There is no chance Republicans will vote to impeach Trump or use the 25th amendment. Only 10 Republicans voted to impeach him after he lead an insurrection and sacked their workplace.
We need a national no-confidence mechanism that is directly controlled by citizens. We are currently beholden to a bunch of unctuous cowards who are more worried about their future consulting gigs than the fate of our democracy. Heaven help us.
Mitch McConnell, after placing the responsibility for the insurrection squarely on Trump's shoulders, begged his Republican colleagues not to impeach him, based on the timing (he had waited long enough that Trump was essentially gone) and belief that the courts would hold him responsible -- which thanks to the Supreme Court -- not only didn't, they gave him a new power of immunity. That said, in fact because of it, I totally agree that if there were some sort of way for citizens to express "no confidence," that would be advantageous about now. There was no way, prior to this, that it would at all have been conceivable that the Republicans would vacate their responsibilities to their constituents, as well as to the oath they swore, hand on the Bible, to. Now, they just join in with Trump and (most unbecomingly) swear.
In this case, it was not nearly as much the 6 fascists on the Roberts court's fault as it was Merrick Garland's. He had four years to do something about the orange dumpster, but he waited far too long to get his shit in gear until it was too late.
Agreed. He's a brilliant lawyer and made a great Appellate Judge, but he just didn't have the stomach for a fight needed for a political appointee. He was mis-matched in the AG role.
In one sense Vance would be better-- he wouldn't command the fear that keeps Repugnican'ts in line in Congress. In fact, I suspect that at least the senior ones would respond with the old Foghorn Leghorn quote "Go away son, you bother me" when Vance tried to muscle them around. But politically he's not much better than Trump, and maybe worse in some things, although he does recognize the Iran war as a bad idea.
Great opinion piece, Norm!! Your insights, as always, are so appreciated! And your sense of urgency, I'm afraid, correctly characterizes the fact-based terror we felt yesterday prior to the 2-week cease fire. I wish the Republicans would wake up and develop spine. We all have wished that for a long time.
I agree that the Cabinet and Vance would not invoke the 25th Amendment but not so much because they are toadies and lickspittles to the core. Trump has pardon power and this is the leverage he holds over everyone in his administration, including Cabinet secretaries who probably will all have need for a 'stay out of jail' card. I'm not so sure about Vance, he is very careful about things that may incriminate. So no way will the Cabinet go after Trump's removal, they personally would expose themselves to charges and potential jail time.
I think the concern of the lickspittles in the cabinet is overestimated. I don't believe that any of them will put the safety of our country or the world above their need to continue their butt licking of the Toddler in Chief. They checked whatever integrity they may have had at the door to the Oval Office. Vance would continue the Fascist terror campaign without making the same blunders of the Toddler. I see no hope before November 2026.
The Contrarian editor(s)-in-chief ( a cross-post in my comments also in the Ben Sheehan article)-- two of your authors recently posted articles about the current strong interest in Amendment 25, Section 4. I believe the 2 articles contradict one another in describing how the chambers of Congress would rule in a case where the President disputes being removed from office through Amendment 25, Section 4.
In one Contrarian article, Norm Ornstein writes: "...with a 2/3rds vote in BOTH houses NEEDED to keep the vice president in the office...[my emphases by caps] "
-- This, correctly I think, means that BOTH chambers of Congress need to agree (by a 2/3 vote in each) that the president's removal from power is valid and shall persist. Therefore, if either (or, both) chamber(s) does NOT reach a 2/3 majority vote approving the removal from power, the president returns to power.
In the other Contrarian article, Ben Sheehan writes: "But if BOTH houses CAN'T reach a two thirds vote, then Trump GOES BACK TO BEING PRESIDENT...[my emphases by caps]"
-- I think this phrasing is incorrect and would literally mean that the president would return to power only if both chambers don't each reach 2/3 vote to validate the removal from office. In other words, if either chamber voted by 2/3 to validate the removal from power and the other failed to reach 2/3 vote approving the removal, then the president's removal from power would persist.
Are my logical interpretations above accurate? And, am I correct that Norm Ornstein's phrasing is the proper explanation of Amendment 25, Section 4?
"His (Trump's) lies and fantasies have become more convoluted, showing signs of dementia on top of his megalomania."
These "signs" have been showing at least since he allowed ICE agents to be empowered as police, with the unprovoked attacks on boats and their crews in the Caribbean, an unprovoked attack upon Venezuela, the kidnaping of Maduro, and now, teaming up with another war criminal (Netanyahu) against Iran which had posed no imminent threat. Every action with convoluted defenses for them has been further indication of his deterioration. If the 25th Amendment section 4 cannot be called up, it is time for Congress to act for our nation and others to impeach.
There is no chance Republicans will vote to impeach Trump or use the 25th amendment. Only 10 Republicans voted to impeach him after he lead an insurrection and sacked their workplace.
We need a national no-confidence mechanism that is directly controlled by citizens. We are currently beholden to a bunch of unctuous cowards who are more worried about their future consulting gigs than the fate of our democracy. Heaven help us.
Mitch McConnell, after placing the responsibility for the insurrection squarely on Trump's shoulders, begged his Republican colleagues not to impeach him, based on the timing (he had waited long enough that Trump was essentially gone) and belief that the courts would hold him responsible -- which thanks to the Supreme Court -- not only didn't, they gave him a new power of immunity. That said, in fact because of it, I totally agree that if there were some sort of way for citizens to express "no confidence," that would be advantageous about now. There was no way, prior to this, that it would at all have been conceivable that the Republicans would vacate their responsibilities to their constituents, as well as to the oath they swore, hand on the Bible, to. Now, they just join in with Trump and (most unbecomingly) swear.
In this case, it was not nearly as much the 6 fascists on the Roberts court's fault as it was Merrick Garland's. He had four years to do something about the orange dumpster, but he waited far too long to get his shit in gear until it was too late.
Agreed. He's a brilliant lawyer and made a great Appellate Judge, but he just didn't have the stomach for a fight needed for a political appointee. He was mis-matched in the AG role.
I LIKE that: a no-confidence vote….that would be a perfect solution to the current state of affairs we find ourselves in….bravo!
In one sense Vance would be better-- he wouldn't command the fear that keeps Repugnican'ts in line in Congress. In fact, I suspect that at least the senior ones would respond with the old Foghorn Leghorn quote "Go away son, you bother me" when Vance tried to muscle them around. But politically he's not much better than Trump, and maybe worse in some things, although he does recognize the Iran war as a bad idea.
"with the requirement that the individual nominated be confirmed by a majority vote in both houses of Congress."
Like that would ever happen.
Great opinion piece, Norm!! Your insights, as always, are so appreciated! And your sense of urgency, I'm afraid, correctly characterizes the fact-based terror we felt yesterday prior to the 2-week cease fire. I wish the Republicans would wake up and develop spine. We all have wished that for a long time.
I agree that the Cabinet and Vance would not invoke the 25th Amendment but not so much because they are toadies and lickspittles to the core. Trump has pardon power and this is the leverage he holds over everyone in his administration, including Cabinet secretaries who probably will all have need for a 'stay out of jail' card. I'm not so sure about Vance, he is very careful about things that may incriminate. So no way will the Cabinet go after Trump's removal, they personally would expose themselves to charges and potential jail time.
I think the concern of the lickspittles in the cabinet is overestimated. I don't believe that any of them will put the safety of our country or the world above their need to continue their butt licking of the Toddler in Chief. They checked whatever integrity they may have had at the door to the Oval Office. Vance would continue the Fascist terror campaign without making the same blunders of the Toddler. I see no hope before November 2026.
The Contrarian editor(s)-in-chief ( a cross-post in my comments also in the Ben Sheehan article)-- two of your authors recently posted articles about the current strong interest in Amendment 25, Section 4. I believe the 2 articles contradict one another in describing how the chambers of Congress would rule in a case where the President disputes being removed from office through Amendment 25, Section 4.
In one Contrarian article, Norm Ornstein writes: "...with a 2/3rds vote in BOTH houses NEEDED to keep the vice president in the office...[my emphases by caps] "
-- This, correctly I think, means that BOTH chambers of Congress need to agree (by a 2/3 vote in each) that the president's removal from power is valid and shall persist. Therefore, if either (or, both) chamber(s) does NOT reach a 2/3 majority vote approving the removal from power, the president returns to power.
In the other Contrarian article, Ben Sheehan writes: "But if BOTH houses CAN'T reach a two thirds vote, then Trump GOES BACK TO BEING PRESIDENT...[my emphases by caps]"
-- I think this phrasing is incorrect and would literally mean that the president would return to power only if both chambers don't each reach 2/3 vote to validate the removal from office. In other words, if either chamber voted by 2/3 to validate the removal from power and the other failed to reach 2/3 vote approving the removal, then the president's removal from power would persist.
Are my logical interpretations above accurate? And, am I correct that Norm Ornstein's phrasing is the proper explanation of Amendment 25, Section 4?
Lee Johnson
near Taos, NM
"His (Trump's) lies and fantasies have become more convoluted, showing signs of dementia on top of his megalomania."
These "signs" have been showing at least since he allowed ICE agents to be empowered as police, with the unprovoked attacks on boats and their crews in the Caribbean, an unprovoked attack upon Venezuela, the kidnaping of Maduro, and now, teaming up with another war criminal (Netanyahu) against Iran which had posed no imminent threat. Every action with convoluted defenses for them has been further indication of his deterioration. If the 25th Amendment section 4 cannot be called up, it is time for Congress to act for our nation and others to impeach.
The fascists will never do what needs to be done. They poop in their pants every time he looks at them.