So, if Cheney becomes the Senate tie-breaker, Impeachment is

[patrice]

completely out, right?

No way they'll even talk about it if he's there?

I was thinking that if this thing happens and Sen. Johnson is replaced by a Republican, is there anyway we can make everything about Impeachment at that point, since none of the rest of our legislative agenda has a snow-ball's chance in Hell, and I DO mean HELL.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

1. Senate Isn't Needed For Impeachment I Thought

Only for conviction.

But yeah, throwing him out of office would be unlikely if the repubs maintain the Senate.

[The Count]

3. Unless they resign before it gets there. The ball needs to start rolling

[patrice]

4. Well, I've been NOT supporting Impeachment up to this point,

because we've got so many OTHER important things to do, but since all of those important things are impossible with Cheney shitting on us, hell, might as well be hung for a wolf, since we're going to get it anyway.

Since we won't be allowed to do anything else useful, because of Cheney, we might as well go ahead with Impeachment.

[sharp_stick]

5. I don't think it can happen in any case

IIRC you need a 2/3 majority to convict on impeachment and actually drag that asshole out of Al Gore's house. There is no way that I can see where we could pull enough pukes or even conservative Dems to pull it off.

I'd like to just get an impeachment on the prick from Congress, that would really make my decade. So far the 21st century hasn't been a lot of fun politically.

[wryter2000]

7. If we hold the Senate

And I'm talking about committees, not votes on bills, you're going to see some real fun when the investigations hit the fan.

[sharp_stick]

10. 100 % agreement

I'm looking forward to it and I will enjoy every second that they make this administration squirm.

[wryter2000]

12. I love Congressional hearings

I was on leave of absence during Watergate. I listened to every moment of the Bork hearings. You can't find greater high drama.

[patrice]

11. Would it be worth the effort even if we don't succeed?

I would settle for one serious, protracted, attempt to Impeach, with lots of detail being repeated, repeated, repeated . . . for the benefit of those who have not been paying attention.

[ellenfl]

2. the house initiates impeachment . if passed through the house,

the senate then votes. that said, i think at least spector might vote for it, as well as snow and collins . . . the last of the moderates. i don't think they have anything to lose . . . and they DO come from a 'bluer' part of the country. spector has already said he would work to re-instate habeas corpus. also, he bucked dimson before the 2004 election resulting in dimson threatening his chairmanship.

ellen fl

[wryter2000]

9. You need a lot more Rs than Specter and the two New Englanders

You need 16 Rs as well as the 49 Dems and 2 independents.

[wryter2000]

6. There's no tie-breaker on conviction in the Senate

The Senate has to go 2/3 for conviction to oust the President. If we get 2/3, Cheney's vote is irrelevant.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. If the criminal indictment alleged to be pending against him, should

intervene, wouldn't that make matters more interesting? I wonder.

[Old and In the Way]

13. If the evidence warrants, a bill of impeachment should be passed.

Let each Senator weigh the evidence and vote his conscience (or, lacking one, vote on Party lines). If it goes down in the Senate, he or she can explain her vote to her constituents...and they can decide if they wish to keep their Senator based on this vote.

What is important to me is that a vote occurs, should the results of an investigation warrant. If the Republicans want to validate what I think are serious criminal acts on our Constitution and the rule of law, then the voters will have the final say. At least we would have made the effort to hold this administration accountable and this will serve to send a message to the world and to future wannabe boy-kings that we do not condone these actions on our behalf.

I personally think it is a Hobson's choice for Republicans. They can thumb their nose at the voter or join us in holding this selected regime accountable.

[raysr]

14. Is there a republic

who would change parties?

[Hosnon]

15. Doesn't change much really. Impeachment is in the House and this merely means

that the Dems would have one less vote for conviction.

Cheney's tie-breaking ability would never be an issue for conviction because it requires 67 votes (no tie, by definition).

[patrice]

16. I wasn't asking whether Impeachment would/could succeed or not,

but whether impeachment should become our highest priority if Sen. Johnson is replaced by a Republican. Since we won't be able to get any of our other issues legislated in a manner befitting our values with Cheney breaking the ties, we might as well just concentrate on Impeachment.

[Hosnon]

17. Oh I see. Good point. nt.

[patrice]

18. Thanks. I have been wanting to support Impeachment, but have not

because I think other things need to be done, and Impeachment would take too much time and resources away from that, but if those other things are now impossible because of Cheney, we might as well just put everything into Impeachment.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. How would one vote in the Senate

change whether impeachment were a priority?

[Hosnon]

24. I think the point is that without the Senate, the likelihood that Democratic legislation

will succeed decreases.

If that likelihood is low enough, we might as well spend our time with impeachment (if we can't do anything else).

[MonkeyFunk]

29. what?

that seems pretty bizarre.

Regardless of what happens with Senator Johnson, the House of Representatives - where impeachment occurs - will still be in the Democrats' hands. Both houses will still have plenty of important work to do.

[Hosnon]

30. I guess - not my theory:

But assuming neither house will vote for Democratic bill unless it is controlled by the Democrats, no legislation is possible.

Therefore, since no legislation is possible, the Democrats might as well spend all of their time doing the one thing they can do: Impeach Bush (since they control the House).

Yes, I get that the assumption is pretty big as a categorical statement (however, considering the Executive is Republican, passing legislation is unlikely given only one house)...but that is the line of thinking.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. but

the House will clearly be under Democratic control.

I find this whole discussion strange. Johnson's condition has zero effect on impeachment - even if impeachment WERE a real possibility, which it isn't, imo.

[Hosnon]

32. This discussion is only strange if you take it for more than it is:

I'm not advocating this as something likely to occur. I'm simply helping to explain the poster's line of thinking.

Needed to pass legislation: House + Senate + President (or override).

Assuming that the Senate will not vote to pass Democratic legislation unless there is a Democratic majority in that house, passing legislation would be quite difficult (Senate and President = Republicans).

Now, assuming that there are only two things that can be accomplished by the Democrats on Capitol Hill: 1) Legislation and 2) Impeachment and Conviction and assuming that 1 is not possible (due to loss of the Senate from Johnson's replacement), that only leaves 2 (minus Conviction).

So an individual who was on the fence about impeachment would then be more inclined to support impeachment proceedings, as that is all that a Democratic House could do.

Look, I get that there are some big assumptions there and that the likelihood of conviction is actually less given Johnson's replacement. But the poster was talking about impeachment, not conviction.

[patrice]

37. I'm really thinking more about how anyone, senator or not, decides

**what** to put their efforts into. Hopefully it would come to the point where there is an actual Impeachment vote in the Senate someday, but I'm really thinking about before that point, in the day to day decisions about what we do and why.

[DrDan]

20. but here is an interesting thought

if there were 99 senators, then it would take only 66 votes, right? 2/3 of Senate.

So Johnson's resignation would result in a "impeach" vote - unless filled.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. No

because if Johnson resigned or passed away, his replacement would be a Republican. The seat wouldn't remain vacant.

[Hosnon]

26. It could remain vacant for a small period of time. However, that is unlikely and

I bet a contingent appointment would be valid so as to eliminate any gap.

S.D. Sec. State sometime before vacancy: "Upon vacany of Sen. Johnson's seat, Mr./Mrs. X shall be appointed."

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Well

I suppose that Sen. Johnson COULD linger for the year or more it would take for impeachment hearings to occur, impeachment to occur, the trial in the Senate to occur, and then die the day before the vote occurs, but that seems pretty unlikely - all of it.

And the SD Secretary of State doesn't appoint the replacement, so I'm not sure what any announcement on his part would mean. And the Governor would never announce a "contingent" replacement for a currently-serving Senator. However, the replacement could be announced an hour after the Senator's death and then sworn in immediately, still removing any possible "gap".

But it's just an intellectual exercise - there likely won't be any impeachment at all, and if there were, the Senate is very unlikely to convict, so while it's possible to imagine some scenario under which one vote would matter, the likelihood of it happening are so minuscule, it's hardly worth considering.

[Hosnon]

28. Right - I know it is highly unlikely. I'm just teasing out the possibilities.

And replace Sec. State with Governor or "person that appoints replacement" if that helps. S/He may not have to announce it but submit it to Cheney (as President of the Senate).

But like I said, not likely. Eliminating a gap would be pointless because once the vote was called, word would get to the "person that appoints replacement" and one would be appointed immediately.

[Hosnon]

25. Assuming the vote is called before his seat is filled, that would probably

be correct.

The requirement is 2/3 of the Senate. If that number is 99 at the time, then 2/3 is 66.

However, I bet that if the seat is deemed vacant (by whoever has the authority to deem it so), the replacement would be immediate (and if not, certainly before the vote).

[ChipsAhoy]

22. It's always been "completely out" - no chance

I'm sure not going to cast my hopes on that falling star.

YES, snow-ball's chance in HELL.

[mentalsolstice]

23. 17 instead of 16?

I've had too many glasses of wine tonight to keep count. But I think it would mean all of the Dems, plus 17 Repubs to vote for a conviction. Without a conviction, impeachment is pretty meaningless. And even with a conviction, all it means is sending them home to their gazillion-acre ranches to clear brush and drink Jack Daniels. Yeah, they go down in history as being kicked out of office, but are we going to be satisfied when we see them go to their galas and collect their stockholders benefits?

[Le Taz Hot]

33. Impeachment would have been out anyway.

Do you REALLY think Joe Lieberman would vote to impeach chimpy? My guess is that AT LEAST another 8 would join him.

[MonkeyFunk]

34. Lieberman

doesn't get a vote on whether to impeach Bush.

[Le Taz Hot]

36. You are correct.

Allow me to restate that. Lieberman will not vote to convict chimpy. So what would the point of impeachment be if one has no clear expectation of conviction?

[patrice]

38. Doesn't Impeachment have a value whether we win or not?

Of course, the best thing would be to win, so that's what everyone should set as their goal if we end up going in this direction, BUT - What about the generalized effects of the Impeachment process, especially in regards to increasing the knowledge level of many many people? Or in terms of more ordinary people actually standing up to bad government. I think that's worth something, whether it turns out the way we would want or not.

[ClassWarrior]

39. Sure does. It's about accountability, and whether we have the strength...

...to demand it, rather than play little political calculation games.

NGU.

[patrice]

40. No point in doing it if not to succeed!

I am just saying that's not the only reason to do it. I would look forward to opportunities in which all of the facts are repeated and repeated in a prolonged discussion in this country. That sort of thing affects many people permanently whether the impeachment succeeds or not.

[ClassWarrior]

41. Plenty of point in doing it whether or not someone's crystal ball...

...says we'll succeed or not. You seem to be contradicting yourself. :crazy:

NGU.

[patrice]

42. I don't see the "contradiction".

To say the intent to succeed is necessary in anything one does, does not preclude other (less or un- necessary) motives, such as other effects in general that some course of action might have.

BTW, it is common for many people to check whether they've understood a statement accurately before implying that the person making the statement is koo-koo. It is possible that you are the one who is koo-koo and that's why you don't make an effort to check your own comprehension, by asking a question perhaps.

[JohnnyBoots]

35. John Roberts will preside over Impeachment Hearings so

they insulated themsleves even if it gets to that.