Pelosi does not rule out impeachment to stop Supreme Court confirmation process

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | Latest Breaking News | Pelosi does not rule out impeachment to stop Supreme Court confirmation process

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • Author
    • #360314
      • Total Posts: 4,871

      House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday did not rule out impeaching President Donald Trump or Attorney General William Barr if the Senate tries to push through a Supreme Court nomination during a lame-duck session if Joe Biden wins the November election.

      “We have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now, but the fact is we have a big challenge in our country. This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election,” Pelosi said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

      “So, right now, our main goal and I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would want that to be, would be to protect the integrity of the election as we protect the American people from the coronavirus, and that’s — I have faith in the American people on this Sunday morning,” she said.

      Only a day after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Trump vowed on Saturday he would pick his nominee in the upcoming week, likely a woman, and said that his administration wants to move ahead with the nomination before the election.

      From .

      I’ll note that the House of Representatives has no constitutional role in the confirmation process.

      He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    • #360325
      Bernie Boomer
      • Total Posts: 526

      Now we have arrows in our quiver.
      No string on the bow, but lots of quivery arrows.

    • #360329
      • Total Posts: 5,325
      • worked so well last time. Maybe she’ll consider getting advice from friends as to whether she should call for a panel to look into the possibility of drafting something resembling an argument for impeachment. In the next Congress. Snore.
      • What a gal!
    • #360336
      Blue Meany
      • Total Posts: 214

      are united.  The Judiciary Committee rules require at least one Democrat (or one Republican, when Dems control it) to be there in order to have a quorum.  And I don’t think committee rules can be changed without a quorum.  If they boycott the committee meetings, a nominee could not be vetted and could not go to a floor vote.  I never understood why they didn’t do this with Kavanaugh.

    • #360354
      Babel 17
      • Total Posts: 5,121

      This could be the signal for all Biden supporters to do the same. lol

    • #360361
      Ohio Barbarian
      • Total Posts: 21,304

      I suppose she might have a few practice arrows in her quiver, but she’s already given up her cannon. The power to shut down the federal government by the power of the purse is the most powerful weapon, by design, that the Speaker of the House has. It’s a check-and-balance thing. Pelosi refuses to use it.

      Trump will see his nominee confirmed because the Democrats have no objection to another corporatist on the bench. They don’t really give a shit about a woman’s right to choose, either. Why should they? Anyone in their family can always obtain an abortion. And why didn’t they ever just pass a federal statute granting the right to abortion and paying for all of them, along with every other reasonable medical procedure?

      Freedom of choice for women and Medicare-for-All are really linked issues. Meanwhile, the chumps will send millions to the DSCC. What a fucking con job this is.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #360365
      Jim Lane
      • Total Posts: 828


      The normal process for a judicial nomination is that it goes through the Judiciary Committee.  If the Democrats make that impossible, however, the full Senate can approve a discharge petition.  This can be used to take a nomination (or any other matter, such as legislation) out of a committee and bring it to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

      If McConnell has a majority to approve the nomination, then he almost certainly can get the same majority to vote for a discharge petition.

      I don’t know whether a discharge petition can be filibustered.  Given that the filibuster has been eliminated for Supreme Court nominations, it would seem to be logical that there’s no filibuster of ancillary matters, such as discharging a Supreme Court nomination, but perhaps a technical reading of the rules would provide a way around that.

    • #360710
      • Total Posts: 1,602

      I’d probably be on a 3rd or 4th Impeachment by now. There are literally hundreds of possibilities.

      Aside from Russia and  Ukraine, Trump has done so many corrupt immoral and out right unlawful things, you could be impeaching him every day and still prosecute him after he stops being our American dictator.

      With all the crimes Trump has committed, I’ll never understand why the Ukraine thing was ever prosecuted. It’s minor compared to this Nazi secret police he has going around abducting peaceful citizens.

    • #360930
      • Total Posts: 295

      …it’s just like the Dems to use indirect means rather than fighting using the legislative rules of order, as the Republicans always do.

      Remember the Kavanaugh thing?  First, they should damn well have fought for Garland before it ever came to Kavanaugh; then they should have had the huevos to vote against Kavanaugh due to incompetence and his unprincipled and indefensible legal positions.  But no, they decided to go with the “But he’s a bad person!” tactics, and we see where that got us: exactly nowhere.  BTW, this is exactly what happened back in the day with Clarence Thomas, an obviously incompetent person who never should have been elevated to the Supreme Court on that basis alone.  IOW it should never have got to the point where Anita Hill had to testify.

      Does anyone at all still wonder why the Democrats are held in such contempt?  Also, I can tell you one dynamic that never changes: when you cave to the bully, they never ever have sympathy or like you more.  On the contrary, they just have that much more contempt for you.  It is true in personal relationships and it is true in politics.

      Of course the Democrats don’t care because they are careerists.  If they were actual leaders they would stand on principle now and then.  They are unable to do that.  Bought and paid for, the lot of them, with only a handful of exceptions.


    • #360953
      Babel 17
      • Total Posts: 5,121

      Well, if that fails she can try “Death by Chocolate”, I’m sure she has that in her refrigerator.

    • #362571
      • Total Posts: 341

      onto the gullible public, namely establishment Dem supporting, head up their ass liberals.

    • #362681
      Ohio Barbarian
      • Total Posts: 21,304

      Pelosi? Schiff? Bueller?

      Nope. Nancy was lying through her teeth. She never meant it, and will do nothing.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.