I wonder if the media will challenge him on that? Oh, wait. That’s right. Joe doesn’t actually take tough questions.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Printable View
If he gets anywhere close to "the greatest of all presidents" at 25,000+, I'm all over it. No worries.
I note the Wall Street Journal article again in case you missed it:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/yes-the...mp-11611356881
Perhaps they've turned into a left wing opinion site?
"A big Mess".
Vaccine in record time. Already more than 1,000,000 vacs a day. Joe's "objective" was already in place before he ever was inaugurated.
Yeah. Glad we have that mess. We've already gotten our vaccs. No issues.
Where's the mess, other than the fake stories foisted by fake media?
Anybody can do anything. Whittington assumes that it is a valid hearing presided by The Chief Justice. Roberts wants no part of it.
Alan Derschowitz says differently as to whether there can be a legit hearing. Any decision by the Senate after appeal would never stand.
Why don't you and your idols, move on and worry about the country going forward, and stop destroying jobs in a pandemic? Your Boogie Man Trump can't hurt you anymore, little boy.
Performative
Yikes. He was the "greatest" ever. 30,573!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3e2_story.html
Joe's got his work cut out for him.
Based on this rant it is clear that you do not understand the process.
First, not sure where President Nixon was raised. The case I was referring to was a 1993 case involving a Federal judge named Nixon, hence my parenthetical to make that clear.
Second, why do you think Harris gets a vote on impeachment? Her only involvement is that she might preside over the case. She would not have a vote on whether to convict or not.
Third, an impeachment hearing doesn’t require the Chief Justice to preside over it, only an impeachment involving a president. Whether that is sitting or not, I guess still has to be litigated. But if it is decided that it must be the Chief Justice, then he will preside over it as he is constitutionally required to do. If it is decided that it only applies to a sitting president, then someone else selected by the senate will preside over the trial (possibly Harris, but I doubt it)
Fourth, and this is where it does get confusing and wonky. There is no inherit right to an appeal an impeachment to the Supreme Court (or any other court). The reason being is that impeachment is the legislative check on the other branches of government. This is intended to be, and is, a political trial not a judicial trial. That isn’t to say you cannot try (hence the case law in Nixon vs. US). The court in Nixon (the federal judge) made it clear that they have the right as the ultimate interpreter of the constitution to decide something is unconstitutional but are unwilling to step in to interfere in the rights given solely to the senate in the constitution as it would interfere in the legislative branches check on the executive and judicial branches. So outside of a blatant violation (such as a rule to decide impeachment with a coin flip), they will not interfere as it is a political question and therefore non-justiciable.
Thanks scientists. trump was rated 42nd in this survey which was before his 2 impeachments. Hahah, the guy who caught cold and died after his swearing in did better:
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/up...y-Category.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/u...l-history.html
As the article states, he was a colossal failure @ Covid.
Yeah I mean people/media also said Obama left Trump with a big mess.