Latest Breaking News

onenote

(42,700 posts)

25. Oh, I don't doubt that some whackjob may introduce an impeachment resolution

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:28 PM

Jan 2013

But it will never make it to the floor. Did you know that starting with LBJ, an impeachment resolution has been introduced against every president, Democrats and Republicans, except Ford and Carter? Given that history, its actually surprising that no one has introduced an impeachment resolution against President Obama.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

83 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional [View all] jsr Jan 2013 OP

3...2...1....impeachment papers being filed? democrat_patriot Jan 2013 #1

It's only a matter of time. malthaussen Jan 2013 #6

I'll take the bet. Double or nothing? onenote Jan 2013 #7

Okay by me. malthaussen Jan 2013 #11

Oh, I don't doubt that some whackjob may introduce an impeachment resolution onenote Jan 2013 #25

Yes, that is surprising about Mr Obama malthaussen Jan 2013 #31

And even if there is an impeachment it won't be one followed by a conviction PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #35

no, but it mars up and distracts an entire term, like clinton and monica, for nothing. SugarShack Jan 2013 #46

I think a silly impeachment would likely cost Republicans in the following elections. n/t PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #48

Did the introduction of impeachment resolutions against LBJ, Bush I, Bush II, Truman, and Hooer onenote Jan 2013 #61

The House can impeach for any reason or no reason at all. If they have the votes to do it, they will kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #51

They had more votes during the President's first term and didn't do it. onenote Jan 2013 #59

"Dollars to doughnuts" William Seger Jan 2013 #54

Me too. I think the Repubs remember how impeaching Clinton turned out for them. (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #57

it'll be another colossal waste of taxpayer money SemperEadem Jan 2013 #21

Bingo!!!!!!!!! SoapBox Jan 2013 #41

if repugs do that, prepare for a huge backlash wordpix Jan 2013 #82

What now? lsewpershad Jan 2013 #2

Next stop, USSC. Robb Jan 2013 #4

Yes. I think that was the point all along. To get an definitive ruling on the shitty tactic of Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #34

How you, I, or anyone on the court feels about it is not relevant. What matters is what was meant 24601 Jan 2013 #73

So, were all those GW Bush recess appointments illegal as well? Does that mean John Bolton sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #3

I don't believe the Senate was doing 'pro forma' sessions to prevent the Bolton appointment PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #12

Actually, this decision is so broad it would invalidate the Bolton appointment onenote Jan 2013 #18

Yes I see it ruled not on the validity of the 'pro forma' sessions, but on the meaning of 'Recess' PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #33

It could mean that ALL of his recess appointments in 2012 session were illegal. dixiegrrrrl Jan 2013 #78

This one is going to the Supreme Court onenote Jan 2013 #17

Indeed--this is a good analysis. This decision is sweeping. nt msanthrope Jan 2013 #22

Very good summation, onenote. MADem Jan 2013 #30

Thanks. Of course, the facts won't stop some RW idiots from claiming Obama did something heinous onenote Jan 2013 #40

Indeed...it gets frustrating! nt MADem Jan 2013 #43

Go check any comment thread on any news site about this... they are out in full force budkin Jan 2013 #47

Why would other circuits have ruled on this issue? former9thward Jan 2013 #64

The 11th Circuit ruled on the recess appointment of Pryor to the 11th Circuit onenote Jan 2013 #65

Thank you. former9thward Jan 2013 #66

So it also means ALL NLRB actions in 2012 are in question dixiegrrrrl Jan 2013 #79

And given the 5-4 conservative majority . . . markpkessinger Jan 2013 #74

Unclear onenote Jan 2013 #77

It was inevitable the courts would be deciding this... PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #5

What was the makeup of the court? It seems ever decision is decided by party affiliation. olegramps Jan 2013 #8

Well I answered my own question: 6 Republican and 3 Democratic appointments; 2 vacancies. olegramps Jan 2013 #15

For this decision: one Reagan nominee, one Bush I and one Bush II. onenote Jan 2013 #42

Well, well, well. 3 of 3 Republican appointees who didn't like a Dem's appointments spooky3 Jan 2013 #63

Too "pro-union"? JohnnyRingo Jan 2013 #9

Wrong. Hard Assets Jan 2013 #10

good luck with that bunch madrchsod Jan 2013 #28

Fat Tony and Uncle Tom is due to expire soon. Hard Assets Jan 2013 #36

Unless he dies, quits, or is impeached, he will remain Chief Justice. n/t PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #53

Roberts has health issues Hard Assets Jan 2013 #60

that`s true.... madrchsod Jan 2013 #55

Is the Senate required to... ReRe Jan 2013 #13

Other presidents have been doing it for years. appleannie1 Jan 2013 #14

Hopefully tweeking the Senate filibuster rules will help on this front 99th_Monkey Jan 2013 #16

Naa, he's too busy hugging McTurtle in victory over the filibuster. RC Jan 2013 #20

What they are doing to the filibuster is a defeat for both parties mostlyconfused Jan 2013 #44

Shit. This is bad. nt msanthrope Jan 2013 #19

Not necessarily. Not the last word on this. yellowcanine Jan 2013 #39

well there goes what is left of any protection for unions madrchsod Jan 2013 #23

There are 4 openings on the DC Circuit - President Obama needs to fill these Hawaii Hiker Jan 2013 #24

So was it unconstitutional for bu$h to make recess appointments? liberal N proud Jan 2013 #26

some, if not most of them, probably. onenote Jan 2013 #37

Full text of the decision (.pdf) PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #27

Thanks. An interesting read, and I think a pretty convincing argument (nt) Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #58

This I put on Ried's head too. EC Jan 2013 #29

It wouldn't have mattered under this decision onenote Jan 2013 #32

I'm not sure this ruling will hold EC Jan 2013 #38

The Senate needs permission to recess. Igel Jan 2013 #81

Not good. Can this be appealed? budkin Jan 2013 #45

Yes Freddie Stubbs Jan 2013 #49

Good to hear. budkin Jan 2013 #56

It will likely end up with Supreme Court taking up the case as different circuits PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #50

Too late now, but this is another argument for filibuster reform Politicub Jan 2013 #52

Ever heard of winning all the battles but losing the war? nolabels Jan 2013 #62

And so are those of any appointees before him judesedit Jan 2013 #67

Not sure I follow. Can you explain what you mean? onenote Jan 2013 #70

Let's get a different Federal Court . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #68

This case doesn't hinge on the validity of pro forma senate sessions. onenote Jan 2013 #69

Thanks for the clarification . . . another_liberal Jan 2013 #71

Its a very confusing situation. No one foresaw this result. onenote Jan 2013 #72

The only federal court with justices is the Supreme Court. Federal district and circuit courts 24601 Jan 2013 #75

Thanks for the correction. another_liberal Jan 2013 #76

Anyone remember when Bush signed the bill that didn't pass the House? NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #80

I don't think it'll stand. Igel Jan 2013 #83