They wouldn’t just refuse to confirm the appointment. They’d have the excuse that they should first deal with the trial before any other business. And if they convict, that would remove the President with no sitting VP… Making the Speaker of the House president. They’d love that.
That’s still hyperbole.
I agree that both chances are vanishingly low, but there are still orders of magnitude of difference between them.
Impeachment is an unreviewable political decision. The President clearly and unambiguously violated a Congressional statute. That was exactly the scenario that led to President Johnson’s impeachment.
And in an even more interesting parallel, the Supreme Court ultimately declared the Tenure in Office Act (Johnson’s thorn) unconstitutional, just as the Congressional notification act is unconstitutional (in my view).
So while impeachment is very very unlikely, and conviction in the Senate even more unlikely, they are not as inconsistent with our understanding of the laws of the material world as werewolf Congressmen would be.
Not to dispute your actual point, which is: ain’t gonna happen.
You’re attempting to reason people out of a position they didn’t arrive at through reason. It can’t be done and just frustrates you.
Again, bet them. Make them put their money where their mouth is. Their balls will shrivel up and they’ll back down, possibly with some facing saving ‘But they SHOULD’. But that’s not the question.
Plus, hey, if they take you up on it, free $10,000 or something to hold over their heads forEVER.
And Bricker? I trusted you would, counselor.
I’ve seen argument that the statute violates the Presidential Article II authority. But nothing really clear that I’ve come across. Is there much merit in that argument?
I find it disgusting how dismissive this thread is to Lycanthrope-Americans.
I’m actually hoping they do impeach him. It will make November VERY interesting for the GOP, I think.
Well, during certain moon phases there would be terrible destruction, loss of rationality and inexplicably crazy behavior. Then during the other phase they’d turn into werewolves and do less harm to the country.
Yeah, this is just as unlikely as the calls to impeach Bush were. And… with consequences that alos made one wonder what people were thinking: President Cheney, anyone?
The Republicans don’t want to impeach Obama, because they’re thrilled with the precedents he’s setting. They can hardly wait until there’s a Republican in the White House who can simply go around congress when he feels like it. They can hardly wait until a Republican can go on TV and tell all those coal companies to simply ignore the EPA’s regulations because his justice department won’t prosecute them.
Obama has spent the last term-and-a-half taking Bush’s ‘executive privilege’ and ramping it up to 11. Republicans can hardly wait to take advantage of all that power. Why would they impeach him and ruin a good thing?
Eh, keep the bet to something reasonable, that they may actually pay, or at least you can repeatedly shame the shit out of them for not being man enough to put their money where their mouth is and/or pay up.
“$100 says he isn’t impeached over this, by the end of the year.”
But otherwise good idea, because ultimately…
“Is this like your last 20 predictions that never came true and you weren’t willing to back up with a bet? I’d have won 2 grand off you at this point.”
Oh yeah, and this kind of talk is all fantasy anyway.
The House votes on Articles of Impeachment. This only needs to be a simple majority. However, this is largely meaningless, as the actual trial is held by the Senate. To remove a sitting President requires 2/3 of the Senate, or 67 votes. In the Clinton impeachment, the Republicans had 55 Senate seats. Only 50 voted for impeachment (read: removal).
And it totally killed the Clinton Presidency and ruined his legacy, right? Oh wait, it basically had no effect.
The mainstream GOP would have a conniption if articles of impeachment were actually introduced. Be the party that impeached the first black president? Even if they had him dead to rights, the very act of impeaching him would destroy forever any “big tent” or minority outreach they could ever hope to accomplish and trash the GOP right down to local races for decades. The Teahadists don’t care because they can’t see beyond the ends of their noses, but the rest of the party does.
I don’t know. Some of those folks are so steeped in lies that their nosed are petty damn long! 
I don’t think the racial thing would enter into it at all, other than a significant percentage of their base openly celebrating “impeaching that n****”.
I think the real dangerous thought would be; “Second Democratic party President in a row that we’ve attempted to impeach. Do you think they’ll start going after our guys too? They could have parboiled Bush and Cheney…”
Who is white. I’m sure most of them would consider that a worthwhile victory.
Maybe a vote of censure from the House.
There’s always tension between the executive and legislative branches-- it’s pretty much built into the Constitution. Hence signing statements and Congresses ability to censure or impeach. The fact of the matter is, the president can do anything he damn well pleases as long as Congress doesn’t impeach. Or, anything that he’s willing to take political heat for going forward-- and that includes heat his party might take for him, too.
Wikipedia has a page on the various calls to impeach Obama, such as they are. They never get past the empty talk stage.
Back when there was loose talk of impeaching GWB, it was pointed out by many that this would perpetuate an unending payback cycle. From that point forward, every President would be impeached. It would become a meaningless ritual, the equivalent of a House Revolution.
This was the origin of the MoveOn political advocacy group. They said that if the measure is functionally the same as a motion to censure…then “Censure and Move On.”
(Could a Senator, in a full impeachment trial, move for an immediate vote? Instead of going through the charade of hearing evidence, could they just go right to a vote and get it over with?)
Well, you wouldn’t respect a flippancy-flopper, would you?
Nitpick: Impeachment precedes conviction or acquittal. When the case is brought to trial, impeachment has already taken place. It is the process of bringing charges against the incumbent in the House and sending them to the Senate for trial. It is not the same as removal from office. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both acquitted of their charges, but impeached just the same.