Just wondering - any reason we can't impeach members of congress?

[Tab]

Obama, Republicans Meet on Supreme Court Vacancy

Last updated on: March 01, 2016 12:52 PM
WHITE HOUSE— U.S. President Barack Obama and key Republican senators held talks Tuesday talks amid a dispute about who should should fill the Supreme Court vacancy left open after the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

The two sides declined to comment ahead of discussions on the appointment at the White House.

Obama is conferring with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley in the Oval Office. He also is joined by fellow Democrats Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Patrick Leahy.

Heading into the Oval Office meeting, the two sides remained squarely at odds about who should name a replacement. A new justice could tip the balance of the court to the left.

The president holds that it is his constitutional responsibility to name a Supreme Court nominee and the Republican-controlled Senate’s job to hold confirmation hearings on his pick. Republicans have warned they will not meet with or consider Obama’s nominee.

Republicans argue that Obama should not make an appointment to the lifetime position during his final year in office, and he instead should leave the task to the next president who will be elected in November.

On the senate floor Monday, Grassley accused Obama of making “an unprecedented attempt to hold hostage an entire branch of government.”

During a White House briefing on Monday, spokesman Josh Earnest said the Supreme Court is at risk of being "blatantly politicized." He said as long as Republicans maintain their position, it will be difficult for Obama to “engage constructively” with them.

http://www.voanews.com/content/obama-republicans-to-meet-on-supreme-court-vacancy/3214158.html

Constititionally, the President SHALL appoint a member. This has been discussed in other threads. This crap about waiting for the next president is just that - crap. You can be sure if Mitch McConnell was president he'd be appointing someone before his heavy breathing ceased.

So, if the President is doing his constitutional duty, and McConnell is saying they won't even entertain any nominees (what if he (god forbid) nominated Donald Trump?) shouldn't McConnell be impeached for not doing HIS duty?

[monicaangela]

1. Yes there is a reason:

Members of the Senate and House of Representatives are removed from office through a different process involving only the chamber of Congress in which they work. Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the US Constitution, a Senator or Representative may be expelled if there is a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the members of the Senate or House body who are present.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 2

"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

**The above is true when the member has not committed a crime. Members of Congress at any level (state or federal) can not be impeached, but if removed from Congress can be indicted for crimes like any other citizen.

[Tab]

4. So the best that can happen is that they just not get reelected?

Forgetting special actions like recalls or whatever. McConnell can get in office and refuse to do his duty, and we have to live with his politicially dead body for six years? I can't believe we don't have a mechanism for removing officials who refuse to do their constitional duties (which they vowed to uphold, incidentally). That'd be a nice tool to have right now.

[sharp_stick]

5. Basically yup

I don't know if anyone has ever actually been kicked out. I know of a few that were forced to resign but even that is pretty rare.

[former9thward]

11. Adam Clayton Powell

the representative from Harlem was kicked out in the 1960s. His constituents promptly re-elected him but the House refused to seat him. Finally when it was clear he would not give in the House seated him.

[monicaangela]

8. The mechanism is the vote

If you will notice, in many elections these people after gerrymandering their districts are almost impossible to remove from office. Our first step might be to fix the mechanism that allows politicians to choose their voters rather than allowing voters to choose their politicians.

[2pooped2pop]

2. Don't worry. It won't come to that.

Obama will cave and give them what they want. And it won't be a liberal. My guess is he will appt a republican. Maybe not a rabid one, but a republican.

[sharp_stick]

3. I love this kind of mental

gymnastics too.

You can be wrong every damned time and just pretend you never said it. I imagine you obtained this Kreskin like divination based on his previous court appointments that contain a grand total of zero (0) zip, nada of the Republican brand.

[2pooped2pop]

7. We will see, but the man starts in cave mode.

I have no reason to pretend I didn't say this either. If it should be a dem, it will be a dino.

Yep he will give them what they want.

Hopefully I am wrong, but I don't think so.

[monicaangela]

9. I believe this time

the President will think of his legacy. I believe he knows as well as you and I that this appointment is going to have an effect on our country for generations to come.

BTW: I still miss Gilda Radner what an excellent comedian:

[sharp_stick]

12. No I don't think so

He's appointed more Progressive judges than I ever expected. His choices of Sotomayor and Kagen for the SCOTUS give us a pretty clear indication of where he's going to go.

He might not go as far left as those two but It won't be a DINO.

[2pooped2pop]

13. Hope u r correct

[tritsofme]

6. Senate Republicans are violating norms, not the Constitution itself.

The decision on when and if to hold confirmation proceedings for any executive nominees is the sole prerogative of the Senate.

Members of Congress can only be expelled by a super-majority vote in the chamber, voters dictate the rest.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. "Constititionally, the President SHALL appoint a member."

With the advice and consent of the Senate.

However, each body of the legislature sets its own rules. So, if the Senate says they aren't going to deal with a nomination during an election year they get to say that just as they get to say whether or not a filibuster is allowed for votes on the nomination.

[Nevernose]

14. Republicans have been telling victims for years

That silence equals consent. Might as well call them on it.

[bigwillq]

15. They should all be impeached

Congress is a mess. And we wonder why our country is.

[bemildred]

16. Congress is the 800 pound gorilla in US politics.

If enough of them can agree, there is very little they cannot do, and nobody but the Congress can hold congresspersons accountable for their political acts (except for elections).

[Xithras]

17. Because they're not civil officers of the United States

Article 2, Section 4 states that any civil officer of the United States can be impeached. "Civil officers" includes the elected President, because he is the head of the civil government, and judges because they are appointed.

Congress is technically not part of the civil government. They write and pass laws, but they aren't directly running the nation the way the President does.

We can't impeach them because the Constitution doesn't allow it. Why not? Find a blue box and go ask Thomas Jefferson. I have no idea.

It's worth mentioning that the Constitution does allow both houses of Congress to eject members for just about anything they wish, so there IS a pseudo-impeachment process that can be used against them. That's not going to happen to a Republican in a Republican dominated Congress though.