pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Metcalfe calls for Kane's impeachment
#11
Internet troll;129190 Wrote:Just curious, how many people who are against Kane (for the record, I am not a fan of Kane and did not vote for her nor will I ever) and support impeaching her for ignoring this law, support the various sheriffs in Colorado and New York who have vowed to ignore the gun control laws the states have put in place?

If you do I am curious what the rational is. Why support one government official for not following their state laws, but not support another for not following their state law?

I guess you could say that the decision is a biased one, we dislike Kane because of her stance on guns, and we like the sheriff's because of their stance on guns.

Of course that can be looked upon as hypocritical, because it is. As with most things in life there's a lot of gray area in this equation.
Reply
#12
No support here for any of it as it strikes me as .gov by temper tantrum. He, as wells as we, should put our efforts into the next election.
Dave, proudly annoying members of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#13
soberbyker;129198 Wrote:As with most things in life there's a lot of gray area in this equation. [/font][/size][/color]


PA impeachment procedure is fairly clear though.

It's a process that takes place in the legislature and it's not automatic and it follows the similar procedure in the Federal level that we're all so familiar with when Nixon and Clinton were hit with it.

Metcalfe did the first step just now: introduce a resolution that has to be voted in the full House whether a select committee shall be formed to review the gay marriage fracas in Norristown. After that, articles of impeachment must be drafted by the Judiciary Committee and voted out of the Committee to make it back to the PA House floor for a full vote. This vote is then recorded and then sent to the PA Senate.

It's important to note here that the judge or the legislator or executive up for impeachment here has not yet been formally impeached. That differs from the U.S House which reports out the articles of impeachment for the trial in the U.S. Senate.

Here's a NY Times article on the impeachment of PA Supreme Court Judge Rolf Larsen that describes how the PA Senate proceeds:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/28/us/pen...trial.html


Daryl isn't gonna even make it through to the first committee on this one. If a real PA Representative with a lot more respect from members of the PAGOP as well as the Democrats were carrying this to the PA House floor, he'd have more clout with Republicans statewide and conservative Democrats. But this is Metcalfe we're talking about--the bitchiest drag queen in Harrisburg.

For impeachment to actually succeed, the deeds someone has done has to reach a level "which inflame the passions of the whole community" [Federalist No. 65]. Kane certainly didn't meet that test, so impeachment being used as a device to get rid of someone you don't like, even though evidence is certainly available that they shirked a Constitutional duty, is still not enough. Impeachment is not an automatic process, it's a collaborative one and it's harder to accomplish than amending PA's Constitution.



The best explanation ever about impeachment and how it works is from the late U.S. Rep Barbara Jordan (D-TX); when she reminded her colleagues in the House Watergate hearings what impeachment means and what they are required to do.

This is one of the greatest speeches of the 20th century, but not often referred to because it deals with a very narrow subject. But this tape should always be replayed and studied carefully whenever the topic of impeaching someone comes up:

Reply
#14
I'm still waiting for Holder to be impeached....... Dodgy
[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#15
Metcalfe: making gun owners look like douchebags.
Unbanned since September 2012.
Reply
#16
We need the late Barbara Jordon (D-TX) to make a ghost appearance against Holder and BO.

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk
gtogunner, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Feb 2013.
Reply
#17
soberbyker;129198 Wrote:I guess you could say that the decision is a biased one, we dislike Kane because of her stance on guns, and we like the sheriff's because of their stance on guns.

Of course that can be looked upon as hypocritical, because it is. As with most things in life there's a lot of gray area in this equation.


I'm okay with an official deciding not to enforce an unjust law. There's a difference between breaking the law, and not enforcing a law. If Kane actually broke a law, or tried to usurp the law, I could get behind an impeachment. But that isn't the case here. All this is is Metcalfe being a cock toboggan, looking for a reason to attack her. If she decided that she wasn't going to enforce any federal gun control laws, he'd have nothing to complain about.

I still can't decide whether he's doing this because he's virulently anti-Kane, or virulently anti-gay.
Unbanned since September 2012.
Reply
#18
just found this... it was in response to another legislator slandering Metcalfe over the impeachment resolution:

NRA (Life), GOA, FOAC (Life), NAGR, AMGOA

RocketFoot's Minion since 09-07-2012
Reply






Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Peters Ralph Calls Obama a ‘Total Pussy’ on Live Television das 8 3,780 12-12-2015, 04:38 PM
Last Post: 39Flathead
  Attorney General Kane injured in auto accident soberbyker 6 1,475 11-01-2014, 08:28 PM
Last Post: soberbyker
  Pelosi calls surge of illegal immigrant children an ‘opportunity’ das 8 2,096 06-30-2014, 05:58 PM
Last Post: Pocketprotector
  Affirmative action lawyer calls Supreme Court decision on Michigan schools 'racist' das 5 1,439 04-28-2014, 12:39 PM
Last Post: bigdawgbeav
  Union calls for TSA agents to be armed Philadelphia Patriot 4 886 11-06-2013, 09:42 AM
Last Post: gascolator



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.