Impeached presidents should not nominate lifetime

[forest4qt]

Why do impeached presidents get to nominate life time appointment SC justices? That doesn't seem right. ANd is he supposed to hold elective office again? Just wondering.

[Blue Owl]

1. Especially ones who are tax cheats and frauds

[BlueMTexpat]

4. And whose policies have

killed more than 200,000 of the citizens he is supposed to protect since March.

[Walleye]

2. Nixon inflicted Anthony Kennedy on us. Did lasting damage

Father of trumps bank loan officer at Deutsche Bank

[Sherman A1]

3. Might be worth reading the Constitution

there is nothing addressing the issue you mentioned and as he was not removed from office by the Senate he continues to function with the full authorities and responsibilities of his office.

[maxsolomon]

5. Indeed. Impeachment is akin to an Indictment.

He was found Not Guilty in the Senate.

All that argy-bargy, now just a historical footnote.

[Karma13612]

6. I brought up both of those issues

During the Impeachment proceedings.


Without removal from office, Impeachment is toothless.
Normal humans have a certain level of remorse and shame when they are ‘censured’ as with Impeachment. That is meant to be the deterrent from committing impeachable offenses in the first place.

Our narcissistic Dotard-in-chief has no such capacity for remorse.
He wears it like a badge of honor.

He is a twisted f**k.

After this debacle, going forward, I think there should be laws that state the impeached office holder cannot serve anywhere else in government once their term is over. And in the case of Presidents, they should not be allowed to run for a second term, and certainly not appointment any more Federal or SCOTUS judges.

Period.

[NYC Liberal]

9. Impeachment IS "toothless". That's the point. It's only an indictment.

And it only requires a simple majority of the House. It does not determine guilt.

I think there should be laws that state the impeached office holder cannot serve anywhere else in government once their term is over. And in the case of Presidents, they should not be allowed to run for a second term, and certainly not appointment any more Federal or SCOTUS judges.

So on January 3, 2011, if this law were in place, the GOP would have immediately voted to impeach Obama. It only requires a simply majority. Then he would not have been eligible to run in 2012 and would have been banned from appointing any judges. How does that make sense? It would be like rescinding voting rights for every person who was indicted by a grand jury even if they were found not guilty later.

[Karma13612]

12. I know, it doesn't make sense.

Sorry, you are right, sometimes I do forget that there are 2 sides that can play the game!!

Do you agree that we need some changes in the Senate whereby legislation from the House needs to be brought up for a vote at least? And maybe a clarification on nominating Judges, and holding them when it’s the opposing party. What McConnell did was wrong in 2016 and then again 2020.

He makes up the rules and the majority of Americans suffer.

[NYC Liberal]

14. I think we need to get rid of lifetime positions to start

so one person’s death doesn’t affect the entire country for a generation.

I don’t think having the House involved in appointments is a bad thing either. The senate is not the stoic “deliberative body” is was meant to be or used to be.

[NYC Liberal]

7. Because impeachment is merely an indictment.

It only requires a majority vote and does not determine guilt. Guilt is determined in the Senate, where a conviction requires a 2/3 majority.

What you propose would mean that every single president would get impeached on day one if the opposing party controlled the House...and then what? No president would ever nominate any federal judges if their party didn’t control the house.

[Karma13612]

8. OK, I see your point

But it still seems wrong.
Really wrong.

[NYC Liberal]

10. I think a more feasible idea is getting rid of lifetime positions.

The idea that a single person’s death at the right (or wrong) time could fundamentally affect the entire country for a generation is insane to me.

The SCOTUS needs a revamp. Then this sort of thing wouldn’t be as much of an issue as it is now.

[Karma13612]

13. Excellent!!! Love the idea!!! Nt

[JHB]

11. Suppose a president was impeached as a matter of political theater (like, say, Bill Clinton was)...

Should those theatrics be rewarded by hamstringing their target? Wouldn't that incentivize frivolous "hit job" impeachments?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. Exactly my question

If we apply this standard for Trump, we could potentially have to hold a future Democratic President to the same standard regardless of whether the Impeachment was warranted. Yeah. Let's not go there.