Poll Results: 45% Favor Impeachment

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
It is pretty well established that it is what the Supreme Court does now. In fact, the Supreme Court turns away almost every case that is not about determining constitutionality. For more information, please refer to Marbury v. Madison. I hear it's a pretty popular case in most high school government courses.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's certainly what they do now, but it's not "why they exist," which is what you said. Maybe I'm just being picky with your wording, but to me that implies that that is what they were created to do.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is pretty well established that it is what the Supreme Court does now. In fact, the Supreme Court turns away almost every case that is not about determining constitutionality. For more information, please refer to Marbury v. Madison. I hear it's a pretty popular case in most high school government courses.

[/ QUOTE ]



Right but he's referencing the fact that Judicial Review wasn't the Court's initial job.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not, but it is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I suggested that perhaps that power should be removed from SCOTUS in the future, and the power returned to where it belongs in accordance with the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't actually all that terrible while the Senate was still made up of state government appointed representatives. This was a huge check/balance that we amended out of the Constitution. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is incompetence grounds for impeachment?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but lying to the public to justify a war is, in my opinion!

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want to impeach Hillary too?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not know she started a war...

[/ QUOTE ]

She voted to authorize it.


[ QUOTE ]
She probably, like so many misguided people, believed Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like these people?

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Note these are all before Bush took office. Were they all bamboozled by Bush's lies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bump for midge.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is pretty well established that it is what the Supreme Court does now. In fact, the Supreme Court turns away almost every case that is not about determining constitutionality. For more information, please refer to Marbury v. Madison. I hear it's a pretty popular case in most high school government courses.

[/ QUOTE ]



Right but he's referencing the fact that Judicial Review wasn't the Court's initial job.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not, but it is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I suggested that perhaps that power should be removed from SCOTUS in the future, and the power returned to where it belongs in accordance with the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't actually all that terrible while the Senate was still made up of state government appointed representatives. This was a huge check/balance that we amended out of the Constitution. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard along this line before, but I'm unclear as to why that provided a major check or balance. At first (uninformed) glance I don't see why it would be much different. Would you please summarize why?