Justice Ruth Ginsburg hospitalized

[KG1]

The President is still the President with full executive powers until he is convicted by the Senate regardless if he was impeached by the House.

 

[bwframe]

I don't listen to the chicks on the right much. Maybe this nonsense that Daisy passes along is why. She was subbing in on Hammer and Nigel.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Talk about "Stay in your lane"... Princess Pelosi thinking she can dictate what the Senate does or doesnt do? WT actual F?!?!?! Is she serious? She actually thinks she can dictate another branch's business, procedures, etc?

For those that arent aware, Madame Pelosi said she wouldnt forward the impeachment paperwork to the Senate until she was confident that the Senate's rules and procedures for their trial were to her liking. Man, the cahones on that chick. She REALLY needs to lay off the sauce.

 

[Trigger Time]

Pelosi is a babbling idiot typical of a lot of scatterbrained women. Cocaine mitch is quietly forming his battleplan and is gonna lay a FFDS on pelosi

 

[Alamo]

...at which time the extant articles of impeachment will be dead, because the current congressional session will have ended...

It seems logical that articles of impeachment not acted on by the Senate should die with the conclusion of the House that voted them...but I don't see this explicitly in the Constitution.

I dont think articles of impeachment fall under the Constitutional rules for enacting bills into law for the simple reason that such bills are required to be sent to the President for his approval or veto. The President has no power over impeachment, he cant even pardon someone who has been impeached.

The only way I see the articles dying with the current House is if the “sole power” of the House exists only with each individual House session, not as a power carried over from House to House.

 

[indykid]

I think the wannabe queen Nancy does not want the articles to pass to the Senate because if they decide to start calling witnesses, her house of cards would come tumbling down, exposing all the lies that went into the democrat get Trump at all cost campaign.

 

[printcraft]

. Man, the cahones on that chick. She REALLY needs to lay off the sauce.

How did Michele obama get brought into this?

 

[KellyinAvon]

Pelosi is a babbling idiot typical of a lot of scatterbrained women. Cocaine mitch is quietly forming his battleplan and is gonna lay a FFDS on pelosi

Mitch McConnell, AKA "Cocaine Mitch", AKA "The Turtle". Mitch ain't havin none of that BS from the House and he's getting DJT's Federal Judges confirmed at a record pace.

 

[Expat]

FB theory alert. Nancy is sitting on the impeachment for now so that if RBG dies, she can use impeachment to delay and possibly prevent confirmation of a Trump choice if the death comes late enough during the year.

 

[chipbennett]

It seems logical that articles of impeachment not acted on by the Senate should die with the conclusion of the House that voted them...but I don't see this explicitly in the Constitution.

I dont think articles of impeachment fall under the Constitutional rules for enacting bills into law for the simple reason that such bills are required to be sent to the President for his approval or veto. The President has no power over impeachment, he cant even pardon someone who has been impeached.

The only way I see the articles dying with the current House is if the “sole power” of the House exists only with each individual House session, not as a power carried over from House to House.

I'm talking particularly about the situation in which the House of its own volition fails to take the articles of impeachment to the Senate. In the following congressional term, the new House will have no obligation to act on those articles of impeachment. Though, in the situation in which the House does take the articles to the Senate, and the Senate chooses not to dispose of them, that gets a bit trickier (particularly since the Senate has adopted rules that require them to dispose of articles of impeachment).

 

[Hawkeye]

FB theory alert. Nancy is sitting on the impeachment for now so that if RBG dies, she can use impeachment to delay and possibly prevent confirmation of a Trump choice if the death comes late enough during the year.

Ummm, The Wicked Witch of the West is Speaker of the House. The senate is the confirmation authority. If that is what she thinks then she's a bit deluded.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Ummm, The Wicked Witch of the West is Speaker of the House. The senate is the confirmation authority. If that is what she thinks then she's a bit deluded.

Seems to be the common thought going around, even on Indy local talk radio. They seem to believe this is an actual strategy

 

[chipbennett]

Seems to be the common thought going around, even on Indy local talk radio. They seem to believe this is an actual strategy

About the only play she has here is if a) RBG leaves the court, b) Trump nominates a replacement, and then c) Pelosi drops the articles on the Senate, forcing the impeachment trial on the Senate, thereby preventing the Senate from acting on the SCOTUS nomination.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

About the only play she has here is if a) RBG leaves the court, b) Trump nominates a replacement, and then c) Pelosi drops the articles on the Senate, forcing the impeachment trial on the Senate, thereby preventing the Senate from acting on the SCOTUS nomination.

So she'd be counting on having a majority in the Senate? If it's still a GOP majority, they could just say... "Okay, we don't remove him. Done." and move onto the SCOTUS nominee

 

[T.Lex]

FB theory alert. Nancy is sitting on the impeachment for now so that if RBG dies, she can use impeachment to delay and possibly prevent confirmation of a Trump choice if the death comes late enough during the year.

This still makes no sense.

It seems logical that articles of impeachment not acted on by the Senate should die with the conclusion of the House that voted them...but I don't see this explicitly in the Constitution.

I dont think articles of impeachment fall under the Constitutional rules for enacting bills into law for the simple reason that such bills are required to be sent to the President for his approval or veto. The President has no power over impeachment, he cant even pardon someone who has been impeached.

The only way I see the articles dying with the current House is if the “sole power” of the House exists only with each individual House session, not as a power carried over from House to House.

Procedurally, you may be right.

I've worked with legislative bodies before. And if I were counsel to the House (which I'm not) and they wanted to undo the articles of impeachment, I would still have them take an official vote on the repeal.

There was an official, recorded vote on the articles of impeachment. Symmetry requires the same kind of vote to cleanly repeal them. If not, it is another manufactured gray area.

 

[NyleRN]

About the only play she has here is if a) RBG leaves the court, b) Trump nominates a replacement, and then c) Pelosi drops the articles on the Senate, forcing the impeachment trial on the Senate, thereby preventing the Senate from acting on the SCOTUS nomination.

Only works until someone makes a motion to acquit on day 1 and 51 Senators agree.

 

[T.Lex]

Only works until someone makes a motion to acquit on day 1 and 51 Senators agree.

Yeah, the presiding officer of the Senate gets to decide the order of business.

 

[chipbennett]

So she'd be counting on having a majority in the Senate? If it's still a GOP majority, they could just say... "Okay, we don't remove him. Done." and move onto the SCOTUS nominee

No, she'd just be counting on interrupting the Senate's normal order of business with an impeachment trial.

And yes: regardless of when the articles get to the Senate, near-immediate dismissal is exactly what's going to happen. The UniParty doesn't want to touch the underlying matters; too many of them would be incriminated (especially where the Ukraine is concerned).

 

[chipbennett]

Only works until someone makes a motion to acquit on day 1 and 51 Senators agree.

Certainly, I agree with this. It's not much of a play, but it's all I can see Pelosi having.

Otherwise, it's a "court of public opinion" thing, where she prevents the Senate from holding a trial, and then tries to play the "an impeached President shouldn't be allowed to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court until the Senate settles the impeachment matter." The problem there, of course is a) the House would be actively obstructing the Senate from doing so, and b) at this point, any SCOTUS vacancy will happen in 2020, which is an election year. As such, it is doubtful the Senate would act on a nomination anyway.

 

[KLB]

Certainly, I agree with this. It's not much of a play, but it's all I can see Pelosi having.

Otherwise, it's a "court of public opinion" thing, where she prevents the Senate from holding a trial, and then tries to play the "an impeached President shouldn't be allowed to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court until the Senate settles the impeachment matter." The problem there, of course is a) the House would be actively obstructing the Senate from doing so, and b) at this point, any SCOTUS vacancy will happen in 2020, which is an election year. As such, it is doubtful the Senate would act on a nomination anyway.

Why do you think they would not act on an appointment?