Writes Adam Serwer, in "Expelling George Santos Was a Mistake/Forcing the New York representative out of the House after a conviction would have been justified; pushing him out beforehand is not" (The Atlantic).
I agree. The man was elected by the people of a small geographic area who have a chance every 2 years to pick some human being to represent them. If they picked a big clown, that's democracy for you. Deal with it. Hope that the other clowns are lesser clowns and can balance things out. Santos wasn't important, and fussing over him was always, as I see it, distraction. Distraction, too, is democracy. I get that.
Posts
69 comments:
They booted him so that they can elect an actual Republican in the special election, instead of having him lose to the Democrat. The Republicans are learning how to play the game.
Curious that the reliably left Serwer all of a sudden starts worrying about the principle of the thing.
Expelling the elected representative was the only way to save our democracy.
It's not about facts or reason. It's about feelings and emotions. Both Santos's election and the reaction to it explains so much about how we got to where we are today. It would seem that disassociating from the entire process is a reasonable reaction.
I think the people in charge know this, and that disassociation is why they do much of what they do. When those who are disassociated from politics begin to feel a hint of empowerment, you get MAGA. This "threatens our democracy". The proles must see the price they will pay for their hubris in believing that the democratic process could include them.
A President Newsome could settle this for a generation. Make America Califormnia Again.
It is selective prosecution. No word on when the vote for all the other criminals is. Selective prosecution is all the rage these days…
I agree it was a mistake to expel him before due process played out. It sets a bad precedent. I wouldn’t want to see these expulsions increase based on faulty or made up evidence against anyone on either side of the aisle.
Selective persecution.
The impeachment of a president exists because the powers of the presidency are well beyond those of the rest of elected representatives. And so the framers sought to distinguish that by having Congress check that already limited power.
Impeaching Santos was a power not granted, nor envisioned by the constitution.
A cynic might conclude, why should I even bother to vote?
Absolutely. Same thing with AOC. In this great country of ours, stupid constituents even get to send airhead bartenders to sling swill and serve up pickled pork barrel spending in DC for the average frustrated chumps back home.
what was it? that was "embarrassing" about him being "elected in the first place"?
that he was a republican?
that he WASN'T a GOPe republican?
HOW is he More "embarrassing" than
a democrat that sleeps with a chinese spy?
a democrat with a chinese spy as her driver?
a democrat that is employed by an egyptian spy?
a democrat that is employed by BOTH the chinese AND the ukrainians?
OH! That's Right! BECAUSE he is a republican.. THAT is the "embarrassment"
The consequences of falling in love with power.
Power to imprison Trump with trumped up crimes.
If Biden can do it, we can do it too.
We can vote ourselves law, baton and constitution anew.
They circumvented the process the courts say Trump is not exempt from.
Ironically.
First congressperson booted that was not convicted, or a Confederate.
Great precedent though
Sen Menendez is looking over his shoulder.
Dems have established another new precedent. Not Debating Judges. They just put the vote on the floor. Like eliminating Cloture, the Dems will squeal when the Republicans will do the same.
I thought he was iconic of you-know-what.
I agree.
The problem here was the MSM obsessing over Santos.
Crook Biden is allowed to be a crook. You won't hear any complaints about Crook Biden at PBS Obedient Democrat party "news", NBC(D), CBS, ABC, NYT, WaPoo(D). NPR.
I give credit to Senator Fetterman for pointing out that Sen. Menendez is a far more dangerous and corrupt politician that remains in the Senate, when asked about Santos in an interview. He is turning out to be one of the most principled politicians in office.
The Democrats argue loudly for “due process” but don’t support it for Republicans. Should have gone through the process, if guilty then boot him.
This is kinda like the U. Of Michigan cheating scandal. Lots of evidence they did cheat, but, with due process, they will likely make into the CFP. If they win, and are later found guilty of cheating, the whole thing will be a travesty.
"They booted him so that they can elect an actual Republican in the special election, instead of having him lose to the Democrat."
He'd already said he wasn't running for reelection, so that excuse is a lie. Boot them all, then, if we're booting liars.
I should say - I agree up to a point. Santos lied to those voters. The man is a total fraud as far as I can tell. How much fraud can be endured?
You can be a leftist democrat fraud all day long. But you cannot be a GOP fraud. those are the rules.
IF he were Democrat, this NEVER would have happened. Case in point...Adam Schiff and Joe Biden.
Ann Althouse said...
"They booted him so that they can elect an actual Republican in the special election, instead of having him lose to the Democrat."
He'd already said he wasn't running for reelection, so that excuse is a lie. Boot them all, then, if we're booting liars.
12/2/23, 7:46 AM
HEAR!! HEAR!!!!
He was removed from Congress because of his non standard sexuality.
Willard:
How many people had I already killed? There was those six that I know about for sure. Close enough to blow their last breath in my face. But this time it was an American and an officer. That wasn't supposed to make any difference to me, but it did. Sh*t... charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500. I took the mission. What the hell else was I gonna do?
Our Democracy means choosing who you get to vote for. If for some reason you vote for the wrong guy and he wins, it means it betters can correct your mistake. Know your place, peasant.
"Sometimes voters make mistakes."
Was it a mistake or the result of Santos' misrepresentation? If the latter, can we have a re-do on John Fetterman?
I'm sure there are people who would look at Trump in 2016 as a mistake by the voters. Likewise, Bush pere et fils, Reagan, Nixon, etc.
When this guy makes sense...
*eyeroll*
Fetterman: "We have a colleague in the Senate that's actually done much more sinister kinds of things. He needs to go. If you are going to expel Santos, how can you allow Menendez to remain in the Senate? Menendez is really a Senator for Egypt, not New Jersey."
"We have a colleague in the Senate that's actually done much more sinister kinds of things. He needs to go. If you are going to expel Santos, how can you allow Menendez to remain in the Senate? Menendez is really a Senator for Egypt, not New Jersey." - Sen. John Fetterman
"...voters make mistakes..."
The good old voters are too stupid to vote, implying...we should make the decision for them. Which they did.
Only the voters themselves can determine if they made a mistake.
He'd already said he wasn't running for reelection
He's not exactly someone who can be taken at his word, though.
Ann Althouse said...
"He'd already said he wasn't running for reelection,..."
Wait - you're trusting the words of a liar?
I've found myself wondering: If Santos represented an invisible district in flyover country and/or a small media market, would there have been far less attention given to his actions and allowed the legal system and his constituents to resolve the issue? The fact that he represented a district near NYC had to be a factor.
There are a number of US reps and Senators on both sides of the aisle that embarrass me as an American, but I don't vote in their districts and/or states. I don't have a say. Why shouldn't Santos' constituents have the final say?
"They booted him so that they can elect an actual Republican..."
No.
They booted him for 2 reasons (repeating myself, I know):
1. They can now elect an R who can be reelected indefinitely (as most congresscritters are); they did not trust Santos to stick to his promise to not run again.
2. They can apply the principle of Accused of Crime=Get kicked out of the Congress to Dems. Harry Reid did away with the filibuster for federal judges and that is why Attorney General Garland is not a swing vote on SCOTUS. If AOC or Tlaib get a parking ticket, they will have to be looking over their shoulders also- the Ds will be more eager to be rid of them than the Rs.
You may have seen that John Freakin' Fetterman called for the expulsion of Sen. Menendez, who has similarly been accused of but not convicted of any crime, on The View, no less.
boatbuilder said...
They booted him so that they can elect an actual Republican in the special election..
Cook rates the district as D+2. It voted Democrat in seven of the last eight Presidential elections including Gore and HRC's losses. Prior to Santos, two Democrats held the seat for 10 years. It was held by Republican Peter King for two decades prior (1992 to 2012) but was redistricted in 2012.
Highly unlikely a Republican, even a GOPe'r, will win.
If we don't want liars in Congress, then we will have no Congress. All of us (save one) have lied. And He isn't interested in having the job.....
Fetterman is the Democrat husk-puppet of the senate.
No one at PBS "news," NPR, Maddow NBC(D) boot-lick station (D-deluxe) - care at all.
“ Boot them all, then, if we're booting liars.”
That’s the dirty little… not so secret. Santos is very likely not the only one.
Does this mean Santos gets a gig on MSNBC? All the other criminals got one.
Blogger Biotrekker said...
I give credit to Senator Fetterman for pointing out that Sen. Menendez is a far more dangerous and corrupt politician that remains in the Senate, when asked about Santos in an interview. He is turning out to be one of the most principled politicians in office.
Thats twice in a week Fetterman gets credit for taking a principled stance.
If he turns out to be even a half decent representative I will shave my head and put on a hoodie.
Congress can impeach judges and officers. Why not also expel members of Congress?
Sometimes voters make mistakes?
In a Democracy, voters never make mistakes because there isn't anyone above voters to conclude or declare such a stupid thing. Voters may not like what they got after their vote, but by what standard (except elitism) was that a mistake?
Why not just admit that even Congress is allowed to have minimal standards for membership, that he violated those and that expelling him for it was therefore ok? A former House speaker Dennis Hastert was imprisoned for molesting kids on his wrestling team and extorting them to shut up. If that had been known prior to his voluntary decision to retire from the Chamber would they have been wrong for expelling him too?
The district has the opportunity to send him back. They should do so promptly, and then the local party should issue a statement that they choose their own representative. And if he gets convicted, then he can be expelled again. But until then, it is NONE of the people outside their district who they choose to represent them. Otherwise, the four skanks would be long gone.
I’m far less embarrassed by Santos than say McConnell and can’t believe that the party of the Squad has any capacity for embarrassment at all. I demand more evidence Mr. Sewer.
Strange week when Fetterman is the voice of reason in the Swamp. Strange times indeed.
I think an adequate amount of corruption had already been proven.
As to other politicians committing bigger crimes with no consequences, well, it's always the guy who takes too much shrimp at the Red Lobster who gets made the example. You don't become the speaker by being bad at corruption.
This was a political act by republicans. Santos will receive due process in a court of law. He had a chance to dispute the allegations and refused to do so. Furthermore, the sheer scale of his bad behavior is unlike any other previous congress member. If the standard is, do what Santos does and you’re gone, I think that’s proper.
Wait, wasn't Adam Clayton Powell expelled from Congress back in the 60s and the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional, followed by him getting re-elected?
The problem with Santos is that he apparently lies about everything.
The left know - you must be careful liars... like they are. (bonus - the MSM plays cover)
boot them all out would be fine with me. but lets begin with the lying liars who lie for profit.
Like this democrat
So we are now going to pretend that we have moral standards about who is fit to serve in congress? Laughable. He should have been removed (or not) by the voters in his district.
Sen Menendez is looking over his shoulder.
And laughing.
The Crack Emcee said...
Ann Althouse said...
"He'd already said he wasn't running for reelection,..."
Wait - you're trusting the words of a liar?
12/2/23, 8:12 AM
So let's get rid of every single liar in Congress. That's a good way to make smaller Government that works for the people. Let's start with Biden.
"If the standard is, do what Santos does and you’re gone, I think that’s proper."
Tell that to Biden and his supporters.
I have to agree with my senator, Fetterman: Santos is a low-life clown and an embarassment, Menendez is and has for years been a menace.
Furthermore, the sheer scale of his bad behavior is unlike any other previous congress member
Stop clutching your pearls.
The democratic/dictatorial duality.
I wasn't embarrassed by the election of Santos. I did not vote for him. I'm not even embarrassed by the election of Bob Menendez.
I support democracy 100%, until voters do something I don't like.
Activist liberal judges override the will of the people all the time. Why shouldn't congress start? People in this country want the border controlled. Congress doesn't do shit about it.
Watch what happens to Act 10 in Wisconsin now that are Supreme Court is dominated by a coven of liberal witches.
We are NOT a democracy.
I'm sure this action will be regretted. It is one of many regrettable things of the past couple of decades. We are going to regret ourselves into ruin.
Societies are held together by both written and unwritten rules. The unwritten rules are held in place by both true believers and those that fear the the fallout of the violation of unwritten rules. When unwritten rules are tossed aside, societies quickly discover that those written rules are insufficient.
Just because you can do something does not mean you should.
'He'd already said he wasn't running for reelection, so that excuse is a lie. Boot them all, then, if we're booting liars.'
I want him to run again, wearing a magnificent headdress of eagle feathers at every campaign stop.
He will be introduced at every appearance by Jon Lovitz.
That's the ticket...
As for whether I’m trusting the words of a liar, I’m not. It I s obvious that once he said he wasn’t running for reelection, he wouldn’t be able to raise the money to suddenly turn around and run. He wasn’t in a position to do that.
Suppose Santos hadn't been kicked out, and suppose he did his liarly thing and ran for reelection. Don't they have primary elections in the state of NY?
Moreover, it is a swing district. So much for electing Republicans! Democrats know that and they know Repubs now have one less vote. Repubs who voted to expel him follow a long tradition of Repub stupidity.
planetgeo said...
Wait, wasn't Adam Clayton Powell expelled from Congress back in the 60s and the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional, followed by him getting re-elected?
I refreshed my understanding of the Powell case when I was tempted to reply to some comment that didn't show understanding the House is Constitutionally authorized to expel members by a two-thirds vote.
Powell's case was different from Santos's in several respects. Powell had been in Congress since 1945 when the House attempted to *refuse to seat him* after his re-election in 1966 and had been found by a Congressional committee to have been involved in several acts of financial misconduct *while a Member*. The attempt to refuse him a seat was made because that would only require a majority vote. Expelling a member has a higher threshold, two-thirds, per Article 1 Section 5 Clause 2.
In the Powell case the Court ruled that a Member duly elected had to be seated and then expelled. In other words the authority to judge a member only attaches after that person is subject to House rules. BTW, Powell won the special election held to fill the 'vacant' seat while the court's decision was pending.
My understanding of the Court's ruling and Powell's situation makes it a bit problematic that the House wanted to expel Santos for actions taken before he became a Member. I suppose an argument could be made that they have that power based on the shenanigans involved in his campaign.
Sad to say my Congressional district keeps sending Adam Schiff to Congress.
For decades before that the district, as then constituted, was a safe haven for Republicans voting R 90% or more in most elections. Then came Jim Rogan, the House floor manager for the putative impeachment of Slick Willie Clinton. The Dims declared jihad on Rogan--and Schiff defeated him in the then most expensive Congressional race in history in 2000.
Since then the California Democrats have gerrymandered things to keep Schiff (and others) in safe districts. Unfortunately I've not been lucky enough to have a gerrymander remove Schiff from my district. Probably wouldn't matter much--they'd just serve up another Democrat to vote for---but I'd removed the "skid mark" on my ballot that Schiff represents.
Imagine if a woman were told to stand still while men kept kicking her.
Then imagine if she was told this to “be a woman”.
Santos, for all his lies, is more honest than half the people who voted to expel him.
Have I missed it? When this bozo was running in the general election. why didn't the Democrats do the usual opposition research and bring out this stuff? They didn't, did they?. In my old days practicing law, I'd have argued that they were barred from raising their claims.
Expulsion is a bad precedent. So is the President of the United States trying to put his chief political opponent in jail. There simply are no guardrails anymore. Anything goes.
I used to live near that district which is by no means a Republican stronghold. I think not enough of the Santos coverage has focused on how the Democrat nominee was beaten so badly.
hpudding said...Why not just admit that even Congress is allowed to have minimal standards for membership,
Because overturning the will of the voters is serious business and should be treated seriously. Santos is a clown, but he hasn’t been proven to have done anything more serious than lying to his voters. It should be up to his voters to decide the consequences. Instead, we have this floating standard that you know won’t be evenly applied because it already isn’t.
Uh, I've seen a lot of people say they're not running for this or that reason, then the one necessary donor with an agenda pumps millions into a superpac. And they run.
The solution is to eliminate superpacs. Rebel without a lobby on either side of the aisle, unfortunately. Soros and Koch foundations have millions working to prevent this from happening. So do the academic fascists at Annenberg, etc.
Post a Comment