First, i would just like to say, there is no way Obama is going to be impeached based on the babblings of some Limbaugh/Hannity/FoxNews spouting loon, be he a member of Congress or some questionable law professor...
However, this deserves a second look:
Quote:
In all seriousness, here's also one reason that Obama is not going to get impeached for these reasons: because that would set a precedent that neither party can afford to risk. It would be very short-sighted of them to kick out a president for, at best, bending constitutional interpretations to his agenda - because as soon as they do, then good luck avoiding the same for future presidents. Yes, it might be smart to slap the executive on the wrist for throwing around its authority (as Obama did on several occasions), but what makes you think that having a legislative branch than can throw out a prez at whim is in any way better? More importantly, what makes you (as the law student around here) think that this won't give a dangerous legal precedent to the supreme court?
|
Anyone else remember the sight of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, strutting about pompously in a robe he said was copied from a design in a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta, through the halls of the House and presiding over a farce engineered by NeoCon GOP members in an attempt to impeach and remove a sitting President over charges not even an -Nth of a degree as "serious" as those given by the law professor? Because of that little fiasco, the question of legal precedence is a ship that has already sailed...
Sadly, for the GOP, the axiom of "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it" has not taken hold. The little sideshows, such as the "Birthers", among others, is seriously obscuring any meaningful impact the GOP could have with the voting public...