Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-06-2024, 10:24 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,061 posts, read 44,895,573 times
Reputation: 13718

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
and there was even an impeachment, in which he was acquitted.

IAW the 14th, only congress has the power to remove a candidate for reasons pertaining to the 14th. SCOTUS does not even need to weigh in on this other than to tell CO, and ME, that their actions violate the constitution.
Exactly. No need to weigh in on "did he" or "didn't he." All SCOTUS has to say is that states lack jurisdiction in this matter per the US Constitution.

 
Old 01-06-2024, 10:26 AM
 
15,101 posts, read 8,650,226 times
Reputation: 7453
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
139 of 221 House Republicans voted to overturn the election.

8 of 51 Senate Republicans voted to overturn the election.
And the rest who didn’t? Well, they should one day enjoy adjoining cells in a federal penitentiary with their fellow Democrat criminals.
 
Old 01-06-2024, 10:26 AM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,932,900 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
and????????

so now the reps are not allowed to vote????

so now elected reps are not allowed to have an opinion, unless its a liberal opinion???? how fascist of you
I did not say they were not allowed to vote. I am saying they voted against the certification of Electoral College results.
 
Old 01-06-2024, 10:28 AM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,932,900 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
And the rest who didn’t? Well, they should one day enjoy adjoining cells in a federal penitentiary with their fellow Democrat criminals.
What was their crime?
 
Old 01-06-2024, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
37,195 posts, read 19,241,897 times
Reputation: 14920
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
a few times.... its called impeachment.... Pres Johnson, Pres Clinton, Pres. Trump.... all impeached.... none removed...... now the pending impeachments of Tyler and Nixon, ""may"" have ended up with removals, but we will never know.
Impeachment is purely a political exercise, and has nothing to do with our Justice System. You impeach and remove someone from office so they can be indicted and tried by the courts.

Try again.
 
Old 01-06-2024, 10:30 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,061 posts, read 44,895,573 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
I did not say they were not allowed to vote. I am saying they voted against the certification of Electoral College results.
So what? They are Constitutionally allowed to do so. The same thing happened in 2016:

Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama's votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida's votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia's votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina's votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing "massive voter suppression" after Mississippi's votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan's votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, "I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask 'Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'" after the announcement of Wyoming's votes.
 
Old 01-06-2024, 10:32 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,061 posts, read 44,895,573 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsoldier1976 View Post
But they will because it is an amicus brief to the filing
SCOTUS has no obligation to respond to an amicus brief.
 
Old 01-06-2024, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,506,087 times
Reputation: 9619
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
I did not say they were not allowed to vote. I am saying they voted against the certification of Electoral College results.
and when ever is a vote 100%, of course there was some condescending votes...always is... unless you hate democracy, and think they should all be robots of one mind
 
Old 01-06-2024, 10:38 AM
 
Location: *
13,240 posts, read 4,932,900 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
So what? They are Constitutionally allowed to do so. The same thing happened in 2016:

Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama's votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida's votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia's votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina's votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing "massive voter suppression" after Mississippi's votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan's votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, "I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask 'Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'" after the announcement of Wyoming's votes.
I am not saying they are not allowed to do so.
 
Old 01-06-2024, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,506,087 times
Reputation: 9619
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
So what? They are Constitutionally allowed to do so. The same thing happened in 2016:

Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) objected to Alabama's votes.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) objected to Florida's votes.
Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) objected to Georgia's votes.
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) objected to North Carolina's votes.
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) objected to the votes from North Carolina in addition to votes from South Carolina and Wisconsin. She also stood up and objected citing "massive voter suppression" after Mississippi's votes were announced.
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) brought up allegations of Russian interference in the election and malfunctioning voting machines when she objected following the announcement of Michigan's votes.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) rose and said, "I do not wish to debate. I wish to ask 'Is there one United States senator who will join me in this letter of objection?'" after the announcement of Wyoming's votes.
yep exactly.... guess those (and most are still current) should be barred too.....

so does chigeekguest want to admit that Maxine Waters committed insurrection.......hmmmmm
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top