Author Topic: Megyn Kelly to Mitch McConnell: If Obama’s executive power grabs are so terrible, why not impeach him?  (Read 501 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 250,447
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/14/megyn-kelly-to-mitch-mcconnell-if-obamas-executive-power-grabs-are-so-terrible-why-not-impeach-him/

Megyn Kelly to Mitch McConnell: If Obama’s executive power grabs are so terrible, why not impeach him?
POSTED AT 2:41 PM ON JANUARY 14, 2014 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

 
She’s asking rhetorically, not egging him on. The obvious logistical problem, as many a Republican officeholder has noted when asked about this by an angry constituent, is that impeachment is DOA in the Senate as long as it’s controlled by Democrats. The House can force a Senate trial but what’s the use of that when we all know what the verdict will be? (For that reason, this question is better aimed at Boehner than at McConnell.) And no, retaking the Senate next year doesn’t solve the problem. You need two-thirds of the chamber to convict an impeached president; Republicans won’t be remotely close to 67 seats, no matter how big this year’s November wave is.

The political problem is that Republicans fear impeaching O would do more to hurt them than it would the president. Not only did Clinton weather the storm, so did his approval rating. If you’ve got a weak president in office like Obama who’s facing a debacle from his signature legislation between now and the next presidential election, why make any sudden moves to mess with that dynamic if you’re a Republican? They’re probably going to get a good result from SCOTUS on Obama’s NLRB power grab; if they want to push back against executive overreach, court battles might be fruitful high-publicity ways of doing it with minimal political risk — certain difficulties notwithstanding.

To solve their political problem, the GOP would have to convince a majority of the public (probably a big majority) that impeachment is warranted. But that’s the thing — even when the president’s guilty of encroaching on another branch’s powers or suspending parts of the law that are politically inconvenient to him, you’ll never find a majority of Americans willing to entertain a punishment as severe as removal from office for that. To make impeachment stick, you need to show that the president’s motives for acting were rotten and selfish, like Nixon’s; O, by contrast, always takes care to present his motives for ignoring Congress as civic-minded, something he does for the good of the people, not for himself. Tim Scott once suggested that Obama could be impeached if he tried to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, but the public would never support that, I suspect. He’d simply say that he was driven to desperate measures to protect the country’s creditworthiness; at best you’d get a 50/50 split in public opinion on whether he should be punished, and I doubt the ratio would be even that good. Ron Paul once suggested that impeachment should be on the table for O’s drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, who was, after all, a U.S. citizen. O defended that by insisting he was acting to protect America from a particularly dangerous terrorist. I’d be surprised if you could get even 20 percent of the public angry enough to support impeachment over that one. A constitutionalist would wave his hand at all of the above and say that motives are irrelevant — if you violate due process or separation of powers, impeachment is an obvious remedy, however allegedly virtuous the motives. That’s what it means to follow the rule of law. How many constitutionalists are out there in the voting booth on election day, though? Fifteen percent of the electorate, maybe? Less?

Exit question: Will any big-name Republican pound the table for impeachment next year? Ted Cruz’s language about Obama’s lawlessness has been especially strong lately. He knows, of course, that the votes aren’t there in the Senate, but he knew they weren’t there for the “defund” effort either and he pushed that anyway. The key, then and now, was getting the House to act. O would survive but some conservatives would love Cruz for making the effort, which would be helpful to him when the primary campaign starts in 2015.

Support the USO

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
They are pawing the ground making a little dust and capitulating out Republic to this commie prez.
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Atomic Cow

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,235
  • High Yield Minion
And what good would it do?  Reid and the Democrats would never convict him.
"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them."  H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton

Offline kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,190
And what good would it do?  Reid and the Democrats would never convict him.

Exactly..
GOP House members came to Paul Ryan to be Speaker. He didn't come to them. And he was everybody's conservative darling back in 2012. So unless 1 of the remaining 240 wants to step up & do a better job in budgeting & negotiations & herding the party cats, then everybody please STFU. You go to battle with the army you have, not the one you want but don't have.

Kevin Davis

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,333
  • There's no one out there quite like me.
    • Fullervision
And what good would it do?  Reid and the Democrats would never convict him.
Besides, impeachment starts in the House, not the Senate.
"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

Offline kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,190
Besides, impeachment starts in the House, not the Senate.

Yes, it does, however, there is the trial portion.
GOP House members came to Paul Ryan to be Speaker. He didn't come to them. And he was everybody's conservative darling back in 2012. So unless 1 of the remaining 240 wants to step up & do a better job in budgeting & negotiations & herding the party cats, then everybody please STFU. You go to battle with the army you have, not the one you want but don't have.

Kevin Davis


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf