Its barely 10 months since the election. “At this point” it is still early and a lot of important things need to be done, such as seeing through the implementation of health care for most Americans and passing an immigration reform. Plus the midterms are coming up and Obama wouldn’t want to tie an anchor to the legs of Democrats by doing something like this so early. I reject your cynical view, I believe Obama cares very much about being attacked needlessly because there’s still a lot to do at this point. Wait until late 2016 and repost what you did, then it’ll be apt
What’s Obama’s relationship with Jesse Jackson Jr. like, anyway? There have always been rumors that Jackson Sr. hates Obama, and only tows the line in public because Obama is the first black president.
I’ll bet anyone $50 that she does not get a pardon by Obama. Not now, not on January 19, 2017.
- A pardon for S. Jackson would not be enough to bring any grief upon the 2014 elections.
- I know how long it’s been since the election.
- Of course, everybody cares very much about being attacked needlessly, but it has nothing to do with getting things done. The immigration reform will not be harmed by 10,000 pardons, neither healthcare. Any grief that would attach to him for a pardon of Sandi Jackson would have zero effect on anything. A pardon for her is in the ‘pesky mosquito’ category. Try and tell anybody that even your least favorite Republican would say “We shouldn’t pass some of Obama’s legislation because he pardoned blah, blah…” Only your favorite Democrat would not laugh at you.
- Of course, my statements are apt now. Your fantasy world which ties in legislation with something as mundane as a pardon is all too, too mysterious for me.
The bolded section in questionable. Congress can impeach for any reason they so figure - it’s a political decision, not a legal one. I don’t think any current or future congress would do so, but they are not restricted by the Constitution and and don’t think the Supreme Court would get involved.
I disagree
If only!
Actually, aren’t they restricted to only ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’? (Too lazy to look for a Constitution.) Of course, they can call anything that they want a ‘high crime’.
Andrew Johnson was impeached (and acquitted by only one vote) for exercising a constitutional function. (Of course, Congress said it was a violation of a law they passed, and really he was just impeached for being unpopular.)