Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Rep. Jim Jordan Seeks to Oust Rep. Liz Cheney from Leadership
According to this Politico article, Republican Rep. Jim Jordan plans to move to oust Rep. Liz Cheney from her position as the House Republican Conference Chair. Cheney previously announced her support for the impeachment of President Trump. According to the same article, the top two Republicans in the House — Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise — oppose impeachment.
This strikes me as a proper response to Cheney’s action. As I have posted previously, I find the calls for Trump’s impeachment to be a deranged overreaction. It is very disappointing to see some erstwhile conservatives and Republicans supporting such an action.
Rep. Cheney is entitled to her opinion and may vote as she sees fit. I think that it is quite proper for her House colleagues to remove her from a leadership position, if they disagree strongly with her on such an important issue.
I do expect that any Republican Congressmen or Senators who support impeachment to face a serious primary challenge in their next election. Rightfully so, in my view.
Published in Politics
The NTs seem to be blind to what is going on. Trump walked into a trap on the 6th, mostly because he has no loyal staff to investigate these operations by the radical left. The Michael Yon report shows how duped Trump supporters like Ashli Babbitt, were led into a chaotic situation resulting in her death. Trump has no allies in DC, including people who pretend to work for him. Those left are all writing books.
I think the point has already made that her principles don’t absolve her from sloppy reasoning and the betrayal of her leadership post. But I’ll grant you that her “thought” process is in line with others whose desire for revenge exceeds their intellectual wattage.
#AmericaUnited
Cotton made a catastrophic mistake. I kind of liked him but he looks like a hick and that, plus this, will keep him back.
Good grief…please try to keep up. Let me know if this is getting difficult to follow.
This.
Read Angelo Codevilla’s essay on the ruling class if you haven’t.
https://spectator.org/americas-ruling-class/
Also, my predictions about the FBI hunt for “Domestic Terrorists” is proceeding as I expected.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2021-01-13/former-olympic-swimmer-klete-keller-charged-capitol-riot
Klete Keller, the two-time Olympic gold medalist swimmer from USC, was charged Wednesday in connection with the riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, the criminal complaint charges Keller with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building, disorderly conduct in the Capitol building and impeding law enforcement.
Wore his Olympic jacket, which is a capital crime
You will be welcome in that tiny group.
That’s exactly how I see it too.
Gary, do you know whether recall of House members is permitted, either by the Constitution or by Arizona statute?
A.R.S. 19-221 (here) allows a candidate for Senate or Congress to: “file with the secretary of state a statement addressed to the people as follows: ‘If elected to the office (here name the office) I shall deem myself responsible to the people and under obligation to them to resign immediately if not re-elected on a recall vote”, or: “If elected to the office (here name the office) I shall not deem myself under obligation to the people to resign if not re-elected by a recall vote.'” A.R.S. 19-222 (here) allows the recall of a Congressman or Senator who filed such a statement.
So as a first hurdle, Arizona law does not appear to allow a recall of a Congressman unless he filed such a statement.
According to this article from the Arizona Capitol Times in 2019, two House members who were subject to a recall effort had not filed such a statement (nor had any of the others elected in 2018). Also, the same article stated: “There is no provision in federal law for recalling members of Congress. And federal courts generally have barred states from imposing such requirements.”
According to this law review article from 1999 (p. 587-88), only two courts have ruled on the issue: an Idaho state court that found recall of members of Congress to be unconstitutional (in an unpublished opinion); and a Michigan federal court that dismissed a declaratory judgment lawsuit on the issue on jurisdictional and justiciability grounds (without reaching the merits).
That just does not work. The US Constitution does not allow for the recall of Members of Congress. Full Stop.
No State, through Statute or State Constitutional Amendment, can create a right of Recall nor can any individual member of Congress, through any pledge, agreement or contract, create a right for recall that is not found in the Constitution.
That is simply not how we amend the Constitution to create new powers.
I think the Supreme Court Ruling in US Term Limits, inc v Thorton from 1995 says that there is no way to recall a sitting member of Congress.
Jager, you’re basically right about the Thornton decision, though it is dictum, not a holding. The case is here. The case invalidated an Arkansas constitutional amendment imposing term limits. The quote from the majority opinion is: “The Framers’ decision to reject a proposal allowing for States to recall their own representatives, see 1 Farrand 20, 217, reflects these same concerns.”
It was a 5-4 decision, with the 4 on the Left plus Kennedy in the majority. However, the dissent — Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, and O’Connor — appeared to agree on this point, stating: “The Framers may well have thought that state power over salary, like state power to recall, would be inconsistent with the notion that Congress was a national legislature once it assembled. But state power over initial eligibility requirements does not raise the same concerns . . ..”
What???? Now personal character matters?? I thought that all that mattered to the steely eyed realpolitik Trumpists was winning and policy?
At least for a while.
I agree that conservatives (however defined) will need Trump supporters for at least the foreseeable future. However, if you think the hardcore Trumpists are anywhere near 80M, which is the figure being thrown around, then IMHO you’re vastly overestimating the MAGA hat wearing population.
The House just voted to impeach President Trump, again.
The vote probably gives us an indication of the extent of the divide among Republicans. 197 House Republicans voted nay; 10 voted yea; 4 did not vote.
The winning.
So Much Winning.
Depends on your definition of “vastly.” After all of the slings and arrows thrown at Trump over time, 74 million voted for him. so the obvious question is how many of those were clearly pro-Trump as opposed to anti-Biden votes. And the fact that a lot might have been both further muddies the waters. If we put the number of “pure” Trump supporters at 35-40 mil (just a guess), that’s still a highly influential group in a national election for as long as they live.
As an aside, your post is reasonable, but the “Trumpist” phraseology is unnecessary.
This can only mean the pandemic is over and the (D) has determined a second round of stimulus to be unnecessary.
I don’t speak for Trumpists. I was an anti-Trumpist in 2016. I’m just making an observation. And I may be totally wrong about this but calculated appeasement probably not something that Americans yearn for in a president – especially when dealing with Democrat socialists who want to censor you, confiscate your firearms, pack the Supreme Court, escalate the number of abortions, re-establish relations with a terrorist regime bent on Israel’s annihilation, ramp up regulations on businesses, and confiscate more of your earnings if you’re lucky enough to still be employed.
I do understand that there are Republicans who aren’t terribly concerned about any of those things and some who actually voted for the Presidential candidate who has promised to immediately usher most of this in during his term – because you know – the alternative was the most pro-life, anti-Communist President who can be…(are you near a fainting couch?)…a meany.
I’m all for reconciliation. When those who actively supported Biden recant and agree to stop fighting to get Democrats elected I will welcome them back. I want a big tent. But that tent doesn’t have room for people who supported the other side and still think the outcome of the election was “worth it”.
People say we either hang together or we will hang separately. I say, if I agree to hang with Biden supporters I will still be hanging, only they’ll be watching.
Disagree to support Trump if you like. But don’t vote for Biden and expect me to welcome you with open arms.
When used with the adjective I think it’s an accurate term. I’m not referring to your run of the mill Trump voter with that term.
It’s not worth fighting over. I’d like to know where it originated. Was Obama any less of a cult figure? Did we have Obamaists?
Its the best I have been able to come up with*. The Constitution outlines the procedure in the 12th amendment and only mentions opening the certificates and counting the votes.
The problem comes in the “Electoral Count act 1887” which is disputed.(see 1.)
The act was passed after the election of 1876 when several states submitted competing sets of electors and some intervening elections were very close.
On the other hand, as shown in the bolded section, even before this act, the VP sometimes picked the votes to count.
I am not sure taking precedence from what the democrats did makes sense. They didn’t even follow the rules that are in dispute (objection is written and with at least one House member and one Senator signed on to it)
Exit question: If Trump can be impeached for his words ( which I personally don’t think were incitement to riot), can Biden and Harris be impeached for their words (excusing the riots and vandalism as ‘protests’ and not condemning them) and actions (contributing to the bail fund for the rioters)? If not, why not?
*Beware Engineers talking law!
1. https://thedailycoin.org/2020/12/30/power-of-vice-president-to-count-or-reject-electoral-votes-disputed/
…and had no problem throwing Mike Pence, who was a model of loyalty and level headedness, under the bus when push came to shove. You forgot that part.
I’ll take this as a clarification since this is vastly different than what you originally posted.
Hopefully Mr. Pence won’t need any psychiatric help.
Obamaoists was what I first read. I laughed.
Moderator Note:
Moderator Edit-All caps is a Code of Conduct violationThey think that they are waiting to welcome you back. After you repent, for having supported Trump etc.
I wish I’d thought of it.
Good.