Vermont votes to impeach Bush and Cheney (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:07 am

Yes, it really did. Read about it.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:28 am

Lovely as that all is, nothing's going to come of it. Still, it's nice to know that at least the population of one state in this country hasn't gone completely gaga.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:35 am

Chimaera182 wrote:Lovely as that all is, nothing's going to come of it. Still, it's nice to know that at least the population of one state in this country hasn't gone completely gaga.

That's only the largest effort, thus far. Individual cities have previously voted for this, but never a state. Vermont is known for its independence, however, and its state constitution allows for this kind of issue to be taken up on a state level. Although I'm not a student of state constitutions, I suspect that some put much greater hurdles in the path of any attempt to impeach an elected official.

I'm not sure of this, but Vermont's vote may be historical, as well. It may be the first time a state has thus voted to impeach a standing president.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:33 am

I'm an optimist, and I think it might happen. I think it depends on how many more preposterous things he will do before leaving office, and how much more stuff will be uncovered. Everybody knows the Libby thing is just the tip of an enormous pile of manure. This is good, though it is my impression that Vermont is often a source of ridicule in political matters. Just how much does it actually take, in theory, to impeach a president?

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:58 am

Interesting. Keep us updated, Fable.

By the way, Vermont.. I'm not familiar with it. It is not by chance a state with a republican majority, is it?

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:00 pm

Tricky wrote:Interesting. Keep us updated, Fable.

By the way, Vermont.. I'm not familiar with it. It is not by chance a state with a republican majority, is it?

No, Vermont pretty much goes its own way. One of its senators was among the few liberal-to-moderates remaining on the national level of the Republican party, who was so heavily pressured to fall in lockstep by the Bush administration in 2001 that he actually quit, became an Independent, and has been re-elected as such. (In Congress, you have to declare yourself as a Republican or Democrat for the purpose of committees and caucuses, and he's declared himself a Democrat.)

Vermont also has an unusually close relationship between those who govern and the governed, given both its population (among the lowest in the nation) and its history of townhall political gatherings and votes that actually affect the process of government. Amusingly enough, what makes this all legal is the Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1801, when he was serving as Vice-President and therefore had literally nothing to do. (VPs have virtually no power under the US system of federal government, and at the time no power base had yet evolved from the actions of any unusually brilliant VP.) It was incorporated into the rules of the House of Representatives, one of the two national legislative bodies, in 1837, and it makes reference to a variety of procedures for impeachment.

Vermont is not alone in this effort. A surprisingly good and well documented Wikipedia article on the Bush impeachment effort can be found here, though it may seem almost incomprehensible at times to non-USians.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:39 pm

Moonbiter wrote:I'm an optimist, and I think it might happen. I think it depends on how many more preposterous things he will do before leaving office, and how much more stuff will be uncovered. Everybody knows the Libby thing is just the tip of an enormous pile of manure.

He has already done more than enough to be impeached. However, being a pessimist (a well-informed optimist, as they say), I don't believe it is going to happen because:

1) Bush is waging a "war on terror" and all his actions are "for the greater good", "to protect American people", yada-yada-yada, and practically half of the "American people" swallow all this.

2) The semi-gutless Democrats would not push for the impeachment because of their own political games, whatever they are; Pelosi stated that the impeachment is "off the table".

3) The Supreme Court? ARRRRGH!!!!! The latest Bush's appointees made it as liberal as a Sunday-school-teaching elderly spinster.

4) If the miracle happens and Bush is impeached, Cheney is going to be sworn in.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:55 am

Tricky wrote:By the way, Vermont.. I'm not familiar with it. It is not by chance a state with a republican majority, is it?

Resident Vermonter, checking in.

Not at all, my dear tricky. As Fable aptly described, Vermont is anything but republican. The state has been solidly blue for most/all of the recent national elections. It is a liberal/libertarian state with an agrarian base and a Republican governor. It was the first state in the US to recognize homosexual partnerships (civil unions) and, generally, we Vermonters are pretty proud of our independent streak. We were the 14th state in the union, and prior to statehood we were the independent Republic of Vermont.

Anyway, most people here don't like the Bush administration. Republicans in the state are a strong force, but they are generally traditional, fiscal republicans; agenda-driven neo-cons don't get far at all. Republicans here hate the war on Iraq because of the expense, expansionist policy, and particular toll on the state (Vermont has sent more soldiers into tours, per capita, than any other state in the union). On the other side, there is an incredibly strong liberal base, and they all HATE the war in Iraq for policy reasons. So, as you can imagine, nobody likes Bush. Kerry won our state with between 60-70% of the popular vote in 2004.

The way we voted to impeach Bush was a novel Vermont approach- town meeting day. The second Tuesday in February, every town in the entire state (town meaning, "not city"; every municipality is a town unless there is a city charter- that means most of the state) has a meeting. Everyone in the town can attend. All the local business is on the budget, people debate, and then there is a straight, up or down vote. It is the closest thing to Athenian democracy left in the US. And, a few weeks ago, we voted to impeach Bush.

(And people say democracy is dead- not in the Green Mountain State

)

I can keep talking about this ad nauseum if anyone is interested- I'm even in law school up here so I might be able to answer more technical questions. Anyway, I'll end my rant now.

Edit: @dragonfly

lady dragonfly]2) The semi-gutless Democrats would not push for the impeachment because of their own political games wrote:
(2) I think the democrats are smart for not impeaching Bush. The support isn't there. If there was a true push and impeachment articles were issued, it would give the bush administration an excuse to beat the drum of patriotism, claim to be martyred, and rally the flagging republican base. Now bush is in a lame duck term, and his administration is dying a death of 1,000 cuts because of their own agenda driven idiocy (recent example: Alberto Gonzales acting like the President's legal thug rather than the protector of the Constitution). Like you said, if Bush is impeached successfully, the big prize is....... (Pres.) Cheney? No thanks. So, why give the administration all that patriotic capital to spend?

(3) I disagree about the Supreme Court nominations. I am scared of Alito, but I have high hopes for Roberts. I saw him speak recently, and I was shocked by how intelligent and practical he was about the role of the supreme court. He is of the Rehnquist/Frankenfurter mold. He says that he wants narrow decisions with unanimous votes. If this is true, I think it would be great. After Bush v. Gore, much of the Court's legitimacy was (rightly) questioned. Now the Justices issue many opinions, and Roberts has likened this more to law professors than judges. If he does what he says, in an even-handed fashion, he will be one of the all-time great chief justices.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:00 am

That settles it then. I'm moving to Vermont. Heh, I have relatives there...I can mooch off of 'em for a while till I get my own place.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:08 am

Chanak wrote:That settles it then. I'm moving to Vermont. Heh, I have relatives there...I can mooch off of 'em for a while till I get my own place.

Seriously- Vt Rocks!

There isn't much to do here though. If you like to spend time out doors and love snow, then this is the place for you. If you like... civilization, or dislike driving more than an hour to get anything, well, you should try a vacation first.

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:13 am

Ah, I'll remember that. If Belgium declares war on Holland, I'll know where to flee.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:13 am

Cuchulain82 wrote:Seriously- Vt Rocks! There isn't much to do here though. If you like to spend time out doors and love snow, then this is the place for you. If you like... civilization, or dislike driving more than an hour to get anything, well, you should try a vacation first.

I've lived out in the middle of nowhere before, sans the snow (well, any *real* amount of snowfall, that is). I loved it. Just me, hawks, skunks, snakes, deer, coyotes, wild turkeys, mad cows, chickens, horses, and the occasional native. Visited VT several times as well, as I have an uncle and a gaggle of cousins who call that state home. Me mother was born there. Sooo, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to migrate there and find a niche in the woods. I could farm earthworms, distill whiskey, and growl at trespassers.

EDIT: Ach, my apologies for adding spam to this thread, fable. On topic, as much as I would love to see the impeachment of both individuals, I don't think it will happen. Their crimes are numerous...too numerous. Sadly, their crimes are simply a drop in the collective bucket made full by their predecessors...a continuation of the excesses, secrecy, and powermongering of the US federal government. There's a long history of it.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:19 am

Chanak wrote:I've lived out in the middle of nowhere before, sans the snow (well, any *real* amount of snowfall, that is). I loved it. Just me, hawks, skunks, snakes, deer, coyotes, wild turkeys, mad cows, chickens, horses, and the occasional native. Visited VT several times as well, as I have an uncle and a gaggle of cousins who call that state home. Me mother was born there. Sooo, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to migrate there and find a niche in the woods. I could farm earthworms, distill whiskey, and growl at trespassers.

It sounds like you'll fit right in. Flannel clothing is timeless here, and has been the "new black" for as long as I can remember.

Actually, wikipedia does a good job with Vermont: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont"]check it out![/url]

Furthermore, they have an entry about the original [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Vermont_Republic"]Constitution of the independent Republic of Vermont[/url]. I forgot to mention than Vermont outlawed slavery and indentured servitude before any other state- we were into civil liberties even back then.

@Tricky

tricky]Ah wrote: Why wait? Foment disillision and then come here! We have a long history of harboring fugitives- in fact, that is how the independent Republic was started- over a land rebellion.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:05 pm

Cuchulain82 wrote:It sounds like you'll fit right in. Flannel clothing is timeless here, and has been the "new black" for as long as I can remember.

Actually, wikipedia does a good job with Vermont: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont"]check it out![/url]

Furthermore, they have an entry about the original [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Vermont_Republic"]Constitution of the independent Republic of Vermont[/url]. I forgot to mention than Vermont outlawed slavery and indentured servitude before any other state- we were into civil liberties even back then.

@Tricky

Why wait? Foment disillision and then come here! We have a long history of harboring fugitives- in fact, that is how the independent Republic was started- over a land rebellion.

So the spirit of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain boys lives on, nice to know that old values are being maintained.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:06 pm

Vermont politics is often ignored, but always interesting. You may want to take a look at the manifesto of their Liberty Union Party. It's very small, but actually garnered more than 5% of the state vote over a 30 year period until recently. Would that the US had proportional representation, so that opinions erased from representation in government could have their just effect. At least, I think that's how democracies are supposed to work.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:08 pm

Originally Posted by Cuchulain82
(3) I disagree about the Supreme Court nominations. I am scared of Alito, but I have high hopes for Roberts. I saw him speak recently, and I was shocked by how intelligent and practical he was about the role of the supreme court. He is of the Rehnquist/Frankenfurter mold. He says that he wants narrow decisions with unanimous votes. If this is true, I think it would be great. After Bush v. Gore, much of the Court's legitimacy was (rightly) questioned. Now the Justices issue many opinions, and Roberts has likened this more to law professors than judges. If he does what he says, in an even-handed fashion, he will be one of the all-time great chief justices.

Closer to law professors? Don't know about that... But I believe that he is intelligent; right wing corporate lawyers are usually very smart; however, I am not so sure that "narrow decisions with unanimous votes" is such a great idea. I have read several articles criticizing it.
Besides, if you remember, here is what Ted Kennedy said during his floor statement on Roberts' nomination:

"Other aspects of Judge Roberts’s record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights:

• He has opposed programs to guarantee equal opportunity.
• He opposed the right to privacy and argued to overturn Roe v. Wade, saying the case is “wrongly decided” and “finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”
• As a private attorney, he represented coal companies against workers’ rights.
• He sought to limit every American's right to a lawyer by arguing to narrow the Supreme Court's core precedent in Miranda v. Arizona."

And please, do not forget that he was nominated by George Bush.

@fable: I know it is slightly off topic (Vermont), sorry...

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:07 am

@Fable

Is this too far off topic? Hopefully we're not destroying your thread.

[QUOTE=Lady Dragonfly]Closer to law professors? Don't know about that...[/quote]
That's Roberts' quote, and if I understand him I tend to agree. What I think he meant was that the supreme court has recently shied away from issuing really strong opinions. Meaning that there have been many decisions that have been very close (a 5-4 vote, or 6-3), and in those decisions multiple opinions were issued. So, Scalia votes one way and says why, and then Kennedy votes with him but for another reason, and Ginsberg and Breyer both disagree and write their own dissents, etc. That's what he meant- every justice issuing their own opinions because of their philosophy. This has the effect of muddying the legal water for lower courts becuase they can't tell how strong a legal doctrine is, what the philosophy behind it is, or how future rulings should be made.

[QUOTE=Lady Dragonfly]But I believe that he is intelligent; right wing corporate lawyers are usually very smart; however, I am not so sure that "narrow decisions with unanimous votes" is such a great idea. I have read several articles criticizing it.[/quote]
Many people disagree, but most of the law professionals that I know of who actually care about the supreme court think it is at least a good theory. John Marshall, one of the great justices in US SC history, made it his goal to issue strong opinions and to get consensus.

Don't get me wrong- people will still disagree and write dissents. But generally is you can get most of the justices to agree on something, it is better for the law than when there is a very sharp divide.

(FYI- He's not really a corporate lawyer. Most of his career has been in public service. He clerked for Justice Friendly, a legendary judge. Then he clerked for Rehnquist. Then, after that, he worked in the first Bush white house and later became a court of appeals judge. He was in private practice for a long period in the '90s, but he has significant public service on his resume.)

[QUOTE=Lady Dragonfly]Besides, if you remember, here is what Ted Kennedy said during his floor statement on Roberts' nomination:

"Other aspects of Judge Roberts’s record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights:

• He has opposed programs to guarantee equal opportunity.
• He opposed the right to privacy and argued to overturn Roe v. Wade, saying the case is “wrongly decided” and “finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”
• As a private attorney, he represented coal companies against workers’ rights.
• He sought to limit every American's right to a lawyer by arguing to narrow the Supreme Court's core precedent in Miranda v. Arizona."[/quote]
I don't really think that quote means much at all. For example, when John Roberts says that there is no support in the text of the constitution for Roe v. Wade, he's right- there isn't. There's no right to privacy in there either. That doesn't mean that those rights don't exist, it just means that they're somewhere else. Roe is such a big deal precisely because the right to an abortion does not exist anywhere- the court basically made it up. I think they came to the right decision, but in terms of the quote it seems like Kennedy was just playing with words and playing politics.

At those confirmation hearings Roberts repeatedly said that the justice he admired most (beyond Rehnquist) was Frankfurter for his narrow style. Thus far Roberts seems to be doing exactly what he said he would do. I like that (the fact that he's honest thus far).

(FYI- Roberts and Alito have voted together a higher percentage of the time than any other set of justices currently on the court)

[QUOTE=Lady Dragonfly]And please, do not forget that he was nominated by George Bush.[/QUOTE]
I can forgive him for that. GB senior nominated him as a court of appeals judge, and furthermore SC nominees are notoriously hard to predict. Regan nominated O'Connor and GB senior nominated Souter.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:31 am

Yes, I know this is sliding into another area, but--it's generating a good dialog. So keep it up.

I don't expect much work on the Impeach Bush front for some time, anyway.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:53 am

@fable

Thanks! Speaking of good dialogue, I'm surprised you haven't put in your $0.02. Usually you like topics like this.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:58 pm

[

QUOTE=Cuchulain82;927773

What I think he meant was that the supreme court has recently shied away from issuing really strong opinions.
.......
That's what he meant- every justice issuing their own opinions because of their philosophy. This has the effect of muddying the legal water for lower courts becuase they can't tell how strong a legal doctrine is, what the philosophy behind it is, or how future rulings should be made.

Many people disagree, but most of the law professionals that I know of who actually care about the supreme court think it is at least a good theory. John Marshall, one of the great justices in US SC history, made it his goal to issue strong opinions and to get consensus.

Don't get me wrong- people will still disagree and write dissents. But generally is you can get most of the justices to agree on something, it is better for the law than when there is a very sharp divide.

Thank you for the clarification.

Anyway, what does the "strong opinion" (or lack thereof) really mean?
Basically, Roberts calls for the appearance of a "consensus", not for the actual consensus. Without officially issued "separate opinions" of the justices the dissent would remain in the background, allegedly strengthening the ruling. At least that is my understanding of his "consensus". Critics argue that dissenting opinions made public is a good thing leading to discussions and eventually to a better understanding of the issue by the public. Let us be realistic: the Chief Justice cannot just whip other justices back into line for the sake of "consensus". He wants to hide the dissent behind the closed doors and behind a "unified ruling".

Another argument of his is the Supreme Court should make decisions “on narrow grounds”, meaning just to pass judgment, akin to the lower court process.
In my opinion, all this “narrow” stuff is a great simplification of the whole process of constitutional interpretation for the lower courts.
Besides, Roberts thinks the Supreme Court should stay narrowly "focused", so the justices could take more cases. My question is why the workload is shrinking? Is it because of the protracted "unfocused" debates the Supreme Court handles only about 80-100 cases yearly? I think not. And Roberts himself has given several good reasons for a low workload, including the absence of cases merited Supreme Court hearing.

I don't really think that quote means much at all. For example, when John Roberts says that there is no support in the text of the constitution for Roe v. Wade, he's right- there isn't. There's no right to privacy in there either. That doesn't mean that those rights don't exist, it just means that they're somewhere else. Roe is such a big deal precisely because the right to an abortion does not exist anywhere- the court basically made it up. I think they came to the right decision, but in terms of the quote it seems like Kennedy was just playing with words and playing politics.

Difficult to argue: all politics are made by playing with words. Worth mentioning though, in 1990 Roberts said that Roe v. Wade "was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He significantly softened his position during his nomination. Do you think he has a change of heart?
Can you please comment on the other statements made by Mr. Kennedy?

I can forgive him for that. GB senior nominated him as a court of appeals judge, and furthermore SC nominees are notoriously hard to predict. Regan nominated O'Connor and GB senior nominated Souter.

True, but I am not so forgiving: Roberts participated in the Florida recount legal battle helping Bush to hijack the presidency. No wonder Bush is grateful and I am not.