# Forget Trump: Impeach Mitch McConnell **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 31, 2019, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833 "2019-05-31T15:32:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/141 "2019-06-04T18:05:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So says **CarnalK** , but maybe creative lawyers could fashion an argument that could get past that hurdle. Or maybe not. In any case, there’s nothing to lose by trying this (along with many other strategies), should this scenario come up. > > Even if you’re right, we lose nothing by trying different strategies. Maybe your stupid idea cobbled together with surprising ignorance of the legal framework could work. Maybe! We got nothing to lose by trying stupid ignorant strategies! So says iiandyiiii. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/142 "2019-06-04T18:07:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > … Even if you’re right, we lose nothing by trying different strategies. Do you know what “opportunity cost” means? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/143 "2019-06-04T18:07:19Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Maybe your stupid idea cobbled together with surprising ignorance of the legal framework could work. Maybe! We got nothing to lose by trying stupid ignorant strategies! So says iiandyiiii. Even if you’re right, it’s no worse than a strategy of doing nothing, should this scenario come up again. Though it’s not like the Democratic leadership is listening to me. We’re all just shooting the shit here. Hopefully you’re enjoying this process of floating ideas for discussion as much as I am. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/144 "2019-06-04T18:08:57Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Assuming two senators constitute a quorum is at least less absurd than the Republican position that one senator is a quorum. That’s not the Republican position. The Republican position is simply that a quorum of the Senate never granted their “advice and consent” to Garland, therefore he’s not a SCOTUS justice. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/145 "2019-06-04T18:11:11Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > … We have a party that is devoted to finding clever ways around the system for what they perceive to be their own interest, and who perceives the other party as the actual enemy rather than fellow citizens with somewhat different but still valid priorities. … Based on this thread, it sounds like you’ve just described the Democratic Party. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/146 "2019-06-04T18:19:03Z")
Maybe you should have read it first. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/147 "2019-06-04T18:21:06Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > This isn’t “maybe”. It would be ruled that way. It’s almost the definition of a political question. Your “try anything” suggestions would probably be more useful if you accept the basic reality of the situation. I was more inclined to believe you before reading your cite. If a President should bring before the Federal courts a claim that the Senate was acting in contravention of the Constitution, which characteristics of a political question, per _Baker v. Carr_, would you say that would have? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/148 "2019-06-04T19:05:50Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The vast majority of Americans don’t pay attention to anything. > > However, the vast majority of Americans who do pay attention to this particular stuff thought it was heinous and worse. And now want revenge and retribution. We’ll be happy to remind you of why when that happens, so that you can’t have any complaints about it. Technically, no, there’s no language that forces the Senate to move on a judicial candidate nominated by the opposition party. But behaving in good faith is the best way to preserve a political system that operates on negotiation. When you pull a stunt like the kind McConnell did, no, there’s nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, but as you point out, the GOP is essentially communicating that they can’t be negotiated with. Of course this has been apparent for a while when they tried to filibuster everything Obama did when Dems had the majority. When Democrats regain power they will do whatever it takes to get what they need done, even if it means operating against the spirit of negotiation and more so in the spirit of oppression. The GOP will have nobody to blame but themselves. Unfortunately, I can’t say that this is a good outcome because it begets a perpetual cycle of grievances and desires for revenge. It destabilizes a democratic government over time. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/149 "2019-06-04T19:22:24Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Technically, no, there’s no language that forces the Senate to move on a judicial candidate nominated by the opposition party. But behaving in good faith is the best way to preserve a political system that operates on negotiation. When you pull a stunt like the kind McConnell did, no, there’s nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, but as you point out, the GOP is essentially communicating that they can’t be negotiated with. Of course this has been apparent for a while when they tried to filibuster everything Obama did when Dems had the majority. When Democrats regain power they will do whatever it takes to get what they need done, even if it means operating against the spirit of negotiation and more so in the spirit of oppression. The GOP will have nobody to blame but themselves. Unfortunately, I can’t say that this is a good outcome because it begets a perpetual cycle of grievances and desires for revenge. It destabilizes a democratic government over time. [“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation” - Chuck Schumer, 2007](https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146) “wish granted” - Senator Mitch McConnell, 2016, probably ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/150 "2019-06-04T20:00:47Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I was more inclined to believe you before reading your cite. > > If a President should bring before the Federal courts a claim that the Senate was acting in contravention of the Constitution, which characteristics of a political question, per _Baker v. Carr_, would you say that would have? A "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; " ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/151 "2019-06-04T20:08:21Z")
The one-Senator quorum that the Republicans used was Mitch McConnell. The Constitution does not state that the President Pro Tem of the Senate gets to decide whether to approve a nominee; it says that the Senate as a whole gets to decide it. If McConnell can decide on his own, on behalf of the entire Senate, to not approve of a nominee, then he’s acting as a quorum of one. As for how the President of the Senate would call a vote, he’d do it the same way that the President Pro Tem does. He’s the President. He presides. That’s what a President, by definition, does. The President Pro Tem doesn’t even have any power at all, except in the President’s absence. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/152 "2019-06-04T20:46:57Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > “wish granted” - Senator Mitch McConnell, 2016, probably It \*really \*helps to read your own cites before you post them, yanno? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/153 "2019-06-04T22:01:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The one-Senator quorum that the Republicans used was Mitch McConnell. The Constitution does not state that the President Pro Tem of the Senate gets to decide whether to approve a nominee; it says that the Senate as a whole gets to decide it. If McConnell can decide on his own, on behalf of the entire Senate, to not approve of a nominee, then he’s acting as a quorum of one. > > As for how the President of the Senate would call a vote, he’d do it the same way that the President Pro Tem does. He’s the President. He presides. That’s what a President, by definition, does. The President Pro Tem doesn’t even have any power at all, except in the President’s absence. This is simply false. The (Senate) President has almost no power at all. Did you read the link? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/154 "2019-06-04T22:09:08Z")
The Senate President, by definition, has the power to preside over the Senate. The Wikipedia page you cite says so, too, so I’m not sure what point you’re making. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/155 "2019-06-04T22:18:22Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > To be fair, that’s debatable. > > Seems that that could be fixed just by laws: the laws regarding national emergencies ultimately forced the Senate to cast a vote over Trump’s border national emergency. Presumably the next time the Dems have a trifecta, they can pass some laws requiring up-or-down votes on Presidential nominees, judicial or otherwise, with the nominees taking office if a vote isn’t held within X calendar days. It’s easy enough to design the system to fail closed: if the Senate refuses to hold a vote, the candidate is automatically instated. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/156 "2019-06-04T22:23:25Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Unserious is also bathing in unicorn tears. [Snip.] You know, win elections. Obama won an election to the presidency, which under the Constitution comes with the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, with no proviso or limit that the President can’t do so in the last year of office. However, one Senator pulled a rule out of his turtle shell that the President doesn’t have that power for the last year of his term. Except that same Senator has recently smiled, sipped Granny’s peach tea, and admitted to guffaws of laughter from his supporters that he would allow a vote on a justice appointed in the fourth year of the President’s term … when that President is Trump and not Obama. That kind of unserious. Joker-ish levels of unserious. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/157 "2019-06-04T22:30:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The Senate President, by definition, has the power to preside over the Senate. The Wikipedia page you cite says so, too, so I’m not sure what point you’re making. > [@](#): > > The vice president, as President of the Senate, has the authority (ex officio, for he or she is not an elected member of the Senate) to cast a tie-breaking vote. **Other than this, the rules of the Senate grant its president very little power** (in contrast to the powerful office of Speaker of the House of Representatives). In fact the Senate President doesn’t even have the liberty to address the Senate, unless it’s granted by unanimous consent. > **[U.S. Senate: President Pro Tempore](https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/President_Pro_Tempore.htm)** > > President Pro Tempore ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/158 "2019-06-04T22:35:41Z")
> [@John\_Bredin](#): > > Obama won an election to the presidency, which under the Constitution comes with the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, with no proviso or limit that the President can’t do so in the last year of office. However, one Senator pulled a rule out of his turtle shell that the President doesn’t have that power for the last year of his term. > > Except that same Senator has recently smiled, sipped Granny’s peach tea, and admitted to guffaws of laughter from his supporters that he would allow a vote on a justice appointed in the fourth year of the President’s term … when that President is Trump and not Obama. > > That kind of unserious. Joker-ish levels of unserious. :mad: All true, and despicable, deplorable and more. The Republican rule of ethics and alleged dignity here asks: “Is it illegal? Has anyone specifically codified this? Then fuck it, we’re good.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/159 "2019-06-04T22:51:42Z")
> [@John\_Bredin](#): > > Obama won an election to the presidency, which under the Constitution comes with the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, with no proviso or limit that the President can’t do so in the last year of office. The “proviso or limit” is that he can only do it with the consent of enough Senators. And, if he _doesn’t_ get that consent in the last year of office, then he can’t do so. So if Obama doesn’t actually get that consent in his last year of office, but Trump actually _does,_ well, then — what? Why should it matter that the guy mentioning this is sipping tea while just sort of being accurate about stuff? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2019, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833/160 "2019-06-04T23:21:28Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The “proviso or limit” is that he can only do it with the consent of enough Senators. And, if he _doesn’t_ get that consent in the last year of office, then he can’t do so. So if Obama doesn’t actually get that consent in his last year of office, but Trump actually _does,_ well, then — what? Why should it matter that the guy mentioning this is sipping tea while just sort of being accurate about stuff? Because he didn’t try to rely on a naked “you can’t make the Senate advise and consent” but came up with his last-year rule as a fig-leaf, and now is throwing that flimsy cover away when he feels he doesn’t need it anymore. He can, constitutionally, be a hypocrite, and I can, constitutionally, call him one. 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-trump-impeach-mitch-mcconnell/834833.md?page=9)