Re. Romney, rather than his oath to God or his conscience, shouldnt have been his oath to the constitution that guided him in his decision? That's what Collins (considered a possible yes vote), the senator to the north of him, did. Not being an expert on the subject myself, but I always questioned the constitutional basis for the impeachment. Though like most legal matters, it could be argued one way or the other...meaning, ultimately it was a partisan process.
This is the oath:
I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of , now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.
And, again, this is what Romney said in his statement:
But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to historyâs rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 6, 2020 - 6:08am
black321 wrote:
Re. Romney, rather than his oath to God or his conscience, shouldnt have been his oath to the constitution that guided him in his decision? That's what Collins (considered a possible yes vote), the senator to the north of him, did. Not being an expert on the subject myself, but I always questioned the constitutional basis for the impeachment. Though like most legal matters, it could be argued one way or the other...meaning, ultimately it was a partisan process.
This is the oath:
I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of , now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.
And, again, this is what Romney said in his statement:
But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to historyâs rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.
Re. Romney, rather than his oath to God or his conscience, shouldnt have been his oath to the constitution that guided him in his decision? That's what Collins (considered a possible yes vote), the senator to the north of him, did. Not being an expert on the subject myself, but I always questioned the constitutional basis for the impeachment. Though like most legal matters, it could be argued one way or the other...meaning, ultimately it was a partisan process.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 6, 2020 - 5:52am
kurtster wrote:
Add this to Romney ... anyone who says that God told them to do something specific ... well, that is something special all by itself ...
Romney did not say that God told him to vote to convict. What he said was that he took a sworn oath, before God, to exercise impartial justice and that he took that oath seriously.
As a Senator-juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise âimpartial justice.â I am a profoundly religious person. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential.
. . .
But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to historyâs rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.
This will hopefully be the last that I comment on this subject, but I think Lamar Alexander got it perfectly right and this is where I stand as well:
"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense.
"There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.' There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.
"It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.
"The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.
"The Senate has spent nine long days considering this 'mountain' of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president's lawyers, their answers to senators' questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution's 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors' standard for an impeachable offense.
"The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.
"Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with 'the consent of the governed,' not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide."
You're attacking two separate points, one which Black321 did not assert. Religion, faith, etc. - call it what you will - is certainly a virtue to those who sincerely believe it and its disciplines, whether or not non-believers belittle it. Whether Romney is fully sincere and adherent or not is another matter. I can't get in his head to really know his motivation for his vote and statement and frankly I don't think I want to venture into a consciousness where caffeine and alcohol are prohibited. Anyhow, I don't think there's so much of Democrats, progressives, etc. "admiring" Romney as much as there is just admiring what he did - breaking stride with what many of them see as a panel of bullied, boot-licking cowards. I do know a number of people from Massachusetts who were pleased with some of what he did while he was their governor, even though they didn't vote for him, but I don't think many people here have suddenly become fans or supporters of him - I haven't. He will pay for what he's done but it's not like he'll be homeless and living in a tent in Bryce Canyon anytime soon.
And I will reply there is way too much thought and intellectual reasoning going on here when it is just simply Romney has been mad and red faced for a couple of years now and gets a chance to publicly throw his fit. You are right about him not having much too lose cause if he did.......
I'll just throw this in on my way to bed as I've been up all night ripping vinyl ...
Romney is to the repubs as Hillary is to the dems, a sore loser who will not go away and is going to do all they can to make everyone else miserable.
Add this to Romney ... anyone who says that God told them to do something specific ... well, that is something special all by itself ...
You're attacking two separate points, one which Black321 did not assert. Religion, faith, etc. - call it what you will - is certainly a virtue to those who sincerely believe it and its disciplines, whether or not non-believers belittle it. Whether Romney is fully sincere and adherent or not is another matter. I can't get in his head to really know his motivation for his vote and statement and frankly I don't think I want to venture into a consciousness where caffeine and alcohol are prohibited. Anyhow, I don't think there's so much of Democrats, progressives, etc. "admiring" Romney as much as there is just admiring what he did - breaking stride with what many of them see as a panel of bullied, boot-licking cowards. I do know a number of people from Massachusetts who were pleased with some of what he did while he was their governor, even though they didn't vote for him, but I don't think many people here have suddenly become fans or supporters of him - I haven't. He will pay for what he's done but it's not like he'll be homeless and living in a tent in Bryce Canyon anytime soon.
And I will reply there is way too much thought and intellectual reasoning going on here when it is just simply Romney has been mad and red faced for a couple of years now and gets a chance to publicly throw his fit. You are right about him not having much too lose cause if he did.......
And you buy that Romney lives his professional life through the sincere prism of his religion all the time not just when it is convenient? And that all of the progressives who mock and deride religion all of the sudden admire and believe this crock o' shi'te? Did you send me the check to the Brooklyn bridge yet? Again the hypocrisy is flying all over the place.
You're attacking two separate points, one which Black321 did not assert. Religion, faith, etc. - call it what you will - can certainly be a virtue to those who sincerely believe it and its disciplines, whether or not non-believers belittle it. Whether Romney is fully sincere and adherent or not is another matter. I can't get in his head to really know his motivation for his vote and statement and frankly I don't think I want to venture into a consciousness where caffeine and alcohol are prohibited. Anyhow, I don't think there's so much of Democrats, progressives, etc. "admiring" Romney as much as there is just admiring what he did - breaking stride with what many of them see as a panel of bullied, boot-licking cowards. I do know a number of people from Massachusetts who were pleased with some of what he did while he was their governor, even though they didn't vote for him, but I don't think many people here have suddenly become fans or supporters of him - I haven't. He will pay for what he's done but it's not like he'll be homeless and living in a tent in Bryce Canyon anytime soon.
You might want to review his political record and statements. The guy worked with MA Democrats while he was Governor to implement something very close to Obamacare for the Commonwealth but then somehow decided that Obama's attempt to do the same for the nation was simply awful. He also was firmly against federal government support for the Big Three during the worst months of the Great Recession. Failure to provide that support likely would have meant the loss of millions of jobs at the Big Three, their suppliers and the surrounding economies.
So, not perhaps the best choice for a national economic crises that demanded massive government intervention. But Romney provides a stark contrast of integrity and moral character versus careerist opportunism, cowardice and desperate attempts to avoid acknowledging the truth of Trump's corruption and unfitness for any elected office.
What are you arguing against yourself? This supposed to be an argument for the trustworthiness of Romney's character? However I am glad you brought this up, this was a big issue with me in the 2012 election. You had the architect of an idea arguing against the guy who stole the idea on the merits of the idea. It was like Edison debating Tesla on whether electricity is a good thing or not. Which in the long run turns out maybe it wasn't, but that is a discussion for the Environment or Climate change thread. And of course the hypocrisy of the 2 parties and their supporters as the Democrats praised Romney's idea while condemning him at the same time as the Republicans blasted Romney's idea while supporting him.
Look, there may have been some Democrats who truly believed what Trump did was an impeachable offense and voted with their conscience and there may be a few Republicans who really thought that Trump did not do anything wrong. Imo they would both be wrong, but at least they were voting with the correct intentions. However most were just doing whatever had the best chance of retaining or gaining power and control because that is what all of this bull hockey is really about.
âI am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced. I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?â
Who can doubt this? That shitstorm is already pelting him. Trump Jr. wants him expelled from the GOP. There undoubtedly will be much more threatening abuse hurled at him and probably his family.
GOP - independent thinkers need not apply.
Damn Republican wish they were more like the Democrats......oh wait they are.
And you buy that Romney lives his professional life through the sincere prism of his religion all the time not just when it is convenient? And that all of the progressives who mock and deride religion all of the sudden admire and believe this crock o' shi'te? Did you send me the check to the Brooklyn bridge yet? Again the hypocrisy is flying all over the place. Oh and btw, I am sure that you fully support evangelical Christian lawmakers who oppose abortion based on their religious principles, right.......right?
No, I got that. I was not focusing on his being a Mormon, just his being religious. I was questioning your saying he traded on being holier than thou. For example, Romney today spoke about his sworn oath to God in deciding to vote for conviction. Was this him acting holier than thou? Being politically expedient working only for his own self interest and self promotion?
, but I think Lamar Alexander got it perfectly right and this is where I stand as well: 
