...at which time the extant articles of impeachment will be dead, because the current congressional session will have ended...
. Man, the cahones on that chick. She REALLY needs to lay off the sauce.
Pelosi is a babbling idiot typical of a lot of scatterbrained women. Cocaine mitch is quietly forming his battleplan and is gonna lay a FFDS on pelosi
It seems logical that articles of impeachment not acted on by the Senate should die with the conclusion of the House that voted them...but I don't see this explicitly in the Constitution.
I dont think articles of impeachment fall under the Constitutional rules for enacting bills into law for the simple reason that such bills are required to be sent to the President for his approval or veto. The President has no power over impeachment, he cant even pardon someone who has been impeached.
The only way I see the articles dying with the current House is if the “sole power” of the House exists only with each individual House session, not as a power carried over from House to House.
FB theory alert. Nancy is sitting on the impeachment for now so that if RBG dies, she can use impeachment to delay and possibly prevent confirmation of a Trump choice if the death comes late enough during the year.
Ummm, The Wicked Witch of the West is Speaker of the House. The senate is the confirmation authority. If that is what she thinks then she's a bit deluded.
Seems to be the common thought going around, even on Indy local talk radio. They seem to believe this is an actual strategy
About the only play she has here is if a) RBG leaves the court, b) Trump nominates a replacement, and then c) Pelosi drops the articles on the Senate, forcing the impeachment trial on the Senate, thereby preventing the Senate from acting on the SCOTUS nomination.
FB theory alert. Nancy is sitting on the impeachment for now so that if RBG dies, she can use impeachment to delay and possibly prevent confirmation of a Trump choice if the death comes late enough during the year.
It seems logical that articles of impeachment not acted on by the Senate should die with the conclusion of the House that voted them...but I don't see this explicitly in the Constitution.
I dont think articles of impeachment fall under the Constitutional rules for enacting bills into law for the simple reason that such bills are required to be sent to the President for his approval or veto. The President has no power over impeachment, he cant even pardon someone who has been impeached.
The only way I see the articles dying with the current House is if the “sole power” of the House exists only with each individual House session, not as a power carried over from House to House.
About the only play she has here is if a) RBG leaves the court, b) Trump nominates a replacement, and then c) Pelosi drops the articles on the Senate, forcing the impeachment trial on the Senate, thereby preventing the Senate from acting on the SCOTUS nomination.
Only works until someone makes a motion to acquit on day 1 and 51 Senators agree.
So she'd be counting on having a majority in the Senate? If it's still a GOP majority, they could just say... "Okay, we don't remove him. Done." and move onto the SCOTUS nominee
Only works until someone makes a motion to acquit on day 1 and 51 Senators agree.
Why do you think they would not act on an appointment?Certainly, I agree with this. It's not much of a play, but it's all I can see Pelosi having.
Otherwise, it's a "court of public opinion" thing, where she prevents the Senate from holding a trial, and then tries to play the "an impeached President shouldn't be allowed to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court until the Senate settles the impeachment matter." The problem there, of course is a) the House would be actively obstructing the Senate from doing so, and b) at this point, any SCOTUS vacancy will happen in 2020, which is an election year. As such, it is doubtful the Senate would act on a nomination anyway.