Schmookler: Are the Bushites Bringing on Impeachment? A Speculation

[babylonsister]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4855

Are the Bushites Bringing on Impeachment? A Speculation
by Andrew Bard Schmookler

I've expended some virtual ink here laying out my thoughts, post election, regarding the idea of impeachment. In a nutshell, I've said that while the Bushites deserve impeachment like none others in American history, the Democrats should proceed very carefully if at all to make sure that they do not play into the Bushites' hands and lose the center of the American electorate. What I had in mind was that the Dems conduct the right kinds of hearings in the right way, and see how things evolve.

snip//

1) Signs are accumulating that the new Bushite gambit is NOT about Iraq but about expanding the existing disaster in Iraq into a wider regional war, with Iran in particular as the target.

snip//

2) It is clear that there are many in Congress --including some Republicans-- who want to stop this administration from unilaterally escalating and expanding America's involvement in war in that region. A variety of possible checks are being discussed, from using the power of the purse to revoking the president's authorization to use force to the War Powers Act.

snip//

3) It is also pretty clear that the Bushites will not recognize the authority of Congress to prevent the president from doing whatever he wishes to do. Not only is there a long record of this administration's making claims of virtually unchecked power for the "commander-in-chief," but such statements are continuing as Congress and the administration appear to be moving toward a constitutional confrontation over these matters of checks and balances.

4) The question then arises over how this confrontation will be resolved. Perhaps the issues could be taken to the Supreme Court. With that scenario, I wonder two things: first, would it be possible to get a resolution in a timely way, i.e. before the "commander-in-chief" might have taken the actions forbidden him by Congress; second, could one count on the Court --with its new members Roberts and Alito-- to come down against the Bushite interpretation in which the president gets the power of an autocrat? Might Congress decide that resolving the specific issues through the Court would not be a workable solution?

That leads to the final point.

5) Perhaps it is in the context of such a struggle that a bi-partisan majority in Congress could conceivably decide that the best way to block the Bushites from compounding the disaster they've created would be simply to remove them from office. After all, it would not be difficult at all to find the legal bases of "high crimes and misdemeanors" on which to base an impeachment.

more...

[marmar]

1. To quote our fuhrer: "Bring It On!"

Impeachment, that is.

[reprobate]

2. He's absolutely right! Look at the repugs jumping ship. I've thought for

some weeks now that it's gonna be the repugs who start the impeachment process. Let's face it, there aren't enough spines on the left side of the isle for the Dems to start it.

[zalinda]

3. Wow, why are you a dem?

You certainly don't think very highly of them. Yes, let's all bash the dems before they have the time to do anything. And, let's bash ALL of them, because after all, all dems are the same.

zalinda

[reprobate]

4. Actually, over the past five years I find myself leaning more socialist.

I WILL say that the last election have given us some fresh young and eager new reps and senators who may cause the changes that are needed, but I'm not that encouraged.

Look at any of the votes taken on any labor or free market issue and you'll see the repugs voting for the corporations, which is understandable. But you'll also find some Dems taking their side, so any issue favoring labor will most likely fail.

I believe the problem is, and will continue to be the way we finance elections. Our elected officials spend half of their time raising money for their re-election campaigns. This money does not come without strings. They are expected to vote to support their contributor's interests. Those that do not will not receive re-election money the next time.

The only way fix the system and return control to the voters is to remove the money from politics.
By this I mean public funding of elections, so the only constituency the elected answer to is the voter. And ALL of our current reps and senators were elected under the currnet system so little change is possible now.

When I complained of 'spineless' dems, what I meant was that few were willing to buck the wishes of their contributors, and I was not refering to their intestinal fortitude.

Zalinda, if you disagree with my reasoning I would love to hear your reasons. Come, let's dialogue.

Meanwhile, I think the best thing all of us can do is join the movement for public funding of elections in each of our states. Once this is done it will me relatively simple to apply it to federal elections.
'

[zalinda]

5. While I agree that the way we finance elections

is all wrong. That is the way it is for right now. I am sure that there are more politicians out there who would rather not ask for money. It does put them in a bad position, and probably feels demeaning.

But I will not bash the dems who made it in because some may be beholding to a corporation or two. It's been 12 years since they've had any real power, and I prefer to see what happens before I rip them apart.

I'm sorry, but if you always say bad things about people, they will eventually believe it, and act on it. I prefer the benefit of the doubt. Show me what you will do before I jump all over your case.

zalinda