Jump to content
IGNORED

Democracy is officially dead


Smash!
 Share

Recommended Posts

This tweet deserves his own thread. If the mods don't think so please move it.

I don't know what to say. Everyone should know this and take the streets. 

 

Laurence Tribe's answer:

Edited by Smash!
  • Upvote 3
  • Disgust 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As awful and undemocratic as #MoscowMitch's remarks are, they change absolutely nothing about the outcome. It has been clear for a very long time now that no matter what the charges are, the trumplicans in the Senate will acquit Trump. The egregious and unconstitutional way they choose to do it doesn't really matter, except to show to what lengths the trumplicans will go to remain in power for as long as they can.

Like I said yesterday in another thread, this impeachment is not about removing Trump. It's about showing the voters what Trump does, what the sycophantic trumplicans do, and getting everybody out to vote. It's about showing the world that American democracy is at stake here. That is the whole purpose of the impeachment.

That said, I agree that people should take to the streets like they do in Hong Kong and protest like never before. Don't wait and see what happens next. Americans have been doing that for far too long as it is*. 

*I mean this generally speaking. of course there have people participating in marches before now. But they are one offs. A single day of protest simply won't cut it anymore.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The brazenness is what bothers me most as if they really are already unstoppable. They were so sure the GOP would win in 2016 that they stomped out Garland, such a moderate candidate, and have been so blatant about being corrupt ever since. Feels like caring about the common man has been gone a long time now. They've been systematically making voting more and more difficult and spent decades building the alternative news machine feverishly.  I hope next year we find out that voting still changes things. But I'm afraid it will take much more struggle before people get unhappy enough to vote for change in undeniably victorious numbers. Anything close is just going to go like 2000, I hate to be so cynical but corruption seems that bad. 

 

 

Edited by Coco
  • Upvote 3
  • I Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Coco said:

The brazenness is what bothers me most as if they really are already unstoppable. 

You expressed my sentiment so much better than I could. Thank you!

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct that the Senate will not vote to impeach.  However, the House vote today to impeach will inflict a gaping narcissistic wound that will not heal; Trump will always be known as the president who was impeached.  It's a black mark on his permanent record that will follow him for the rest of his life and he will rage at the shame it induces in him. 

Also, keep this in mind.  All of the screaming, faux outrage, histrionics, high dudgeon by Collins, Jordan, et al. about how unfair it all is, and how there's no "there" there has all been Act 1 agitprop. The purpose of Act 1 has been to inoculate Trump supporters against the truth about Trump's actions.  McConnell's statement sets the stage before the curtain goes up on Act 2, so the supporters see the blatantly unconstitutional maneuvering as legit, because hey, it's all so unfair anyway. 

I'm very, very interested in how this plays out and what SCOTUS Roberts allows and disallows during the trial.  McConnell is obviously maneuvering to do some vote at the beginning to scuttle the entire process. 

  • Upvote 9
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that the US was never a democracy in any meaningful sense. Or alternatively, the way democracy is defined in the West makes it easy to call an entity democratic, when only a small percentage of the population not only has the franchise and an even smaller percentage of the population has any meaningful input on the most important societal issues. I think the problem can be traced back to classical Athens, the supposed birthplace of democracy, where only about twenty percent of the population (free adult male citizens) had decision making capacities, and the bulk of the population (women, slaves, foreigners) were just “there” to be used. If this is our culture’s role model in democracy, why are we so surprised about current developments? The US has never been comfortable with the idea of universal suffrage, especially of nonwhites, and it’s never been a reality. Gerrymandering and voter suppression isn’t a betrayal of the founding fathers, it’s the natural outcome of what they believed. The situation in Europe is no better, with the wave of far right sentiment arising once the colonialist chickens came home to roost.

This brings me to my second point, which is that the term democracy has become virtually content free. Everyone thinks of their particular entity as democratic. The Chinese think their country is democratic, as do a host of countries Western political discourse considers “non-democratic.” Voting and elections are seen as the gold standard for a democracy in the West, but it’s not like real momentous decisions will ever end up on the ballot, like the option to turn Google into a public utility or the option to dissolve CIA black sites. 

  • Upvote 6
  • I Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Howl said:

I'm very, very interested in how this plays out and what SCOTUS Roberts allows and disallows during the trial.  McConnell is obviously maneuvering to do some vote at the beginning to scuttle the entire process. 

I wonder, of those two, who is the one with the power in an impeachment trial? Can Roberts tell McConnell he isn't allowed to confer with the WH counsel? Or that he isn't allowed to hasten the trial? Or is MoscowMitch the one with the clout in that regard?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Roberts presides over the trial. Doesn't that mean he gets to say how the proceedings should go? Isn't it 'his' trial to oversee? Like a judge in a courtroom can tell the prosecution or the defense to do or not do something if he wants and they have to obey his orders?

  • Upvote 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The constitution says specifically that when the President is impeached the Chief Justice shall preside over the trial. It is possible McConnell will try to dismiss the trial before it can even get started which would bypass the Chief Justice. It is possible the Chief Justice would not allow this. Would the senate obey the Justice? We are in uncharted territory here. 
And  yes, I do fear for my country.

  • Upvote 6
  • Thank You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn Kirschner says nothing can be done. But I guess Laurence Tribe is the expert.

Oh Laurence Tribe is hopeful

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fraurosena Glenn Kirshner shares your sentiment. I just fear he puts too much hope into the people plus he doesn't take into consideration that the elections will be rigged. In other words we're most likely doomed [emoji20]
I take comfort in that here in our politics subforum we all saw what was coming and did the best we could. We stand on the right side in history.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Smash! said:

@fraurosena Glenn Kirshner shares your sentiment. I just fear he puts too much hope into the people plus he doesn't take into consideration that the elections will be rigged. In other words we're most likely doomed emoji20.png
I take comfort in that here in our politics subforum we all saw what was coming and did the best we could. We stand on the right side in history.

Ha, you beat me to it! I was just going to post that tweet :my_biggrin:

Putting hope in the goodness and righteousness of people is the only thing we can do. And I have a lot of faith in that.

Yes, there is rigging of elections. Yes, there is a state propaganda machine out there poisoning the minds of many.  Are these dark and dangerous times for democracy? Yes. Very dark and dangerous, more than any other time in American history.

But I firmly believe that when the vast majority of people get up and make a stand, things will start to change for the better. The question is, what will it take for that to happen?

  • Upvote 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Ha, you beat me to it! I was just going to post that tweet :my_biggrin:

?

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

But I firmly believe that when the vast majority of people get up and make a stand, things will start to change for the better. The question is, what will it take for that to happen?

True. But I fear it might take a war to change people's minds. I hope and pray I'm wrong tough. I can't be optimistic because there are no signs that things get better soon. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2019 at 7:53 AM, fraurosena said:

I wonder, of those two, who is the one with the power in an impeachment trial? Can Roberts tell McConnell he isn't allowed to confer with the WH counsel? Or that he isn't allowed to hasten the trial? Or is MoscowMitch the one with the clout in that regard?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Roberts presides over the trial. Doesn't that mean he gets to say how the proceedings should go? Isn't it 'his' trial to oversee? Like a judge in a courtroom can tell the prosecution or the defense to do or not do something if he wants and they have to obey his orders?

It would be so nice to see his power throttled. 

Edited by Coco
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Yes, there is rigging of elections. Yes, there is a state propaganda machine out there poisoning the minds of many.  Are these dark and dangerous times for democracy? Yes. Very dark and dangerous, more than any other time in American history.

Yeah I'm actually a little nervous about repercussions to be frank. We have to sign our ballots and hand them directly to the polling staff. It felt like it was going right into file 13. I mean, outright suppression happened in Spain 2017. This decade. 

 

Edited by Coco
  • WTF 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2019 at 3:53 PM, fraurosena said:

I wonder, of those two, who is the one with the power in an impeachment trial? Can Roberts tell McConnell he isn't allowed to confer with the WH counsel? Or that he isn't allowed to hasten the trial? Or is MoscowMitch the one with the clout in that regard?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Roberts presides over the trial. Doesn't that mean he gets to say how the proceedings should go? Isn't it 'his' trial to oversee? Like a judge in a courtroom can tell the prosecution or the defense to do or not do something if he wants and they have to obey his orders?

Apparently it's not so clear cut. Senators are both jury and court in the Senate trial. This isn't a common criminal trial, it's a political trial, with only 2 precedents. This is uncharted territory. I found this article interesting and informative.

Spoiler

Senators at an impeachment trial are not the equivalent of a jury and they are not held to a juror’s standard of neutrality.

The principle, that senators are not jurors in the traditional sense, was well established at the outset of the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

Tasked with delivering an opening statement for the House Managers – who present the House’s case to the Senate – Rep. Robert Barr (R-Ga.) reminded the senators of Clinton’s tendency to “nitpick” over details or “parse a specific word or phrase of testimony.” To Barr, the conclusion was obvious: “We urge you, the distinguished jurors in this case, not to be fooled.”

That was the moment Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, had been waiting for.

“Mr. Chief Justice,” he said, addressing William Rehnquist, who was presiding over the trial, “I object to the use and the continued use of the word ‘jurors’ when referring to the Senate.”

The Chief Justice sustained the objection.

“The Senate is not simply a jury,” he ruled. “It is a court in this case.”

Rehnquist thus admonished the House Managers “to refrain from referring to the Senators as jurors.” For the balance of the trial, they were called “triers of law and fact.”

Rehnquist and Harkin got it right. Article III of the Constitution provides that “Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury,” and for good reasons.

In an ordinary trial, the jury’s role is generally limited to fact-finding, while the judge determines the scope and application of the law. In an impeachment trial, however, the Senate itself has the “sole power” to decide every issue.

Recognizing the Senate’s all-encompassing responsibility, and his own limited role, Chief Justice Rehnquist referred to himself throughout the proceeding only as “the Chair.”

As the U.S. Supreme Court has put it, impeachment presents a “political question,” in which all of the “authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else.”

McConnell, the Senate’s leader, has more leeway and far more power than any juror or even a jury foreperson.

The Constitution’s only procedural limitation is the requirement in Article I that the senators be placed under “oath or affirmation.”

Although the Constitution does not specify any particular wording (unlike the presidential oath, which is included word-for-word), the Senate adopted rules for impeachment trials in 1986 requiring each senator to affirm or swear to do “impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.”

“Impartial justice” does not demand the enforced naiveté of jury service, which would be impossible in an impeachment trial. For example, the senators all have prior knowledge of at least some of the facts, and several of them are currently vying to run against Trump in 2020, while others are backing his reelection campaign.

But the Senate’s oath of impartiality clearly calls for at least some commitment to objectivity. Thus, the problem with McConnell’s announcement was not that he failed to behave like a juror.

Rather, he has declared an intention to disregard the Senate’s prescribed oath, which was fixed long ago by the very body that elected him its leader.

When Tom Harkin disclaimed a juror’s role at the Clinton trial, his purpose was not to affect the outcome of the case, but rather to underscore the full scope of the Senate’s decision-making responsibility. In contrast, Mitch McConnell appears to have boldly renounced open-mindedness itself on the impeachment court, whether as juror, judge or “trier of law and fact.”

Here you can find the full text of Sen. Harkin objection. The Supreme Court as referenced in the article upheld in this sentence that the Senate is the sole authority in impeachment trials, not even the Supreme Court (including its Chief Justice) can review the proceedings. So, the only rules that count are those the Senate gave itself in 1986, you can find them here (a very interesting, if long, read). 

TL;DR Senate Is the sole authority and this means that Moscow Mitch can do more or less as he pleases. Reading the Senate rules though, it seems like (or this is how I read it) the impeached one, the Individual One, will have to appear and testify before the Senate, that will be fun.

  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Reading the Senate rules though, it seems like (or this is how I read it) the impeached one, the Individual One, will have to appear and testify before the Senate, that will be fun.

Now that is something I'm looking forward to!

Although, with MoscowMitch being able to do anything he pleases, it will probably mean he'll simply change the rules and not have Trump testify. Trump as a witness will be political suicide, and he knows it.

 

  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Now that is something I'm looking forward to!

Although, with MoscowMitch being able to do anything he pleases, it will probably mean he'll simply change the rules and not have Trump testify. Trump as a witness will be political suicide, and he knows it.

 

Or someone could tell the dotard that if he testifies he would have the bestest TV ratings ever, it wouldn't even be a lie.

  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2019 at 3:27 AM, fraurosena said:

But I firmly believe that when the vast majority of people get up and make a stand, things will start to change for the better. The question is, what will it take for that to happen?

Sadly, I think it'll take goons knocking at our doors to take us away...and even then I suspect most people would think twice.

The intent of a circus is to distract.  The impeachment has been turned into a circus.  Kellyanne's abhorent "alternative facts are evolving into alternative reality.  The Dems need to find a way or ways to make Trump & Co's dirt (non-alternative reality) stick to the heads of his supporters and stink, so they can react at the voting booth.  Something to cut through the propoganda.  As before, I think total humiliation would make a dent...but there's the same problem of spin.

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.