American politics is now all about one thing: impeachment

[Wingnut]

Some people are good at always being wrong.  It's a special talent.

Exactly.. A lot of people have no talent whatsoever!

[kevindavis007]

They were not, which is why it takes 2/3rds of Senators to convict. Last two impeachment attempts ended in disaster for the impeaching party. To convict you need the President's own party to turn on him. Hard to do in any case.

The Democrats want to do an impeachment for revenge. For what to Clinton and the election.

[skeeter]

I believe it is the courts that have far too much power in this day and age, not the President.  The President has too much power when the courts are on his side, as was the case with the Bamster.

And, much worse, the courts are relatively unaccountable to the electorate.

[the_doc]

And, much worse, the courts are relatively unaccountable to the electorate.

Worst of all, about FORTY PERCENT of all federal judges are OBAMA APPOINTEES.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I believe it is the courts that have far too much power in this day and age, not the President.  The President has too much power when the courts are on his side, as was the case with the Bamster.

Courts have appropriate power, it's just that we have crappy judges. The President has far too much power.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Courts have appropriate power, it's just that we have crappy judges. The President has far too much power.

POTUS has too much power, but so do the courts.  I wouldn't mind if they ruled that a law was too vague, and kicked it back to Congress (the ones who are actually supposed to write the laws), but when they simply decide how a law should be interpreted -- that's not their job, IMO.  Might as well not have Congress if laws only mean what a court wants them to, and not what the folks who wrote and passed them meant them to.

[Just_Victor]

POTUS has too much power, but so do the courts.  I wouldn't mind if they ruled that a law was too vague, and kicked it back to Congress (the ones who are actually supposed to write the laws), but when they simply decide how a law should be interpreted -- that's not their job, IMO.  Might as well not have Congress if laws only mean what a court wants them to, and not what the folks who wrote and passed them meant them to.

Personally, I think they all have too much power.

[the_doc]

POTUS has too much power, but so do the courts.  I wouldn't mind if they ruled that a law was too vague, and kicked it back to Congress (the ones who are actually supposed to write the laws), but when they simply decide how a law should be interpreted -- that's not their job, IMO.  Might as well not have Congress if laws only mean what a court wants them to, and not what the folks who wrote and passed them meant them to.

Mark Levin has repeatedly argued that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to limit the Courts' jurisdiction--but Congress has never exercised this power.  (A judicial hack in Hawaii should be unable to second-guess the POTUS concerning immigration law.)  Levin has also argued that broad judicial review is a monstrosity not envisioned by our Framers.

In short, Levin maintains that the Courts definitely have too much power--regardless of whether or not the judges are "conservative."

Thomas Jefferson said that the greatest threat to a Constitutional Republic is activist judges.  That sentiment is likely why the Constitution does not really give the Courts as much power as even "good" judges have claimed for themselves over time.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Personally, I think they all have too much power.

No way I can argue with that.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No way I can argue with that.

Definitely not.

[Emjay]

Mark Levin has repeatedly argued that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to limit the Courts' jurisdiction--but Congress has never exercised this power.  (A judicial hack in Hawaii should be unable to second-guess the POTUS concerning immigration law.)  Levin has also argued that broad judicial review is a monstrosity not envisioned by our Framers.

In short, Levin maintains that the Courts definitely have too much power--regardless of whether or not the judges are "conservative."

Thomas Jefferson said that the greatest threat to a Constitutional Republic is activist judges.  That sentiment is likely why the Constitution does not really give the Courts as much power as even "good" judges have claimed for themselves over time.

I agree with you.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Mark Levin has repeatedly argued that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to limit the Courts' jurisdiction--but Congress has never exercised this power.  (A judicial hack in Hawaii should be unable to second-guess the POTUS concerning immigration law.)  Levin has also argued that broad judicial review is a monstrosity not envisioned by our Framers.

In short, Levin maintains that the Courts definitely have too much power--regardless of whether or not the judges are "conservative."

Thomas Jefferson said that the greatest threat to a Constitutional Republic is activist judges.  That sentiment is likely why the Constitution does not really give the Courts as much power as even "good" judges have claimed for themselves over time.

They tried it, once.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

Congressional power of the judges is limited to impeachment, and  establishing and organizing courts.

[sneakypete]

@Old Warrior

They aren't even trying to hide it. They have been at it ever since the night Bubbette! lost. The left was sooo positive they had control of America they lost what little minds they had left when she lost.

[sneakypete]

While I agree that it's stupid, it's not a CC at all.

@Weird Tolkinish Figure  @skeeter

While I agree that it's stupid, it's not a CC at all.

What do you call it when the America Right is finally fed up to the point where they start heading out for DC carrying rifles and rope? Would THAT be a CC?

[skeeter]

@Weird Tolkinish Figure  @skeeter


What do you call it when the America Right is finally fed up to the point where they start heading out for DC carrying rifles and rope? Would THAT be a CC?

Would that we still had that in us.

[sneakypete]

@Jazzhead

Ditto that.  However, impeachment could become a Constitutional crisis.  A Dem majority could impeach Trump for daring to disagree with them or for embarrassing the USA.  They could make a patently false allegation of something like obstruction of justice, and the media would back them on this. 

They could even frame Trump.

If any of these things happen, we will have moved from a political crisis to a Constitutional crisis.  The Dems would obviously be trampling on the Constitution in a way never seen before.  The provisions for impeachment were not intended as a political recall measure.

@Jazzhead  @the_doc

That's why we have a 2nd Amendment. Every other reason is secondary.

It is also why the left is so dedicated to destroying the 2nd Amendment. They want to turn America into another leftist police state with them in charge,and they don't want the rabble to be a threat to their rule.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What do you call it when the America Right is finally fed up to the point where they start heading out for DC carrying rifles and rope? Would THAT be a CC?

 

[Fishrrman]

"American politics is now all about one thing: impeachment"

Any Republican congressman who votes to impeach Mr. Trump will be writing his own political obituary with that vote.

As will any Republican senator who votes to convict.