Roy Moore accused of sexual abuse

[krazen1211]

Hey, is this a situation where the Senate may choose to not swear Moore in? I know we talked about this for Gianforte in the House, which of course didn't happen, but I mean that was just for punching a guy. This is a whole other level of disgusting offenses.

I am impressed with the fact that the 'voting rights' party is skipping over the minor detail of losing the elections and directly proceeding to schemes to simply steal it.

But no, if Powell v McCormack holds, losers of elections are not permitted to do such a thing, at least in the House. Such logic almost surely carries over to Senate elections.

[krazen1211]

Hey, is this a situation where the Senate may choose to not swear Moore in? I know we talked about this for Gianforte in the House, which of course didn't happen, but I mean that was just for punching a guy. This is a whole other level of disgusting offenses.

I am impressed with the fact that the 'voting rights' party is skipping over the minor detail of losing the elections and directly proceeding to schemes to simply steal it.

But no, if Powell v McCormack holds, losers of elections are not permitted to do such a thing, at least in the House. Such logic almost surely carries over to Senate elections.

All Powell v McCormack bars is refusing to seat a duly-elected scumbag.  It placed zero limitation on the Constitutional authority of a house to expel a scumbag upon a two-thirds vote.  So if Moore does end up being expelled, it'll be because at minimum fifteen Republican Senators vote to expel him, fewer than that if he's expelled in the next Congress.

On the contrary. There is longstanding precedent in the House rules against such a thing, which is why it has essentially never happened in the history of the Republic.

Since we Republicans are required to accept the outcomes of elections, I suspect folks will let sleeping dogs lie and not attempt to steal the election.

Link


On May 23, 1884, Speaker Carlisle decided that the House had no right to punish a Member for any offense alleged to have been committed previous to the time when he was elected a Member, and added, "That has been so frequently decided in the House that it is no longer a matter of dispute."

[krazen1211]

I think what people are thinking of is the Senate expelling Moore and letting Governor Ivey appoint a new interim R Senator.

Yes, I am aware of the specific malarkey that these schemers are proposing to steal the election. The scheme fails for numerous reasons. First, if the GOP was in the business of kicking out senators, they would start with people in your party like Bob Menendez. Second, if the GOP was actually successful at this scheme, elected Senator Roy Moore could simply run again for the Open seat in the 2018 elections and win again.

[krazen1211]

That's a very selective interpretation, kraven. Powell only used those long-standing House rules as part of why SCOTUS was unwilling to accept that Powell's exclusion vote was a de facto expulsion vote.  However, nowhere in Powell did they decide that the custom that the expulsion power not be used to punish for conduct prior to being seated was an enshrined precedent, never to be changed.  If custom based upon long-standing legislative courtesies could never be changed, then Garland and not Gorsuch would be on the Court right now. At least McConnell's thievery was mere politics. If Moore did what he's been accused of, he committed actual crimes.  If so, expelling Moore so he could face charges without him hiding behind Congressional immunity would seem to me to be the correct course of action. (There's no statute of limitations in Alabama for sex offenses with those under the age of 16.)

The court did not reach the question of expulsion as that issue was not ripe before the court.

There is a major problem in your logic, and it is that opening up expulsion inquiries in such a manner. could threaten the position of the rickety sinking ship that is the Senate Democratic caucus after being routed in the past 2 elections. Democrats like Ted Kennedy who drown women and then double team them with Chris Dodd might also face such inquiries despite them being unrelated to legislative conduct. Mitch is not your problem...your party isn't going to open that door only to have your tactics used against you.


The rest of this is, as the usual, flagrantly untrue. Moore was a Democrat back in the 1970s. In addition, the statute of limitations changes as it applies to this fake news was only enacted in 1985 and does not apply retroactively. Clearly the fake news did not do its job properly if that is your goal.

[krazen1211]

Would the Democrats even expel him? I'm not sure what senate Democrats think but most Democrats on here seem to be fine with the crazies taking over the GOP.

Probably not. We have to remember that various individuals in the Democrat party have a history of beating, raping, grabbing, bashing, and drowning the womenfolk. Not to mention the Kennedy Dodd 450 lb man sandwich. They aren't going to open up their pasts to scrutiny.