The Catholic Case Against Impeachment - Crisis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Divine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizabeth3 said:
She doesn’t have the authority to dictate how the Senate will handle the process.
Click to expand...
Nor is she claiming that authority. There is a difference between attempting to influence the process and demanding control of a process. The latter is “dictating”.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
As for a fair trial, all that is needed is open mindedness on the part of the jurors. Who ever heard of a juror who announces before the trial that he will be acting in total coordination with the defendant?
Click to expand...
It’s the same as a judge who throws out a case due to lack of evidence or bogus charges. Really, this needs no trial.
 
dvdjs said:
You are welcome to invent an alternative reality and dwell in it. When you are ready for a conversation about what is actually happening in reality, I will be all ears.
Click to expand...
I could say the same about you.
 
The constitution has no provision for dismissing an impeachment without a trial. A trial is required, no matter how poor you think the evidence is.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Nor is she claiming that authority. There is a difference between attempting to influence the process and demanding control of a process. The latter is “dictating”.
Click to expand...
The House’s role is finished. The vote has been cast. There’s no role in which they get to play games to influence anything.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
It’s the same as a judge who throws out a case due to lack of evidence or bogus charges.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see if Justice Roberts will do that.

www.cnn.com

Chief Justice John Roberts says Americans may 'take democracy for granted'

As the country faces unprecedented rancor between the branches of government in the midst of impeachment proceedings, Chief Justice John Roberts urged his fellow federal judges Tuesday to promote confidence in the judiciary and maintain the public's trust.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

But McConnell is a juror, and will swear an oath of impartiality before God. I hope that he withdraws his earlier, improper remarks and honors his oath.
Elizabeth3 said:
The House’s role is finished.
Click to expand...
Again, this is factually incorrect.
Elizabeth3 said:
I could say the same about you.
Click to expand...
You could, but you would have no basis for it.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
The constitution has no provision for dismissing an impeachment without a trial. A trial is required, no matter how poor you think the evidence is.
Click to expand...
The Senate is empowered to hold a trial but not mandated to do so.
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism. We can debate the appropriateness of its use in this instance, or in any instance, but it most certainly is not subversion.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree. If used inappropriately it can be subversion. Lots of countries have subverted their political system by using trumped up charges to jail and even execute their political rivals.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
The Senate is empowered to hold a trial but not mandated to do so.
Click to expand...
The Senate would have to change its rules on impeachment.
It could do this, to help Trump, but I suspect that the backlash would not be pretty.
Theo520 said:
Lots of countries have subverted their political system by using trumped up charges to jail and even execute their political rivals.
Click to expand...
We are not talking: Lock her up! Or do me a favor while I am holding up your military aid.
We are talking about constituionally recognized due process.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
We are not talking: Lock her up,
We are talking about constituionally recognized due process.
Click to expand...
Yet again, you ignored what I actually said,
in your rush to prooftext part of what I typed.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism. We can debate the appropriateness of its use in this instance, or in any instance, but it most certainly is not subversion.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree. If used inappropriately it can be subversion. Lots of countries have subverted their political system by using trumped up charges to jail and even execute their political rivals.
Click to expand...
In any case, impeaching a president is not equivalent to a rebellion against a legal authority. It is a defined part of the legal system. So Aquinas’s doctrines about conditions for a rebellion do not apply. The OP article is way off base trying to cast this as a doctrinal issue. As with most issues it is a matter of prudential judgement on which faithful Catholics can disagree.
 
dvdjs said:
The Senate would have to change its rules on impeachment.
It could do this, to help Trump, but I suspect that the backlash would not be pretty.
Click to expand...
Not according to this article

“The Senate could make quick work of a House impeachment effort. The Senate could entertain a motion to dismiss the charges at the outset of a trial on the grounds that the allegations did not meet the constitutional standard of impeachable offenses, and a majority of the Senate could send the House packing without ever hearing a witness or seeing evidence. If a majority of the senators thought the House was abusing the impeachment power by bringing frivolous charges, there is no reason why the Senate would have to pay obeisance to the House by going through the motions of a pointless trial.”

www.niskanencenter.org

Is a Senate Impeachment Trial Optional? - Niskanen Center

Since the Trump presidency is just one long excursion into the unfamiliar oddities of the American constitutional system, we must now consider whether the Senate is constitutionally obligated to hold a trial if the House of Representatives adopts articles of impeachment. We would perhaps not be...
www.niskanencenter.org www.niskanencenter.org

While you can have an opinion on the political benefit of holding or not holding a trial, it’s not true that they are required to do so.
 
Thanks for the link:
Can he do that? The current Senate rules certainly seem to contemplate an orderly initiation of a Senate trial once the House of Representatives has sent notice that the House has appointed managers and is prepared to exhibit articles of impeachment. But the presiding officer of the Senate could creatively interpret those rules to allow the Senate to delay moving forward with a trial, and a simple majority of the senators could vote to sustain such a ruling. Notably, this maneuver would require the senators to go on record with a vote to delay. They could not so easily hide behind McConnell. The necessity of taking such a vote might reduce the incentives for avoiding a trial, and McConnell might have a hard time keeping his majority in line to cast such a vote.
Click to expand...
IOW, pretty much what I said.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
Also sounds like the eight years of Republican opposition and obstructionism when Obama was president, if we’re just applying that term without further considerations.

Anyway, we have a republican, constitutional government. Normal operations of the legislative branch and acting according to the articles of the Constitution isn’t seditious or rebellious.
Click to expand...
Actually, Fast and Furious is now in the courts, 3 years after the end of Obama’s presidency and the main reason, AG Eric Holder stepped down. F and F is pretty serious. That hardly sounds like they were not obstructing justice.
 
I found the article totally lacking any impeachment case from a Catholic viewpoint other than Democrats are bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top