This thread is stupid and counter productive

[Melodybe]

I was mad and I don't know what I am talking about.

Just remember until Dems call out ES&S and Diebold, NOTHING THAT THEY SAY MATTERS!

[eyesroll]

1. What? Huh?

Where does the Chief Justice fit into an impeachment vote?

The CJ presides over the trial AFTER someone has been impeached. The Senate -- not the SCOTUS -- votes to convict or acquit.

The House of Representatives votes to impeach or not. Last I heard, the House was Republican-controlled.

Impeachment has always been a pipe dream. Sorry.

[MadisonProgressive]

3. That's my understanding

[Melodybe]

Until the dems call out ES&S and Diebold it is a pipe dream anyway

I'm just mad and not making much sense through my anger.

[JHB]

19. Three words: Three Judge Panel

Investigators are overseen by a three-judge panel, supposedly to provide nonpartisan oversight, but Rhenquist had a habit of putting politically activist judges on those panels. The Walsh investigation into Iran-Contra and other probes with Republican targets were kept on tight reins, while invetigations of Democrats (most spectacualrly the Whitewater probe) could practically hang out "gone fishing" signs as they roamed all over the place.

This power of the Cheif Justice counts for far more than just his vote, and now it's in the hands of W's Clarence Thomas.

[eyesroll]

21. What does this have to do with getting an impeachment through the House?

Won't happen.

Wouldn't matter if Ruth Bader Ginsburg was CJ. It wouldn't happen then, either.-+

[JHB]

28. "Through the House", maybe nothing. "**To** the House", everything.

No one is going to be impeached without a special prosecutor's investigation first.

[DefenseLawyer]

2. I'd like to know

what was the "correct" thing for the Democrat minority in the Senate to have done, given how math works and all?

[eyesroll]

5. Tear gas.

Duh.

[LoZoccolo]

8. Yell and jump around like the guy from Rage Against The Machine.

I think his name is Che Guevara, but I'm not sure.

But, duh.

[geomon666]

12. How about vote no?

I mean if it doesn't matter anyway why not vote no? Oh that's right they're 'saving' their vote, like you only get so many. :eyes:

[DefenseLawyer]

17. Why cast a "symbolic" no

vote if you are from a state where that vote, while having no effect on the outcome, could be used by your opponent against you in the next election? Some people are in that position, in the real world of politics, and have to pick their battles more carefully.

[geomon666]

24. Well if that's the case why bother voting at all?

If everything you're going to do is going to be used by your opposition and you're so scared of that well then you shouldn't be a senator. You have no business being in the senate.

[DefenseLawyer]

25. It's math

Maybe you don't care about that, but you either have the votes or you don't. They didn't have thew votes to stop the nomination. Period. Once the heads are counted and it is clear you don't have the votes, then a no vote will not change the outcome. When you are in the minority, and the outcome is determined regardless of how you vote, then it is practically to look at other considerations, such as whether a particular vote will be used against you back home. If the potential political cost is higher than the "symbolic" value of a meaningless no vote, I have no beef with a Senator seeking some political cover. Obviously this wouldn't apply to "everything you're going to do" in the Senate, but it certainly applies here. Hypothetically, you think it would be better for Russ Feingold or Robert Byrd to cast a meaningless no vote on Roberts and lose to a republican in the next election? Explain how that is good politics, cause I am too dumb to understand it.

[geomon666]

26. Well I've got some news for you.

You're going to be in the minority for a long time now. So enjoy the 'symbolic' votes, whether they be yes or no.

[DefenseLawyer]

27. Thanks for the news, but you didn't really answer my question

Do you not accept that political landscape is different in West Virginia than in Massachusetts? Just what would that no vote have accomplished for Robert Byrd? I'll ask again: Hypothetically, is it better to vote no on Roberts and then lose to a Republican than to vote yes and win, when the vote will have no effect on the outcome of his confirmation either way? Just out of curiosity, and I don't mean this pejoratively, but are you a Green Party guy?

[geomon666]

29. Byrd has been attacking bush left and right for 5 years now.

Doesn't seem to have affected his job much. And I'm not a Green Party guy, I'm an Outrage Party guy.

[mzmolly]

13. Please refrain from rational thought on this issue.

Thank ya.

[Fenris]

4. Shouldn't that be "Impeachment continues to be a pipe dream"?

[BrklynLiberal]

6. The saddest part of impeachment is that even if it succeeded, that would

leave Cheney..and the rest of the line of succession is no better.

[Shrek]

7. It's a pipe dream with or without him

Unless he gets elected to the House he won't be voting on any impeachments, assuming any come up for a vote.

[SoCalDem]

9. Impeachment was never a viable option.

The ONLY reason Clinton was impeached was because the repubes took over the house in 94. Had the house remained democrtatic, there would never have been an impeachment.

The repubes in the house (where impeachment begins) would never turn on their widdle w.

He could hack laura to death with a machete..on the Today Show..LIVE
and they would say "she somehow provoked him"..or "jesus told him to do it"..

He's in there until 2009, and will probably get 2 or 3 more picks at SCOTUS..

There are a couple of very aged justices, and their days are numbered..

He's reshaping the court for the next 40 years..and there's nothing we can do about it...

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. How exactly would impeachment have been easier if Roberts had

not been Chief Justice?

[mzmolly]

11. Thanks Dems? When we are the minority party shit like this happens.

I do believe a notable independent promised the supreme court would be barely effected by a Bush Presidency? I suggest we thank HIM first.

[Seansky]

14. i just can't believe this. I think the 06 elections might force some reps

to protect themselves cause after all bush term is over, but the reps have to go on...power can't be give up so easily by some reps.

[Melodybe]

15. Forget this thread I'm angry and I don't know what I am talking about

I should be focusing on ES&S and Diebold.

[fooj]

18. hiya honey...

I hate to sound repetetive...

Fitzie is our great, last hope, IMO.

Peace.

[MaineDem]

16. Impeachment is the pipe dream

And Roberts has nothing to do with that.

[Zomby Woof]

20. Impeachment was ALWAYS a pipe dream

I don't see how anyone could have ever entertained the idea seriously.

[ShaneGR]

22. Learn Procedure please

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has NOTHING to do with calling for the impeachment of a sitting President. That procedure would be started and voted on by the House of Representatives. The Justice simply presides over those hearings, he does create them and he has no say in the eventual outcome of them.

[second edition]

23. We never would have been able to defeat him and he is

actually no more important then Rehenquist was. He doesn't change the balance. It is the upcoming nominee that should be a real concern to us.
Oh, and I don't care for Roberts at all- My intuition tells me he is a phony and an opportunist.