Why is Impeachment such a forbidden topic?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What I find interesting is that BigAssSux can't tell us how great Obama is, only how bad Bush was.

Actually COG, if you haven't known BigAssSux aka BigTits aka BigTex aka bigtex long, you might to know the history of why he "hates Bush" and why he believes Bush couldn't do anything right ...

BigTits was a McCain man .... and got pissed at Bush because the way the Bush campaign treated McCain in the 2000 primaries. As you know McCain lost then too, which is interesting since BigTits didn't support him in 2008, but bought Gruber's bullshit hook, line, and sinker and has been a loyal Obaminablist ever since ... even as we post. Now all he can do is ...

Originally Posted by bigtex

:Wah! Wah! Wah!

As his "favorite" heads down the toilet toward a flushing in history.

Likes turds should.

He simply cannot admit he was conned into voting for Obamainble 2x's!!!!

But he would rather talk about Bush then the thread topic. Just pick a thread!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Have you managed to ambush any unsuspecting creatures while they are having supper yet? Or are they safe for another year?

LLIdiot, this thread is about ... "Impeachment" ... not hunting .

If you would like to discuss hunting activities, there is a recent thread in this forum especially for that purpose.

Even you and your Idiot Klan, errr Clan members are welcome to post in it.

Idiot's!

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1172857

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

... this thread is about ... "Impeachment" ... not hunting ....

BigTits .. it ain't about Bush either!

You are the one who got Gruberized ... not me!

I knew better and called it ... "snake oil"!

In the meantime ... keep up the wailing ...

Originally Posted by bigtex

Wah! Wah! Wah!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

it ain't about Bush either!

Is it about your fellow Idiot Klan, errrrrr Clan members?

Idiot's!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Back "on point" ... every case you read in which "impeachment" is discussed is overtly a "judicial review" of the impeachment process. The distinction, and it is an important one recognized by the Court in Nixon, the facts in Nixon had to do with the "trial" in the Senate and NOT THE IMPEACHMENT IN THE HOUSE.

It is almost elementary .. apples and oranges. That IS the real world. I see it frequently in others' research in which the rely on the "headnotes" and "syllabuses" to justify the use of a case, when a critical examination of the discussion in the case and the facts of the case render the case irrelevant. Or as you all have done, pluck out a line in the opinion and attempt to apply it to another fact situation.

That's why you guys want to change the scope of my point. "Impeachment" is in the House of Representatives, which does have enumerated "standards" upon which it can base Articles of Impeachment. It was not an ISSUE in Nixon, because Nixon had ALREADY been convicted of a "high crime and misdemeanor" by definition...... "bribery."

BTW, I hope you don't think I get "concerned" about what an "editor" at Justia has to say about the law .... when "we" have a guy in the White House who was the "Chief" editor of the Harvard Law Review (as well as a "Constitutional Law Professor) and he is constantly in trouble with the Supreme Court, and hopefully coming up to bat to get struck out again with his newly crafted immigration legislation that exonerates at least 5 million criminals from their crimes.

But you all go about your fantasy of "impeaching" Obminable.

It's not a "forbidden topic."

It's a waste of time, if which "we" don't have a lot.

Your post, LL, completely deflected away from and avoided what was posted at #132 wherein your POV was rejected by Rehnquist, and you're the one "fantasizing" that I ever proposed that Odumbo be impeached.

NIXON v. UNITED STATES, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
The Court's Opinion:

There are two additional reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments. First, the Framers recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable offenses - the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. In fact, the Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings. See Art. I, 3, cl. 7. The Framers deliberately separated the two forums to avoid raising the specter of bias and to ensure independent judgments:

"Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial should, in another trial, for the same offence, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend that error in the first sentence would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights, which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision?" The Federalist No. 65, p. 442 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).

Certainly judicial review of the Senate's "trial" would introduce the same risk of bias as would participation in the trial itself.

Second, judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers' insistence that our system be one of checks and [506 U.S. 224, 235] balances.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...24/#annotation

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

"Wantonly?" Prove that. or is that yet another of your editorial opinions, Mr. Pull-putzer?

"Unlike his predecessors"? That's a fucking lie. Period.

You're not even flirting with accuracy in this statement, IBIdiot. Your flat-out lying.

For a change.

admit it or prove otherwise.

You're one of the "#Grubered" masses who Gruber ridiculed for being too stupid to recognize a lie, you Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your post, LL, completely deflected away from and avoided what was posted at #132 wherein your POV was rejected by Rehnquist, and you're the one "fantasizing" that I ever proposed that Odumbo be impeached.

I've said it before and I will say it again.

I love it when the Idiot Klan, errrrr Clan plays Family Feud!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

[COLOR="Black"][SIZE="3"] Your post, LL, completely deflected away from and avoided what was posted ...


....wherein your POV was rejected by Rehnquist, ...

I'm not the one who cited a holding regarding the Senate for authority regarding the requirements placed on the House to issue articles.

Nixon is not relevant as to the House authority to impeach the President.

It is simple to distinguish the case.

I can almost quote a Justice's question to you during oral arguments.

"Isn't Nixon about the Senate's authority, and we are considering the House's authority to issue Articles of Impeachment?"

Again a "fatal' flaw among lawyers is to quote from either headnotes or selected texts from the body of an opinion without considering what was actually decided by the appellate court and what role the headnote or text had in the decision. Rhenquist even retained and affirmed the Court's authority, as I have quoted several times before:

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Constitution says nothing like that ... NOTHING!

The "ruling" in Nixon was that Nixon, who was claiming ONLY the Senate body could "try" the impeachment and not a "committee" selected by the Senate, was incorrect in his assessment that the Senate could not pass the fact finding job to a committee, although Rhenquist (majority opinion) agreed with Nixon...

"We agree with Nixon that courts possess power to review either legislative or executive action that transgresses identifiable textual limits. As we have made clear, “whether the action of [either the Legislative or Executive Branch] exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” Baker v. Carr, supra, at 211; accord, Powell, supra, at 521." Nixon, 506 U.S. 237-238.

Unlike the Senate the House HAS "IDENTIFIABLE TEXTUAL LIMITS" of its authority to impeach, which provide, as we exhaustively expressed earlier in this thread before you all decided to switch to the Senate to bolster your untenable "position" .... and those "IDENTIFIABLE TEXTUAL LIMITS" for the impeachment of the President of the United States are ...

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article II, Section 4

1. Treason
2. Bribery
3. "OTHER" high crimes and misdemanors.

aka "IDENTIFIABLE TEXTUAL LIMITS" ....

Post #121 of mine in response to your same or similar statement.

The Senate had no restrictions on its authority. The House does.

And the restrictions on the House are exactly on point in my scenario.

The House does NOT have "full discretion" to issue articles of impeachment.

The Constitution doesn't even get close.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm not the one who cited a holding regarding the Senate for authority regarding the requirements placed on the House to issue articles.

Nixon is not relevant as to the House authority to impeach the President.

It is simple to distinguish the case.

I can almost quote a Justice's question to you during oral arguments.

"Isn't Nixon about the Senate's authority, and we are considering the House's authority to issue Articles of Impeachment?"

Again a "fatal' flaw among lawyers is to quote from either headnotes or selected texts from the body of an opinion without considering what was actually decided by the appellate court and what role the headnote or text had in the decision. Rhenquist even retained and affirmed the Court's authority, as I have quoted several times before:

The language of the decision as written by Justice Rehnquist is unequivocal, LL.

There are two additional reasons why the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments.... judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers' insistence that our system be one of checks and [506 U.S. 224, 235] balances.

Originally Posted by bigtex

I've said it before and I will say it again.

I love it when the Idiot Klan, errrrr Clan plays Family Feud!

Better than you and your retarded brother, the Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, playing an incestuous game of "Hide the Salami", BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The language of the decision as written by Justice Rehnquist is unequivocal, LL.

IB ... the language I quoted is equally "unequivocal" .... a "problem" is the scope of the holding is limited to the issues before the Court raised by Nixon in his appeal, which he had also raised below.

Plucking dicta out of an opinion of any Court and parading it around as authority without establishing it as a "holding" based on the the facts and issues the Court was deciding is not probative on an issue not raised.

You can make it as large as you want in here ... that doesn't make it "authority."

Nixon is about the Senate's authority to try the case. Not the House's authority to "indict" with Articles of Impeachment. That is critical to the use of any dicta in the opinion. It simply does not apply to the House.

The same thing was going on in another thread about the "Grand Jury Rule" purportedly announced years ago and how the Ferguson Grand Jury violated the Supreme Court Justice's .... "grand jury rule"!!! Some reporter took a cut and paste out of his opinion and called it a "grand jury rule".... it wasn't even close to a "rule"!

As the old saying goes ...

.... you are trying to drive a square peg in the round hole!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

IB ... the language I quoted is equally "unequivocal" .... a "problem" is the scope of the holding is limited to the issues before the Court raised by Nixon in his appeal, which he had also raised below.

Plucking dicta out of an opinion of any Court and parading it around as authority without establishing it as a "holding" based on the the facts and issues the Court was deciding is not probative on an issue not raised.

You can make it as large as you want in here ... that doesn't make it "authority."

Nixon is about the Senate's authority to try the case. Not the House's authority to "indict" with Articles of Impeachment. That is critical to the use of any dicta in the opinion. It simply does not apply to the House.

The same thing was going on in another thread about the "Grand Jury Rule" purportedly announced years ago and how the Ferguson Grand Jury violated the Supreme Court Justice's .... "grand jury rule"!!! Some reporter took a cut and paste out of his opinion and called it a "grand jury rule".... it wasn't even close to a "rule"!

As the old saying goes ...

.... you are trying to drive a square peg in the round hole!

Rehnquist clearly states that the Founding Fathers did not give the judiciary a role in the impeachment process.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

and you're the one "fantasizing" that I ever proposed that Odumbo be impeached.

Is LL lying again about you stating that impeachment would be a smart political move?

LL, please provide the quote and context of IB stating such a thing. I bet you a hundred bucks you can not produce said quote and I will bet another hundred you will not apologize for misstating IB position on the matter.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Is it about your fellow Idiot Klan, errrrrr Clan members?

Actually, it's not.

Although that's what you would like to think, Gruberite. But since you have finally exhausted your intellectually capacity for making an informative, positive contribution to the academic discussion on the the specific topic of the OP, ..

.. it IS TIME for you to go ambush an unsuspecting animal while it eats supper!

In other words .... go kill something beside time.

Originally Posted by bigtex:

Wah! Wah! Wah!

And quit your whining and blubbering.

[LexusLover]

Do you have $100?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do you have $100?

Can you quit lying about IB thinking impeachment a good political idea?

Admit he did not say what you have implied he did?