737
Pete Hegseth stares down likely impeachment vote. And he's not the only one (www.usatoday.com)
submitted 4 days ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
184 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 4 days ago (30 children)

Conviction and removal in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority. With a full Senate of 100 members, this means 67 votes.

The dems don't have 67, not even close.

This article is complete bullshit

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [–] 49 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (8 children)

    Even the Republicans hate what is happening in Iran. Bring in some sailors from the Lincoln to really hammer the point for those conservatives who don't care about foreigner deaths.

    It's worth pursuing regardless if only to point at the complicit GOP.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 4 days ago (7 children)

    I think there's going to be a surprising amount of Republicans who will come out as anti-Trump but were too afraid to do so while MAGA was in power. There are most definitely traditional conservatives who hate him.

    I'm not gonna get my hopes up for too much, we're not gonna fix this in two years. But you never know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago

    The article says that Massie may bring impeachment articles as soon as next week. Given the drubbing that Republicans just took, and Vance's statements that it is about the war, it is entirely possible that they force him out expeditiously, just so that Senate Republicans can have a say in his replacement.

    If he gets impeached after the new Congress is seated, then Democrats have a much larger say in who the replacement is. (Or, even not seat a replacement at all....)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago (6 children)

    I'm not American so I'm not super well versed in American politics... but I didn't realize until reading your comment that there isnt really a chance at seeing sweeping changes as a result of this election.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

    Sweeping changes are incredibly difficult because the US Constitution intentionally made change slow. It was a purposeful attempt by the founders to prevent rapid policy changes and have some degree of stability.

    When passing laws, 2/3 of EACH house of Congress is required to overcome a veto. This is why passing laws is difficult when one party does not own both houses with the presidency or a super majority in both houses without. This also says nothing about the judicial and their ability to check either of the other branches, in terms of what is "constitutional" per their interpretation.

    Amendments to the US Constitution are even harder. 2/3 of each house of Congress or 2/3 of state legislatures must agree to a proposal and then 3/4 of the states must agree to the change for it to pass and the Constitution be amended.

    What happened last night is one step on the road to permanent change, since historically red states have shifted (for now), and those states are required for long term policy to be put into place. It's an important step, but tempered expectations are crucial. There is still a lot of good/harm reduction that can be done as a result.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (3 children)

    Except president it seems. Super unstable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (2 children)

    Are you able to clarify what you mean?

    Presidents don't have the power to make laws according to the Constitution, only the authority to enforce them. The executive branch controls the DOJ and other executive departments and over time, the legislative branch has ceded power to the executive. A president changing those departments as they see fit is unfortunately without meaningful guardrails and where most of the damage has been done. Sweeping changes here are only possible with compliance from other bodies of government. This current version of the executive branch was not intended by the Constitution.

    Unlawful executive orders (not laws) have mostly been deemed unconstitutional by the judicial, excluding when the supreme court becomes involved and chooses to make partisan decisions that disregard years of precedent. A compliant congressional majority has failed to curb overreach by the executive, especially regarding actions that would usually be considered acts of war. Compliant branches failing to provide checks and balances as intended allowed the damages to occur within areas governed not by laws but by traditions.

    It's incredibly easy to tear down components of the executive branch when the other two branches offer no resistance. Many things that were "understood" as the norm should have been codified into law and were not. There is now resistance in place with the power to resist, since one party no longer controls all 3 branches. Whether they will or won't is a different story.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

    It's just an unnecessary amount of power and independence concentrated in one man. US president can enforce laws as he wishes or not enforce or enforce his own interpretation. No consequences unless a two third majority of Senate sees it as a political advantage to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    Agreed. It wasn't designed to be this way though and could only happen as it has with compliant politicians in other branches. Complete control across all 3 branches of government is not common and has only happened something like 3 times in the past 40 years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago

    Correct. Best case scenario, we can be obstructionists to anything Mango Mussolini wants to do. Congress could pass really great stuff and let Fuckface go on record as vetoing it. Though he'd just blame it on Biden. I HIGHLY doubt enough Republicans would defect to override one of his vetoes. It requires 2/3 of both houses. The Democrats have a simple majority but do not have a veto-proof majority.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago

    They need 11-13 Republican senators to agree with them. That can be done for non-trump officials. It's also worth it to have that public trial even if it fails so long as it's not a straight party line vote.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (9 children)

    You don't think some R Senators who just saw their counterpart get trounced last night will be thinking about their own reelection when casting a vote?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago (8 children)

    No. I've lived in Kentucky, Alabama and Florida. Their senate candidates shrugged off the blue wave.

    Alabama and Florida in particular are just fucking stupid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (7 children)

    None of those states flipped a Senate seat yesterday. Both the Carolinas, Kansas, Iowa, Maine, Ohio, and Texas all flipped a seat, with 5-20 point victories. Nevada didn't have a Senator on the ballot but the governor's office flipped. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that some of the incumbents from those states will shift some of their votes in the wake of yesterday's results.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 days ago (5 children)

    And I'm telling you that is a delusion.

    You really need to live in the south for a decade or so to realize just how nuts they are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    I'm from Texas and have lived here for 30+ years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (3 children)

    Texas is not Alabama. And they just proved it with a vote.

    Meanwhile Alabama just proved they are not Texas by voting pure red.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Yes, continue citing a state that did not flip any statewide seats as a rebuttal to the possible future actions of statewide office holders in other states where other statewide offices were flipped. perhaps you'd also like to convince me that my friend in Arizona won't like switching from English breakfast tea to Irish breakfast tea because you only have coffee in Louisiana.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    I cite it because I lived there for decades and saw it retreat farther into the republican camp.

    Just as you cite Texas as it rejects the republicans.

    Not everyplace is the same

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago

    Not everyplace is the same

    My dude that is my fucking point. Ohio and Kansas are not Alabama! The elections in those states booted at least one statewide Republican last night, which did not happen in Alabama. So perhaps you could recognize that it's not delusional to think that the surviving statewide Republicans in Ohio and Kansas, neither of which are Alabama, might respond differently to the staunch and safe Republicans in Alabama, perhaps even to the point of voting less staunchly Republican in the next two years so as to bring back some of the formerly Republican voters who broke Democratic last night.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago

    I agree. Among the things the Rs have been good at are closing ranks and obstructing process. There's no way 11-13 of them decide to remove someone the R President still supports. While I do think there should be some level of congressional investigation, I hope the new Congress focuses on passing legislation that will benefit the people if passed, and hurt the popularity of Rs (and especially MAGA) if vetoed.

    The evidence collected (and conclusions reached) as part of congressional investigation could be handed over to the DOJ (if it is ever independent from the executive person, again) or State AGs or both. But, even a 56/44 Senate is not going to pass a vote to remove.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent