It’s a Texas statute — but not in the Constitution — that states, “Each member of the Senate shall be in attendance when the senate is meeting as a court of impeachment.” The Constitution says that it takes 2/3 of Senators “present” to convict. The rules the Senate adopted for this trial affirmed that all Senators must attend and will be counted toward the 2/3 requirement, although Angela Paxton would not be allowed to debate or vote.
Honestly, this seems like the most reasonable way to handle the situation given the requirements of the Constitution and statute.
Given how much of the rest of it was kangaroo theater, this is probably the only bit of the entire impeachment process start to finish that was done in a way that passes the laugh test, much less legal challenge on the merits.
I’m confuddled. On the one hand, I was encouraged when Texas Republican Representatives pushed to impeach him, and laid out 16 counts (plus another 4 not voted on). I mean, if they just wanted to get him out because he was going to cost taxpayers’ money, they could have picked 1 or 2 most egregious. But they went all in. I hoped that signaled that there were some Repubs with a sliver of shame over the corruptuon Paxton has been flaunting.
But I’m also totally not surprised the Senate Republicans have no honor or decency, and pretty much acquitted as a Party function. After watching the US Senate through 2 Impeachments on Trump with the same level of dedication to the truth and the best interests of the American people, how could Texas do any differently?
Now Patrick demonstrates just how impartial a jurist he was, by calling on the Texas State Auditor to calculate how much money was “wasted” on the impeachment.
Hey Shitbrain, it was only a waste because of turds like you guaranteed to acquit before the trial began. An actual trial wouldn’t be a waste regardless of outcome.
Are you saying Democratic Senators neglected their Texan Constitutional duty and were not present for the trial? Because if not, then this is a complete strawman not applicable to the issue being discussed.
You are being pointlessly obtuse @Saint_Cad - I was referring to when the Texas Representatives walked out rather than participate against their better judgment on earlier legislation.
You know, another technically ‘illegal’ action they took out a sense of moral duty? Which, while again technically against the rules, showed a degree of moral stiffness that I wish Paxton’s spouse had embraced?
However, since all you want to focus on is an unspeakably narrow judgement on legality rather than the “appearance of impartial judgement” which I have made clear was my POINT and explicitly stated, I don’t think we have anything to argue about. You keep harping away on the legal, and refuse to address that point.
So what does that have to do with being Constitutionally obligated to attend the trial? If you think she shouldn’t have then you are advocating for the Texas Republicans to violate the Texas Constitution which is a strange position to take on this Board. So that’s the question you are not answering. Are you saying she should have violated the Constitution by not attending the trial? Yes or no?
My point was it seems kind of stupid to not let her vote, yet her non-vote still carries weight. It’s not that I want them to do something unconstitutional, just pointing out that it’s a dumb-ass rule to begin with.
Uh huh. I in each and every post made it clear that I was putting the spirit of the law, as well as a centuries long tradition of impartial judgement as being more important than the letter of the law, while SIMULTANEOUSLY giving ways to give a fig leaf to said letter, and yet I’M the one playing games.
And you won’t, for -reasons- address the moral and ethical issues, instead desperately clinging to some adherence to the law despite all ethical contradictions in such position.
We have plenty of posters who will excuse any action, no matter how abhorrent, as fine as long as it is legal or was legal at the time. I thought better of you.
But while I think your arguments are flawed and your manner of arguing in this thread has been dishonest, it’s better to let other voices carry the day, so I’ll respect your wishes and no longer respond to you here.
I mean, she had to sit in public, on TV, having people watch her while she listened to her husband’s mistress testify. Its not at all clear to me that she would have chosen to be there, if she felt she had a choice. I cannot even imagine how angry Id be at a man who put me in such a position. And she may well be a horrible person, and Im not losing sleep over this, but I do feel like that is an especially awful thing to ask of your life partner.
I agree the situation is all kinds of fucked up, but compared to the general fucked-up-ed-ness of Paxton, who, in any respectable timeline is a moderately successful used car salesman, it hardly registers.
I had hoped, in another time and place, that there were a few Democrats with some “sliver of shame” over the clearly illegal acts that Bill Clinton committed.