Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ginnyinWI

(17,276 posts)
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 11:09 AM Jan 2019

Censure rather than impeachment.

Here is why:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/06/democrats-dont-impeach-donald-trump/?utm_term=.79242e42c10f&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Yet Tlaib’s comments disregard the political reality: Gaining a conviction in the Republican Senate is highly unlikely, and thus far, impeachment remains politically unpopular. This makes it worthwhile for House Democrats to consider an alternative path. Rather than allowing her party to get mired in an impeachment battle that will distract from its progressive message, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could orchestrate a presidential censure. And not just one. House Democrats could adopt a series of censure resolutions, one for each investigation revealing serious misconduct.

Censure is a formal reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress. Unlike impeachment, presidential censure is not constitutionally sanctioned. Thus, it does not result in removal from office. Yet it has proved to be an effective form of public shaming, especially when implemented in a nonpartisan way. Such a punishment seems well suited for this president and this moment in our national history.

There is precedent for this strategy. Members of Congress have introduced censure resolutions against at least 12 presidents. The most successful effort was the censure of Andrew Jackson in 1834, when the Senate condemned him for removing federal deposits from the Second Bank of the United States.

...Given that Democrats hold a significant majority in the chamber and thus represent a majority of the American people, these reprimands would have significant weight in the arena of public opinion. They would be even more effective if Pelosi choreographs a semiregular pattern of censure votes through the summer of 2020 and if the investigations are so irreproachable that some Republicans vote for censure.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Censure rather than impeachment. (Original Post) ginnyinWI Jan 2019 OP
Nope! It needs to be indicted, convicted, impeached, removed LiberalFighter Jan 2019 #1
This is FUCKING ridiculous! manor321 Jan 2019 #2
This 👆 SHRED Jan 2019 #4
in that case, yes ginnyinWI Jan 2019 #8
No. There is a Special Prosecutor. There will be House hearings. When they complete their work... Tom Rinaldo Jan 2019 #3
Either way, we need to remember grumpyduck Jan 2019 #5
Censuring the motherf*cker wouldn't do a damn thing. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2019 #6
+1. The punishment must be real, damaging, and long-lasting. dalton99a Jan 2019 #9
Exactly n/t Bradshaw3 Jan 2019 #10
Seriously?!! rusty fender Jan 2019 #7
Do Mobsters get censured rather . . . peggysue2 Jan 2019 #11
Also, send him to bed without dinner ProudLib72 Jan 2019 #12
No Censure is bullshit. Either we impeach or we don't Demsrule86 Jan 2019 #13
 

manor321

(3,344 posts)
2. This is FUCKING ridiculous!
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 11:21 AM
Jan 2019

Why is it ridiculous? Because we don't even know the fucking charges yet, that's why!

The reality is going to be bad. Very bad. Very very bad. 100 times worse than Nixon. Impeachment will be the only option. Anything less means that the rule of law has ended.

ginnyinWI

(17,276 posts)
8. in that case, yes
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 11:43 AM
Jan 2019

It would have to be enough so that the Repub congress critters would also get on board. Otherwise it is just spinning wheels and wasting time. A centure would do as much damage, maybe more, than a failed impeachment attempt. Right? It's put on the record permanently. As the article said, Andrew Jackson tried to get his removed but we still remember it 200 years later.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,912 posts)
3. No. There is a Special Prosecutor. There will be House hearings. When they complete their work...
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 11:34 AM
Jan 2019

weigh the evidence is full whether "High Crimes and Misdemeanors have occurred. Then act in accordance with the evidence as our Constitution envisioned. Here is my argument for that position: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211628929

grumpyduck

(6,232 posts)
5. Either way, we need to remember
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 11:39 AM
Jan 2019

that these people -- all of them -- are politicians and live in a world of horse-trading: "I'll vote for yours if you vote for mine."

Personally I don' t like it; I could't do it and still look at myself in the mirror. But that's how it goes. For me, all I can hope is that all these new members of Congress manage to do something for the good of the country before they get sucked into the system.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,681 posts)
6. Censuring the motherf*cker wouldn't do a damn thing.
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 11:39 AM
Jan 2019

The writer suggests that it would be "an effective form of public shaming," and that might have worked when Andrew Jackson was censured. But we've seen that Trump is completely impervious to shaming. He doesn't understand the concept of shame because he doesn't think he ever does anything wrong. A formal censure by House Democrats would do nothing but stir up another fit of rage-tweeting, and he'd keep doing what he does, without any shame at all.

peggysue2

(10,828 posts)
11. Do Mobsters get censured rather . . .
Mon Jan 7, 2019, 01:01 PM
Jan 2019

than indicted? And let's not sanitize mobster activity: money laundering, human trafficking, arms dealing, drug traffic, prostitution, child slavery, etc. Blood money, human suffering world-wide, ongoing as we politely argue how it's more politically feasible to censure someone--a number of someones--caught up and willingly participating in the worst human nature has to offer. For money, for power, for influence over not only Americans but the global community.

Censure. A slap on the wrist.

NO!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Censure rather than impea...