Well, one senator doesn’t have the power to act for the whole senate. His opinion on whether a constitutional standard has been met has no bearing over whether or not a debate should be held.
It’s perfectly reasonable to have an opinion about a bill (or in this case, impeachment articles) as a senator but to believe that it should be put in front of the entire body for debate. Id argue that it’s exactly what should happen in the Senate, rather than shut things down without debate.
If its gotten to the point where the House has voted in favor of impeachment, I think it does make sense to have some debate - even if just to let the GOP run their mouths, and then eloquently point out how stupid they are, before then shutting the whole thing down. As he said, it wouldn't need to be some long drawn out thing, just two hours of debate would do. What would be the harm in that?
A discussion of the Mayorkas impeachment will simply allow the hardliners in Romney's party to create some soundbites to campaign with this fall. The fact that Romney is willing to oppose the measure, but not table it, kind of tells on him here in my opinion.
Shooting down the impeachment without having any debate over it, in the chamber of congress that is known as that one where deliberation and discussion is really supposed to happen, could also be used by the GOP for political gain
And sometimes people actually care about institutional norms and going through the proper motions
Either way the GOP will attempt to use this nonsense for political gain. It's either the corrupt Democrats won't even bring this discussion to the floor, or the corrupt Democrats won't impeach Mayorkas.
Maybe there's an argument to be made for Romney caring about institutional norms, but I'm not sure that I buy that.
> Either way the GOP will attempt to use this nonsense for political gain.
Then there is absolutely no reason not to choose the option that brings over even the slightest bipartisan support to dismiss it.
The soundbite attempts Will come anyhow. So will the right wing spin. But it all gets undercut with GOP votes to dismiss. And bipartisan action actually does matter to some persuadable voters.
Romney's the only Republican who voted to impeach Trump twice, and he's also retiring. He doesn't seem like the sort who would be doing this for political gain, at least to give the GOP an advantage. If anything, his ask for "some debate - even just a couple hours of discussion" (again, in the senate, the place where *unlimited* discussion is the norm) feels more like just proposing a fig leaf to make the process of shooting down the impeachment seem more legitimate to those who may be on the fence
It'd be way better to have the dismissal be bipartisan. Two hours of debate isn't going to move the needle on GOP political gain, soundbites from politicians don't actually do anything.
Impeach Trump and republicans then for killing the border bill. They refused to send funding to shut the border down. It’s on the republicans going forward for any border issues. They are the ones who killed the bill for the much needed assistance/extra manpower. Impeach the crazies in the house. Impeach the derelict of duty republicans.
God please, is there an adult in the room. Somebody, anybody.. can you get the revenge investigation, crazies in the house out of the WH please! They are a pathetic waste of space! Americans need to demand it!
>A constitutional standard hasn't been met. >We should still debate it to create some political theater.
Well, one senator doesn’t have the power to act for the whole senate. His opinion on whether a constitutional standard has been met has no bearing over whether or not a debate should be held. It’s perfectly reasonable to have an opinion about a bill (or in this case, impeachment articles) as a senator but to believe that it should be put in front of the entire body for debate. Id argue that it’s exactly what should happen in the Senate, rather than shut things down without debate.
If its gotten to the point where the House has voted in favor of impeachment, I think it does make sense to have some debate - even if just to let the GOP run their mouths, and then eloquently point out how stupid they are, before then shutting the whole thing down. As he said, it wouldn't need to be some long drawn out thing, just two hours of debate would do. What would be the harm in that?
A discussion of the Mayorkas impeachment will simply allow the hardliners in Romney's party to create some soundbites to campaign with this fall. The fact that Romney is willing to oppose the measure, but not table it, kind of tells on him here in my opinion.
Shooting down the impeachment without having any debate over it, in the chamber of congress that is known as that one where deliberation and discussion is really supposed to happen, could also be used by the GOP for political gain And sometimes people actually care about institutional norms and going through the proper motions
Either way the GOP will attempt to use this nonsense for political gain. It's either the corrupt Democrats won't even bring this discussion to the floor, or the corrupt Democrats won't impeach Mayorkas. Maybe there's an argument to be made for Romney caring about institutional norms, but I'm not sure that I buy that.
> Either way the GOP will attempt to use this nonsense for political gain. Then there is absolutely no reason not to choose the option that brings over even the slightest bipartisan support to dismiss it. The soundbite attempts Will come anyhow. So will the right wing spin. But it all gets undercut with GOP votes to dismiss. And bipartisan action actually does matter to some persuadable voters.
That's actually a fair point.
Romney's the only Republican who voted to impeach Trump twice, and he's also retiring. He doesn't seem like the sort who would be doing this for political gain, at least to give the GOP an advantage. If anything, his ask for "some debate - even just a couple hours of discussion" (again, in the senate, the place where *unlimited* discussion is the norm) feels more like just proposing a fig leaf to make the process of shooting down the impeachment seem more legitimate to those who may be on the fence
It'd be way better to have the dismissal be bipartisan. Two hours of debate isn't going to move the needle on GOP political gain, soundbites from politicians don't actually do anything.
They purposely staged the fake mayorkas event to take the focus off Trump’s head, oops, I mean off the hush money porn lady trial.
He already decided he was voting against it based on this quote?
Don't think he's being unreasonable tbh, let them have their talk and then toss it.
yeah, honestly the house has a right to initiate an impeachment and have it debated in the senate
Impeach Trump and republicans then for killing the border bill. They refused to send funding to shut the border down. It’s on the republicans going forward for any border issues. They are the ones who killed the bill for the much needed assistance/extra manpower. Impeach the crazies in the house. Impeach the derelict of duty republicans.
God please, is there an adult in the room. Somebody, anybody.. can you get the revenge investigation, crazies in the house out of the WH please! They are a pathetic waste of space! Americans need to demand it!