Skip to main content

View Diary: Arizona Supreme Court overturns Colleen Mathis' ouster from redistricting commission (287 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY
    Impeachment and removal in the context of the presidency is a two-part trial with the House of Representatives acting as a grand jury and the Senate acting as a jury, the impeachment is an indictment by the House of Representatives and removal is conviction by the Senate (with the Chief Justice presiding, all by the constitution).

    yes, because otherwise it would be the Vice President's prerogative to preside over the Senate.  At least according to the Constitution

    It's an actual criminal charge (and there's a reason why it's made prohibitively difficult by the Constitution, and why the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides)

    I should note that it takes a two-thirds majority, which is enough to overrule any interference that the presiding officer might attempt.

    This is not what happened in Arizona, the Governor and the Senate removed (not impeached, removed) a commissioner without the cause spelled out by the actual statute!

    My entire thread of comments was about not wanting to see a precedent like this at the federal level, so the specifics of a local case aren't really relevant to what I said.  

    My point is that the least accountable branch of government should not be able to prevent the most chronically criminal branch of government from being held accountable.  Given the historical shortage of desperately needed (successful) impeachments (and removals from office, if you want to be pedantic), anything that weakens Congress's impeachment power is a very bad thing.

    Passengers: Feel free to rearrange the deck chairs, but please remember that the bridge is off limits.

    by happymisanthropy on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:22:14 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site