A different question on Roy Moore

[usmbguest5318]

Congress', in this case the Senate's, authority to refuse to seat a duly elected individual accrues from Article 1 of the Constitution. There is ample precedent for duly elected individuals not being seated by a chamber of Congress.

Those instances are fundamentally different than the current one. The cited article notes that Powell v. McCormack shows that it is unlikely that the senate has the power to refuse to seat Moore because it does not fall under the powers outlined in the constitution. Your link mentions 9 cases:

1 is related to election problems and has no relation to Moore's situation

2 is a situation not even relevant in the senate at this time and unconstitutional now.

3 is blatantly unconstitutional now. This was mostly due to religious issues - something that the senate is
CLEARLY unable to do now and polygamy. Under current case law, I believe that anti-bigamy and polygamy laws (not related to marriage but simply cohabitation) would be unconstitutional.

4 was seated after all so does not support your point and, again, was related to religion and polygamy. Interestingly enough, he was seated even though it was supposed that he swore an oath AGAINST the US. Considering the circumstances, this goes against your supposition.

5 was not seated for a conviction of the espionage act. This is the closest example we have but is still far from your mark. Moore has not been convicted of anything. This is the closest example you have and still not really relevant for the mentioned reason and, even more importantly, examples 1 - 5 occurred before the SCOTUS ruled on this practice. That is key.

The first 5 are irrelevant in that they precede the SCOTUS ruling on the senate not seating members. Whatever the practice before the 6th example the SCOTUS ruled that the senate does not have the power to refuse to seat members due to requirements other than
6 seated and when the SCUTUS ruled not seating a member for reasons that are not age, citizenship and residence requirements that the constitution specifically calls out.

6 This is the one that the court ruled on.
Powell v. McCormack - Wikipedia

7 election issues. Again, not relevant to this case and such power is directly outlined in the constitution as well.

8 ejected - irrelevant to your point

9 seated. Again, countering your point.

Essentially, your link establishes the exact opposite - there is no real precedent to deny Moore the seat and that the SCOTUS has ruled that such power does not exist for situations like this one.

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

Since you are of a mind to hold tight to legal minutia/technicalities, our legal system doesn't determine innocence, but rather that there is insufficient evidence to find one guilty, or, as it was presented, the evidence does not militate adequately for a guilty verdict. Trial verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty," not "innocent."

Inasmuch as that is the nature of our jurisprudential system, that Moore cannot be found guilty or not guilty in no way speaks to whether a defendant did , i.e., is innocent of having committed, or did not do the deed with which they were (or might otherwise have been) charged.

Flatly incorrect. A core tenant of the judicial system here is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Tying to play word games around the verdict of guilty or not guilty does not change that reality unless you can show some functional difference between not guilty and innocent.

You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That is prior to trial. Nonetheless, no jury will find a defendant innocent.

No, it is not prior to trial. You are presumed innocent up until the moment that a verdict is reached.

??? During a trial, that presumption is what's being questioned. There is no presumption one way or the other during a trial. One's guilt or lack thereof is the question.

 

[iceberg]

Congress', in this case the Senate's, authority to refuse to seat a duly elected individual accrues from Article 1 of the Constitution. There is ample precedent for duly elected individuals not being seated by a chamber of Congress.

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

Since you are of a mind to hold tight to legal minutia/technicalities, our legal system doesn't determine innocence, but rather that there is insufficient evidence to find one guilty, or, as it was presented, the evidence does not militate adequately for a guilty verdict. Trial verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty," not "innocent."

Inasmuch as that is the nature of our jurisprudential system, that Moore cannot be found guilty or not guilty in no way speaks to whether a defendant did , i.e., is innocent of having committed, or did not do the deed with which they were (or might otherwise have been) charged.

so if our courts can't find him guilty no problem - the public will?

you really want mob justice out there?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Congress', in this case the Senate's, authority to refuse to seat a duly elected individual accrues from Article 1 of the Constitution. There is ample precedent for duly elected individuals not being seated by a chamber of Congress.

Those instances are fundamentally different than the current one. The cited article notes that Powell v. McCormack shows that it is unlikely that the senate has the power to refuse to seat Moore because it does not fall under the powers outlined in the constitution. Your link mentions 9 cases:

1 is related to election problems and has no relation to Moore's situation

2 is a situation not even relevant in the senate at this time and unconstitutional now.

3 is blatantly unconstitutional now. This was mostly due to religious issues - something that the senate is
CLEARLY unable to do now and polygamy. Under current case law, I believe that anti-bigamy and polygamy laws (not related to marriage but simply cohabitation) would be unconstitutional.

4 was seated after all so does not support your point and, again, was related to religion and polygamy. Interestingly enough, he was seated even though it was supposed that he swore an oath AGAINST the US. Considering the circumstances, this goes against your supposition.

5 was not seated for a conviction of the espionage act. This is the closest example we have but is still far from your mark. Moore has not been convicted of anything. This is the closest example you have and still not really relevant for the mentioned reason and, even more importantly, examples 1 - 5 occurred before the SCOTUS ruled on this practice. That is key.

The first 5 are irrelevant in that they precede the SCOTUS ruling on the senate not seating members. Whatever the practice before the 6th example the SCOTUS ruled that the senate does not have the power to refuse to seat members due to requirements other than
6 seated and when the SCUTUS ruled not seating a member for reasons that are not age, citizenship and residence requirements that the constitution specifically calls out.

6 This is the one that the court ruled on.
Powell v. McCormack - Wikipedia

7 election issues. Again, not relevant to this case and such power is directly outlined in the constitution as well.

8 ejected - irrelevant to your point

9 seated. Again, countering your point.

Essentially, your link establishes the exact opposite - there is no real precedent to deny Moore the seat and that the SCOTUS has ruled that such power does not exist for situations like this one.

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

Since you are of a mind to hold tight to legal minutia/technicalities, our legal system doesn't determine innocence, but rather that there is insufficient evidence to find one guilty, or, as it was presented, the evidence does not militate adequately for a guilty verdict. Trial verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty," not "innocent."

Inasmuch as that is the nature of our jurisprudential system, that Moore cannot be found guilty or not guilty in no way speaks to whether a defendant did , i.e., is innocent of having committed, or did not do the deed with which they were (or might otherwise have been) charged.

Flatly incorrect. A core tenant of the judicial system here is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Tying to play word games around the verdict of guilty or not guilty does not change that reality unless you can show some functional difference between not guilty and innocent.

You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That is prior to trial. Nonetheless, no jury will find a defendant innocent.

No, it is not prior to trial. You are presumed innocent up until the moment that a verdict is reached.

Well that's a joke! How many innocent people go to the conclusion of trials! If called "not guilty," that's still a far cry from innocent!

How many innocent people go to the conclusion of trials!

I'm not sure, within the context of the above series of quoted posts, what be your point of your above statement.

If called "not guilty," that's still a far cry from innocent!

Agreed.

 

[Norman]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

He was an undesirable BEFORE those women spoke up against him Bannon a white nationalist, a racist supported him

Damn, every day I hear more information for why everyone should vote for this guy.

1) Left goes absolutely berserk and makes up most outlandish false witch hunt style accusations yet. Check.
2) Bannon supported him. Check.

I wish I could vote for the guy. The butthurt will be surreal!

 

[Pop23]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

He was an undesirable BEFORE those women spoke up against him Bannon a white nationalist, a racist supported him

Damn, every day I hear more information for why everyone should vote for this guy.

1) Left goes absolutely berserk and makes up most outlandish false witch hunt style accusations yet. Check.
2) Bannon supported him. Check.

I wish I could vote for the guy. The butthurt will be surreal!

Consider this. If The allegation are true, and what Moore did was “common knowledge” in the State, then the Democrats knew about them all along.

Considering Moore was running for the second most powerful position in Alabama, (next to the Bama football coach), not once, but twice, there must be reason the Dems didn’t bring these allegations up once. Not during the campaigns, not during high profile cases that the left backed.

They didn’t even leak it to the press or opposition groups?

Why?

Only two possible reasons:

1. The allegations are unfounded

Or

2. Child molestation is so rampant in that State that many high ranking State Dems engaged in the same, and they didn’t want that kind of scrutiny.

In the case of #1, of course he should be seated

In the case of #2, again you seat him, what’s the alternative? Just another creep?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They should accept his victory as "the people have spoken" but as we've seen since the last election, Democrats are not very good at accepting defeat.

It's not the Democrats SJ, it's the REPUBLICANS who are talking about expelling Moore...

Republicans.

Yes, your party SJ.

There are not enough Republicans to expel him without the Democrats helping, and you know they go lock step with Chuckie!

 

[emilynghiem]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

If Moore wins and the Republicans act on it, it may be a grave mistake.

One of the reasons Trump appealed to so many Republican voters is he challenged the media. Normally, when the media yells "jump" the Republicans ask how high, and it irritates the hell out of us, especially when the RINO's and Establishment does it.

We conservatives are sick of seeing this pathetic display by our party. Attacking Moore on any level (after a successful election) will be yet more pandering to the media. The state of Alabama has the right to choose their electors like any other state. And unless Moore is found to have broken a law of some sort, the rest of the Senate should just MoveOn.org.

Thanks Ray From Cleveland
What if Trump continued this pattern of taking liberal media tactics and turning the tables back on Democrats.
Instead of lobbying the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Roy Moore,
How about the fed up taxpayers unite on left and right and demand they investigate complaints that the contested ACA mandate was Unconstitutional on its face, should never have been passed or voted yes on by any members of Congress because it violates Constitutional principles and beliefs of people penalized by law, deprived of liberty without due process, and discriminated against by federal rules on exemptions that regulate on the basis of Religion.

Turn the tables on Govt.

And incidentally Al Franken is involved because of contested voter discrepancies andor fraud that got him elected where he was one of the yes votes that passed this unconstitutional bill that discriminates, penalized and deprives citizens of liberty and free choice on the basis of Creed.

A conspiracy by Democratic Party members in Congress to violate the equal civil rights of people of opposing beliefs still facing penalties for not complying with a mandate that violates our rights and beliefs.

Let's use this same tactic and petition Trump and the SEC to investigate complaints that Congress members voting yes and or refusing to revoke the mandate or make it optional are in violation of Constitutional religious freedom, equal protection of the laws from discrimination by Creed, due process of law needed before depriving law abiding citizens of liberty and freedom, and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service calling federal govt employees to put Constitutional laws and regulations before party.

We may have to expel all of Congress if they are all Partisan hacks. But at least we'll have our Constitution back as the law of the land, instead of lobbyists pushing political beliefs and religion through govt which we can argue is Unconstitutional.

 

[emilynghiem]

They should accept his victory as "the people have spoken" but as we've seen since the last election, Democrats are not very good at accepting defeat.

It's not the Democrats SJ, it's the REPUBLICANS who are talking about expelling Moore...

Republicans.

Yes, your party SJ.

There are not enough Republicans to expel him without the Democrats helping, and you know they go lock step with Chuckie!

Dear Admiral Rockwell Tory
The SEC can still be lobbied to pass a resolution asking for censure if not expulsion.

See msg i posted to Ray above, where this tactic could be used to argue to remove the ACA mandate or any member of Congress who is either unable or unwilling to recognize it is Unconstitutional on its face. If officials cannot even recognize a blatant bias by political beliefs that discriminates against law abiding citizens with equal right to exercise opposing political beliefs, should such incompetent or negligent agents even be in office, in positions of voting decision making power?

I would argue they should NOT have control over decisions if they are so biased or incompetent that they impose their own party beliefs through govt in violation of equal civil rights of others. Thus if they can't correct their own policies they should be removed from that capacity and serve in other roles

 

[rightwinger]

If these charges came up after Moore was elected, then I can see the Senate investigating him

But if the voters say....I don't care if a child molester represents me
Then the Senate should accept their choice

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

If Moore is expelled from the Senate, it won't be because of "the left".

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That is quite clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

If Moore wins the election, and is subsequently expelled from the Senate, what do you think should happen?

How do you expect the Senate to get a 2/3 majority to expel Moore if the Democrats do not go along?

Are you really that bad a math?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

The Senate should honor the will of the people.

We are giving too much power to our political bodies.

 

[OldLady]

If these charges came up after Moore was elected, then I can see the Senate investigating him

But if the voters say....I don't care if a child molester represents me
Then the Senate should accept their choice

Did I actually just hear you say that?

 

[CowboyTed]

Site the bastard in the Senate... He will be a rotten smell over there...

What do Senators do on bring your daughter to work day?

 

[OldLady]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

If Moore is expelled from the Senate, it won't be because of "the left".

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That is quite clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

If Moore wins the election, and is subsequently expelled from the Senate, what do you think should happen?

It clearly is an answer to the question you asked. Since you rephrased the question to include what should happen if he is expelled, I would say that those who expell members from holding a duely elected office should be recalled and removed. They clearly don't believe in the Constitution or due process and out themselves as nothing more than a bunch of natty old biddies promoting the gossip vine.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to expel a member. Article 1, Section 5.

 

[Care4all]

Moore has been neutered by McConnell,

Moore's a 1 man show, and there is nothing he can do that the rest of the Republicans don't want....

He's not going to change the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, he's not going to change the Supreme court ruling on plastering 10 commandment statues in the court house, and he's not going to change the rulings on transgenders using the bathroom of choice, and he's not going to get Roe v Wade reneged.... He's not even going to be able to wear his gun on his hip in the Senate.....

so who knows what the big fuss is even about from this alleged teen molester's supporters?

 

[Fiero425]

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

If Moore is expelled from the Senate, it won't be because of "the left".

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That is quite clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

If Moore wins the election, and is subsequently expelled from the Senate, what do you think should happen?

It clearly is an answer to the question you asked. Since you rephrased the question to include what should happen if he is expelled, I would say that those who expell members from holding a duely elected office should be recalled and removed. They clearly don't believe in the Constitution or due process and out themselves as nothing more than a bunch of natty old biddies promoting the gossip vine.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to expel a member. Article 1, Section 5.

I don't want the lowlife, but McConnell doesn't have a leg to stand on! Anything this guy did before coming to Congress doesn't entitle censorship or expulsion! If we start doing that, all of Congress would be out on their arse! Their opponents just have to keep digging no matter how many years they have to go back! It's a vicious cycle we're not ready to handle! That's why things take decades to change! It was just yesterday Clinton was being impeached for doing the exact same thing members of Congress were doing; probably worse since there have been stories of "Pages" being involved!

 

[OldLady]

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

If Moore is expelled from the Senate, it won't be because of "the left".

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That is quite clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

If Moore wins the election, and is subsequently expelled from the Senate, what do you think should happen?

It clearly is an answer to the question you asked. Since you rephrased the question to include what should happen if he is expelled, I would say that those who expell members from holding a duely elected office should be recalled and removed. They clearly don't believe in the Constitution or due process and out themselves as nothing more than a bunch of natty old biddies promoting the gossip vine.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to expel a member. Article 1, Section 5.

I don't want the lowlife, but McConnell doesn't have a leg to stand on! Anything this guy did before coming to Congress doesn't entitle censorship or expulsion! If we start doing that, all of Congress would be out on their arse! Their opponents just have to keep digging no matter how many years they have to go back! It's a vicious cycle we're not ready to handle! That's why things take decades to change! It was just yesterday Clinton was being impeached for doing the exact same thing members of Congress were doing; probably worse since there have been stories of "Pages" being involved!

Really? ALL members of Congress were getting down to their undies with 14 year olds and roughing up 16 year olds in their cars?
Don't think so.
Are pages high schoolers?
Let's stay focused on the actual problem.

 

[OldLady]

Moore has been neutered by McConnell,

Moore's a 1 man show, and there is nothing he can do that the rest of the Republicans don't want....

He's not going to change the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, he's not going to change the Supreme court ruling on plastering 10 commandment statues in the court house, and he's not going to change the rulings on transgenders using the bathroom of choice, and he's not going to get Roe v Wade reneged.... He's not even going to be able to wear his gun on his hip in the Senate.....

so who knows what the big fuss is even about from this alleged teen molester's supporters?

Why are posters saying the Dems won't vote for expulsion? Did I miss something?

 

[Pop23]

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

If Moore is expelled from the Senate, it won't be because of "the left".

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That is quite clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

If Moore wins the election, and is subsequently expelled from the Senate, what do you think should happen?

It clearly is an answer to the question you asked. Since you rephrased the question to include what should happen if he is expelled, I would say that those who expell members from holding a duely elected office should be recalled and removed. They clearly don't believe in the Constitution or due process and out themselves as nothing more than a bunch of natty old biddies promoting the gossip vine.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to expel a member. Article 1, Section 5.

I don't want the lowlife, but McConnell doesn't have a leg to stand on! Anything this guy did before coming to Congress doesn't entitle censorship or expulsion! If we start doing that, all of Congress would be out on their arse! Their opponents just have to keep digging no matter how many years they have to go back! It's a vicious cycle we're not ready to handle! That's why things take decades to change! It was just yesterday Clinton was being impeached for doing the exact same thing members of Congress were doing; probably worse since there have been stories of "Pages" being involved!

Really? ALL members of Congress were getting down to their undies with 14 year olds and roughing up 16 year olds in their cars?
Don't think so.
Are pages high schoolers?
Let's stay focused on the actual problem.

And you have proof they haven't? Might be the reason that the Moore allegations were swept under the rug?

Point a finger at somebody and you point the rest toward yourself?

Makes about as much sense as any other reason i've seen.

 

[Fiero425]

Moore has been neutered by McConnell,

Moore's a 1 man show, and there is nothing he can do that the rest of the Republicans don't want....

He's not going to change the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, he's not going to change the Supreme court ruling on plastering 10 commandment statues in the court house, and he's not going to change the rulings on transgenders using the bathroom of choice, and he's not going to get Roe v Wade reneged.... He's not even going to be able to wear his gun on his hip in the Senate.....

so who knows what the big fuss is even about from this alleged teen molester's supporters?

Why are posters saying the Dems won't vote for expulsion? Did I miss something?

That's Republicans deflecting since that would be an option they'd consider in the same situation! The embarrassment of having that sicko voting with Republicans would taint every piece of legislation passed! Dems wouldn't do such a thing, but Republicans are more than capable of that kind of disgusting behavior!