IMPEACHMENT. As we head into the Senate Trial of the impeachment of the president does it strike (double entendre) anyone as curious that no one has suggested "striking" or excluding McConnell and Graham from hearing the case because they already said they cannot be impartial? Any of you ever been on jury duty in the U.S.? Potential jurors are stricken for cause if they say they cannot be impartial. So why is no one bringing that up here? The impeachment is necessary to uphold our checks and balances, the legislative branch over the executive branch. Forcing out partial senators through the Federal Court system calls into play the judicial branch check on the legislative branch. If you don't force it, just as if impeachment wasn't called for, out democracy breaks down. Make the Federal Courts and even the clearly partial Supreme Court, do their jobs. We'll see if there is integrity in our Court system. At least trump can't blackmail the Federal Court judges like he can Congress because they have their seats for life.
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
1 comment
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.You are confusing impeachment, a (constitutional), political process with our civil/criminal justice system. They are distinctly different.
FearlessFly
Level 9
Dec 19, 2019
0
Been through this already, tell me how the oath to be impartial is different?
@lerlo I don't see much evidence that either side is impartial, it is a political process.
@FearlessFly Then you don't see, period. What part of the House hearings were partial?
Are you ignoring the evidence and lack of a defense? Thanks for not being able to tell the difference between the oaths. Knew you had no answer. If you were on trial for murdering a policeman and two of the jurors said they couldnt be impartial because their family members were cops would you be ok if they stayed on the jury? I didnt think so. A trial is a trial, in the U.S. The "jurors take an oath to be impartial or are asked questions regarding their impartiality. Here's the oath the Senators will take:
According to Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials, all senators must make the following oath: "I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God." If you think 2 Senators who have already said the will not be impartial get to take that oath and violate it instantly, I hope you enjoy your dictatorship.
@lerlo Don't misunderstand, I found the evidence presented supports the the two articles passed.
The House investigations were totally run by the Dems. No subpoenas/witnesses from Reps were allowed. I don't see how that can be claimed to be impartial.
I have been given to understand that the "Rules" that were adopted for previous impeachment(s) are not required to be followed currently.
The only sole powers in the Constitution give the House (total) power to adopt articles, and the Senate (total) power to be "jurors in the trial" (it is not the same as a justice system trial).
@FearlessFly so you don't believe that the Senate jurors will have to take an oath of impartiality?
Republicans wanted two witnesses I believe, the whistleblower and one of the Bidens. Those witnesses would have provided what defense?
Of course the Senate could call them but they don't want to call any witnesses. I wonder why that would be?
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Trump Pinata
1137 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.