Society for the Rule of Law Webinar on Impeachment

I spoke along with fellow VC blogger Keith Whittington.

(NA)

The Society for the Rule of Law (formerly known as Checks and Balances) has posted the video of today's webinar on "Impeachment of the Rule of Law," where I appeared along with fellow VC blogger Keith Whittington. Here is the video:

We covered a number of topics, including the history and purpose of impeachments, how the utility of this institution has been undermined by partisanship and polarization, the recent impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and ongoing efforts to impeach Biden.

Keith is one of the nation's leading experts on impeachment, and I look forward to reading his forthcoming book on the subject.

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sorry Ilya, the second impeachment of Trump redefined impeachment to be nothing other than a partisan political process.

You can't ever undo that -- it's what impeachment will always be.

And everything you have to say is irrelevant.

[David Nieporent]

The second impeachment of Trump was the least partisan impeachment in American history.

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe if you'd actually paid attention to the articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, you could have given more informed commentary.

H.Res. 863: Impeaching Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

In fact, the first article of impeachment was an extensive list of laws violated.

Perhaps when you said that he wasn't being impeached for crimes, you meant that he isn't being impeached over murdering somebody, or committing a burglary? "Just" violating laws you disapprove of?

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course, I know what you meant is that he didn't have the resources to actually follow the law. Not really a defense against the charges involving affirmative acts in violation of law, but not much of a defense for the failures to comply with the law, either, since the previous administration had managed to comply to a much greater extent with no more resources.

But even conceding the point, your claim wasn't that he had a necessity defense against the charges, but instead that he wasn't charged with crimes. And, of course, he was.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett -- allowing 300K+ ineligible persons to still get onto airplanes entering the US is an affirmative act that he had to actually DO. Shortage of resources isn't a defense against THAT.

Actually someone was paid to write that cellphone ap...

[David Nieporent]

Ineligible for what?

[Sarcastr0]

Hey Brett, maybe Google the shit the Republicans whipped up.

FIRST "section 235(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act" does not in fact apply to all applicants for admission:
"(b) Expedited removal—(1) Applicability. The expedited removal provisions shall apply to the following classes of aliens who are determined to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or (7) of the Act"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/235.3

section 212(a)(6)(C) is about 'fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact.'

SECOND "the detention mandate set forth in section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of such Act"
But (ii) STARTS with "As specifically designated by the Commissioner" which is an explicit grant of discretion.

I won't go through the rest, but suffice to say that your combination of ignorance and wanting to believe has made you fall for nonsense.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hey, Sarcastr0, let's be clear about what I was correcting Somin about. He claimed that the articles of impeachment hadn't alleged any violation of a law. Not that Mayorkas had a defense, or that the allegation was inaccurate in some way, but literally, that he was not accused of law breaking.

But, of course, he was.

[Sarcastr0]

OK so they falsely alleged violations of the law, and that's good enough for you to say Somin is a liar.

How pedantic of you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, there are multiple reasons to say he was lying, (Or just "wrong".) such as his absurd claim that Mayorkas's lack of enforcement was due to a shortage of resources, (When Mayorkas had the same resources available under Trump, and did much less enforcement.) but that's sufficient.

You can call it 'pedantic', but Somin didn't need to make false claims, so why did he bother?

I think it's because he's so viscerally opposed to immigration law enforcement that he's psychologically incapable of acknowledging that they ARE laws, and that violating them is "illegal".

[Sarcastr0]

Under your logic, if the GOP had listed *literally any laws* no matter how irrelevant, that would still count.
Pedantry plus accusing people of lying for not going along with your pedantry is Internet bomb-throwing behavior; it is not a valid argument.

Trump's admin also had to prioritize based on resources. So has every administration since at least GWB.

I don't opine on Section 203; I don't know enough. I do work some with the INA, and USUHS. You are, as you do, ignorant and making things up towards you priors.

And then you go in for some Somin telepathy. Because why the fuck not, you're on a roll!

[Brett Bellmore]

Under my logic, the articles of impeachment are what they actually are, not what Somin thinks they should have been, or legitimately could have been.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Aligning yourself with the clingerverse is going to make you an increasingly less persuasive purveyor of your ideas, Prof. Somin.

If you aren't a hardcore right-winger, why align with the losing side of the culture war, the weaker side at the marketplace of ideas, and the wrong side of history?