Thursday, November 09, 2006
Err, maybe not.
Now that the Democrats have taken both houses of Congress, what does it mean? President Bush is going to continue doing exactly whatever he wants to do, regardless of what Congress says. Bush holds to President Andrew Jackson's view of the powers of the Presidency. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Jackson had no authority to remove the Cherokee to Oklahoma, Jackson said "Mr. Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it" and removed them anyhow. If Congress passes a law that says that Bush can't do this, that, or the other, Bush will shrug and say "Congress has made their law, now let them enforce it." After all, he is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, which, as ole Governor Earl K. Long of Louisiana pointed out when telling the Louisiana legislature why he wasn't going to defy a desegregation ruling, "they got the goddamned atomic bomb!"
Thus why I haven't exactly been jumping up and down for joy, because the only resort that Congress has, in that case, is to impeach Bush. And as Nancy Pelosi noted, that ain't happening.
Impeachment is off the table for the simple reason that the Democrats don't have the 60 votes in the Senate. They could create a circus, but that's about it.
So what about Nixon, you ask? But that was a different Republican Party. That was the Republican Party of Barry Goldwater -- dignified men of principle in pinstriped suits. Nixon resigned because his own Republican Party bolted from lock-step support of Nixon and Barry Goldwater went to Nixon, with several members of the congressional Republican leadership behind him, and told Nixon rather bluntly to either resign or we're going to vote with the Democrats to impeach you. I don't see any leader in the modern-day Republican party with that sort of integrity or that willingness to pitch Bush II over the rails of the sinking ship of state.
Pelosi can change this by investigating, investigating, investigating, pounding at the corruption in the Bush administration (and lord knows there's plenty of corruption to pound at). But short of Bush doing something stupid like hiring thugs to break into Pelosi's psychiatrist's office to dig up dirt on her and said thugs getting caught by the cops, I don't know if even that is enough to break the Republicans away from Bush enough that they'd vote to impeach him.
Not to mention that impeaching Bush means... President Dick Cheney. Somehow I doubt that Darth Cheney would be an improvement!!
-- Badtux the Skeptical Penguin
Expanded from a comment I made at Spontaneous Arising, crossposted in slightly revised form over at the Mockingbird's Place.
Posted by: BadTux / 11/09/2006 01:43:00 PM
|President Darth Cheney prepares to bite the head off of a cute kitten for his mid-day meal, shortly after taking his daily restorative bath in the blood of nubile young virgin girls.|
love the picture...and i await the days to come..not with high hopes - not yet...
# posted by azgoddess : 9/11/06 2:38 PM
uh, not to mention the fact that "impeach" doesn't mean the President would step down or be put out of office. Remember Clinton was impeached and stayed in office. Impeach simply means to accuse or charge someone with an offense. Nixon was not impeached, he resigned.
But I agree, we wouldn't want Prsident Cheney. If one goes, then they both need to go.
Tux, you should check this out (very off topic):
# posted by niCk (Mem Beth) : 9/11/06 3:16 PM
Impeachment is a two-part process. First, the House votes (by majority vote) articles of impeachment against the President. This happened insofar as Clinton goes. Then the Senate holds a trial, and then votes on guilty vs. not guilty. It takes 60 votes in the sentence to have a guilty plea. There were not 60 votes to impeach Clinton, and there are not 60 votes to impeach Bush.
So it was all a political stunt on the part of the Republicans to impeach Clinton, just as it would be a political stunt on the part of the Democrats to impeach Bush. Because there aren't 60 votes in the Senate. And thus the President can have articles of impeachment read against him by the House, and be forced to participate in impeachment proceedings in the Senate, but will not (and can not) be impeached, just as Clinton was not impeached (an impeachment proceeding is NOT the same as being impeached, though the fuzzy-headed "liberals" who run our newspapers can't be bothered to tell us the difference).
# posted by BadTux : 9/11/06 3:35 PM
As my sense of glorious, smug, vindictive schadenfreude grew throughout the day, I ventured far afoot, into the dank, fetid cesspool of the Right Wing Blogosphere, there to revel in their misery.
And then, in the throes of supreme hubris, I click on Rush Limbaugh's official website.
And captured the funniest screenshot in a day filled with hilarious ones.
AAAAAAAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA!! How's that turd polishing working out for ya, Rush?
# posted by Aaron : 9/11/06 3:54 PM
Though I think that Bush deserves impeachment and that it wouldn't be a stunt at all, I suspect that it is distant from the minds of the Democrat victors. For one thing it would make them look too much like the Rectal Republicans of recent years. In Common Dreams you will find a short, excellent article by one of Clinton's former Cabinent members, Robert Reich, advising Democrats to push ahead with good, new ideas instead of indulging in anger, and I hope and expect that that is the way they will go.
# posted by Carl : 9/11/06 5:29 PM
Well, Carl, if you don't have the votes, then all you can do is make a spectacle. Spectacles don't solve problems, they're just, well, spectacles. Distractions.
# posted by BadTux : 9/11/06 5:53 PM
Don't get me wrong, I want Bush impeached so badly I can get high off the fumes. I've wanted just that for quite a while. But that isn't going to happen. Fine.
Let's concentrate on rehabilitating this country. And let Bush the Lesser thank his lucky stars that daddy an daddy's cronies are still around to haul his mouth-breathing carcass out of every hole he petulantly digs himslf into. It must suck to be a limp-dicked sixty-year-old chucklehead. Heh heh. Heh heh. Heh heh...
# posted by Mimus Pauly : 9/11/06 11:34 PM
I thought cheney was already the president.
I'm not so sure bush is as free as he was. There are some repubs who believe his shit stinks too. If he gets out of line I think they would join with the dems and perhaps support an impeachment.
# posted by pissed off patricia : 10/11/06 5:52 AM
As for enforcing congresses rulings, as long as they hold the purse strings, I think the military (or any other branch of government) would be VERY reluctant to thumb their nose at congress. While real power may derrive from the barrel of a gun, it's awfully easy to influence that holder with cash.
# posted by : 10/11/06 6:34 AM
That is pretty much how I see it also.
Both of them need to get caught getting blow jobs, I wonder if Nancy is up to that.
# posted by BBC : 10/11/06 7:55 AM
# posted by : 10/11/06 11:04 AM
- Name: BadTux
- Location: Some iceberg, South Pacific, Antarctica
I am a black and white and yellow multicolored penguin making his way as best he can in a world of monochromic monkeys.
View my complete profile
April 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 /
Bill Richardson: Because what America needs is a competent fat man with bad hair as President (haven't we had enough incompetent pretty faces?)
Cost of the War in Iraq