled from the Senate (under Art. 1, Section 5). The Senate, after debating the matter for four days, concluded that members of Congress are not “civil officers of the United States” and are therefore not subject to impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate. The impeachment was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no Congressperson has been impeached since.

It would be interesting perhaps to see if that Senate interpretation would stand up to Judicial review, but IANAL and have no idea if or how such a review could be accomplished. (If the HoR attempted such an impeachment, it would be dismissed immediately by the Senate, and there’s no clear --to me-- path of appeal.)

Functionally, how is expulsion by the Senate any different from impeachment? The only difference I can see is that expulsion by the Senate is easier, because it doesn’t require involvement by the House.

It’s nowhere as straightforward as you make it out to be. Here’s what the official Senate history page has to say: