General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPelosi: "We have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I'm not about to discuss right now"
Link to tweet
C_U_L8R
(45,002 posts)Harker
(14,018 posts)C_U_L8R
(45,002 posts)cayugafalls
(5,640 posts)DownriverDem
(6,228 posts)is all we need. There is a lesson here and it's Vote Biden/Harris!
Raven123
(4,841 posts)grumpyduck
(6,234 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)the house does have the power to defund the federal court system
leftieNanner
(15,099 posts)So Mitch would be required to take it up instead of jamming through the next Justice.
MoonlitKnight
(1,584 posts)Would be best if used post election.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Or are we assuming it would?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Upthevibe
(8,048 posts)I was in an online discussion about this yesterday. We were especially speaking of the possible impeachment of Barr because apparently there's a rule that everything else gets pushed aside if an impeachment is in process. Having said that, one of the posters said that he thought that McConnel could possibly eliminate that rule. I'd love to hear further discussion about this option...
triron
(22,003 posts)Hopefully Pelosi is not bluffing.
Thekaspervote
(32,767 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)if not stop it.
Don't worry too much. Fingers crossed, though...
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)fierywoman
(7,683 posts)triron
(22,003 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)isn't an apology.
I'm not the only one who got that impression. Perhaps it's worth editing your post to ensure that you're understood clearly.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)I believe on 10/1/2020. I don't think the republicans don't want a shut down, but who knows, they are so power hungry, I would not put it past them. Negotiations for the funding puts all other matters to the side, which includes US SC open seat. My gosh, we were at 4/4 for months at one point in time.
Infections galore and deaths are continuing concerning COVID-19. In other words while focusing on the open seat, republicans don't and never cared about virus and the deaths and illness nor for the Americans suffering from it nor do they care about Americans who are unemployed nor businesses who were affected by it.
fuck them.
llashram
(6,265 posts)like trump said, very "disgusting people". Put me in mind of 'A Face in the Crowd'. And the ending when open mic ended his career and exposed him as the conman fraud he always was. Andy Griffith and Patricia Neal-1957 release date.
robbob
(3,529 posts)tRump has been quoted and caught on recordings saying all kinds of horrible things. Effect on his followers? Zero.
llashram
(6,265 posts)his followers are in goose-step behind the lead goose-stepper. Never would have any effect on them. He could say all those lies and horrible things about disrespecting women, minorities, POC, and his base just want white power, aka 10, the '20s '30's '40s and '50, back. Where POC and women will know their place in the pecking order.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,855 posts)I watched it recently and was completely blown away. It's Andy Griffith before he became Sheriff Andy Griffith, which was the only way I had known him before.
I'd suggest that everyone who reads this watch "A Face in the Crowd". Right now you can rent or buy it on Amazon. It's not on either Netflix or Hulu right now. If you're lucky your local library might have a copy of it.
But try to see it.
llashram
(6,265 posts)PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,855 posts)moonscape
(4,673 posts)vsrazdem
(2,177 posts)Trump cares about at this point.
moonscape
(4,673 posts)vsrazdem
(2,177 posts)through without a fight. Twitter world is already talking about supporting her opponent in CA if this ends up going throughout without a fight.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)And could turn the election toward Trump.
Wicked Blue
(5,832 posts)The House can hold impeachment hearings whenever they deem it necessary. For as long as they deem it necessary.
I don't believe the Senate comes into play unless, and until, the House votes to convict.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)I seriously doubt Pelosi has the votes for impeachment now... but even if she did, the most impact it would have would be for the days after she delivered it to the Senate and they took it up. Not much reason to believe that it could keep a nomination from going through if there are 50 republicans in the Senate who want it.
Srkdqltr
(6,285 posts)She and her people know what is possible and legal. If possible and legal exists.
Farmgirl1961
(1,493 posts)I just hope its more than the use of a pawn. Shes got to go for checkmate and hope the Rethugs are going to burn the entire board.
Mrs. Overall
(6,839 posts)Escurumbele
(3,392 posts)He is a very dangerous tool, he must be removed from his post. I am not sure what Nadler and Pelosi are waiting for, the process should have started right after he lied about the Muller report, at least that would have stopped the the plans he is working on.
Lonestarblue
(9,988 posts)Republicans are fine with his shenanigans and efforts to reelect Trump. They dont care about the rule of law because they know that Barr will protect all of them and help keep Trump in the White House. Impeachment in the House will not stop a Senate cote on a new SC justice.
iluvtennis
(19,858 posts)Illumination
(2,458 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Illumination
(2,458 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)dalton99a
(81,485 posts)Democrats must be just as ferocious.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,429 posts)not just keep them sharpened in the quiver and stored next to Harry Reid's dry powder.
Maybe it's time to get that powder out also.
Baclava
(12,047 posts)FBaggins
(26,735 posts)If there were 67 votes in the Senate to remove... then there wouldn't be 50 votes to approve a nominee.
The only thing impeachment would do would be to force (under current Senate rules) the Senate to set aside what they're working on and hold a trial... but those rules can be changed and they can vote to dismiss the trial either way.
At most... they could mess with the Senate calendar for a few days... and that doesn't get us to January.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)5-4. They could have overturned Roe vs. Wade at any time. But they did not. Judge Roberts at this point in time has semi protected ACA, not voting rights. Civil rights I don't know his track record.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)And even within the same issue depending on the specifics of a given case (as Roberts just proved with the recent abortion ruling)...
... but there's no question that replacing Ginsburg with pretty much anyone Trump would pick - is a huge shift on many critical issues.
Polybius
(15,411 posts)Perhaps even the House would be in play.
Hstch05
(219 posts)But, respectfully, how to you figure that exactly? How does the math on that work?
Response to Hstch05 (Reply #27)
Polybius This message was self-deleted by its author.
Polybius
(15,411 posts)Preferably, the new Senate. Because if people see that Democrats are impeaching this close to the election and it's only to stall, many will blame us. He's only a few points behind, especially in close states. If 5% nation-wide break for him because of this, then Biden loses.
MoonlitKnight
(1,584 posts)If we have to we just pound the message that it is not being done for any reason other than to use it as a tool to hold Republicans to the precedent they set.
It also allows the narrative of protecting ACA and pre existing conditions.
Its not like there are not an abundance of legit causes for impeachment anyway. Just send one at a time to force Senate into trials until the clock runs out.
Polling this week will likely determine the next moves on both sides.
But we are not without ammo.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)BUT it's also true that she needs to look like she's doing everything possible to keep Trump from replacing Ginsburg.
There really isn't anything that she can do. But she can't look like she's accepting the inevitable.
Bayard
(22,069 posts)Trump would get a lot of pity votes--Dems are out to get him.
I trust Nancy, so this makes me feel a bit better.
wryter2000
(46,045 posts)He hasn't been impeached yet.
bucolic_frolic
(43,161 posts)Blue Owl
(50,362 posts)n/t
OhioTim
(259 posts)All of the talk about increasing the number of justices worries me. If Trump wins, what keeps HIM from increasing the number and appointing a bunch of Republicans.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)"We" could be Democrats.
BlueWavePsych
(2,635 posts)"We have a responsibility," she said. "We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pelosi-democrats-arrow-quiver-block-trumps-supreme-court/story?id=73121750
roamer65
(36,745 posts)...and all the other committees that budget money.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)The committees that budget money don't have the power to take money away that is already out there. Even if they could it wouldn't impact a Senate confirmation. It doesn't cost anything for the president to send over a piece of paper saying he nominates someone... and the House can't strip the Senate of the funds to hold a hearing. And even if they could do that... the Senate doesn't have to hold a hearing if they want to just vote up/down on a nominee.
People overstate the "power of the purse" all the time. But this could be a new extreme.
TheProle
(2,173 posts)Antagonism and bluster has its place. This is not it.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,972 posts)I can't thinke there's much since the House is not directly involved in the process.
Cha
(297,211 posts)peacebuzzard
(5,170 posts)rather than hope for a republican senator to join our ranks, tired of that route.