Impeachment Lite:  More Drama, Less Binding


What to do, what to do?  Four more months until the mid-term rapture . . . we already said we won’t be legislating,  Benghaz-IRS-Gate is getting old . . . ???  Must be time for IMPEACHMENT!!  Yep, that’s the ticket!

Apparently the untimely ouster of Rep. Cantor (R-VA) has breathed new life into the Speaker’s career and put a spring in his shuffle.  Suddenly there’s still time for carpe diem-ish legacy-making gambits of historical proportions, moves that will etch the name “Boehner” into American History books.  At least the ones in Texas . . .

And so it is that Speaker Boehner, with George Will whispering sweet nothings about becoming the “legislature’s vindicator” in his ear, is preparing to go down as “the empty suit who files an empty suit” in the ever perspicacious words of Mr. Pierce.

Michael Steel spox-splains it to us:

The President has a clear record of ignoring the American people’s elected representatives and exceeding his constitutional authority, which has dangerous implications for both our system of government and our economy,  The House has passed legislation to address this, but it has gone nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate, so we are examining other options.

But, just in case anyone [cough, Liberals] has the temerity to suggest that the Speaker’s frivolous lawsuit is frivolous, did I mention that His Eminence, Judge Gowdy (R-SC), himself, penned the inspiring piece of legislation, cited above?

That legislation, the Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law Act of 2014 or the ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014 is a prancing, dancing show horse of legislative hubris.

As Jonathan Capehart put it:

This gem would give the House or the Senate the power to sue the president “or any officer or employee of the United States” when he is deemed to be “in violation of the constitutional requirement that the President faithfully execute the laws of the United States.” The bill also grants jurisdiction to a three-judge federal panel to hear a case. It even provides an expedited process to the Supreme Court.

The important thing is that the crispiest edges of the GOP fringe are about to get their propers and all of the amateur TEA Party pols who promised to go to Washington to impeach the Kenyan Usurper are finally having their day and keeping faith with the base.

And, as Speaker Boehner knows, it won’t take much to satisfy those yahoos and cement his leadership over the Chutzpah Caucus in one shrewd move - Impeachment Lite.  It doesn’t exactly remove the man from office but it says “we don’t like you, one bit” in an officially enumerated way.  It’s cathartic.  And the taxpayers will foot the bill just like they did, for years, defending DOMA.  And it will make Republicans look busy.

Bottom line:  if Republicans had even the sketchiest grounds for bringing Articles of Impeachment don’t they owe it to their constituents to bring them and to carry out their duty to uphold the Constitution?  The Constitution doesn’t call for lodging hinky lawsuits against a president that Congress has openly schemed to bring down because they don’t like his face.

This is serious stuff, guys.  You are accusing POTUS of breaking the law and his oath of office.  Why are you not charging him and bringing your case in the prescribed constitutional manner?

There are endless reality-based analyses of why Republican claims of “Obama’s Lawlessness” are bunk.  Here’s a place to start, then run with it.  It makes me weary just to think of getting into all of that, here.

Oh look.  This just in from the provinces. South Carolina, to be exact:

Some will say “Finally” the Republican leadership in the House is going to stand up to Obama’s violating and ignoring laws passed by Congress. Others will say it is a wimpy passing of the buck to the judiciary to do what the leadership in the House does not have the guts to do. We predict that after all is said and done there will be much more said than done.

As for us, we come down with the side that views this as more bluster than substance. If they were serious the House would simply prosecute Obama and vote on impeaching him. They not only have the constitutional power to do so, they have the duty to do it themselves rather than bum it off on the courts.

Looks like the base isn’t as dumb as you think, Mr Speaker.

Posted by Bette Noir on 06/26/14 at 10:37 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsElection '14NuttersTeabaggery

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

They courted and empowered their wingnutty base, and now the base has learned enough of the process of (mis)governance to see impeachment lite for what it is: full of sound and fury, signifying etc., etc.; you know the drill.  Seems like the base does too, and they aren’t falling for it this time.  It’s all in or nothing, Orangeman!

Unfortunately, yesterday’s Supreme Court decision added an actual real example of “unconstitutional actions by the president” to their listicles.  Pres. Obama had gotten around Senate obstruction by using recess appointments, which are specifically allowed by the US constitution.  Senate rethugs had countered by keeping the senate in session for 30 seconds each day so that he couldn’t do this, which Obama called a sham and appointed 2 people to long vacant spots on the NLRB. Looks like the Supremes think a sham senate session is as good as a real one, so they ruled that even a 30 second session is enough to disallow recess appointments.  Cue to screaming hordes of Foxbots, ohmygodunconstitutional!

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main