Republicans impeach Mayorkas in historic vote
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 8 months ago • 17 commentsBy: Rebecca Beitsch (The Hill)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
House Republicans on Tuesday narrowly secured a historic vote to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, rallying GOP members after a first failed effort.
Mayorkas is the first cabinet official to be impeached since the 1870s, a vote made all the more remarkable by Republicans' inability to pass the same articles of impeachment last week, when three GOP members joined Democrats to tank the resolution, citing concerns their colleagues were abusing their impeachment power.
The articles are not expected to move in the Democrat-led Senate.
But Tuesday's 214-213 vote is a recovery from an embarrassing speed bump for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), whose fractious conference — particularly Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) — had made impeaching Mayorkas a priority as they seek to make the border a central issue ahead of November.
Johnson had to contend with a razor-thin majority, a vote in New York Tuesday night that could narrow that majority even further, and a storm that threatened to keep Republicans from the Capitol.
The vote was made possible only by the return of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), who missed last week's vote while undergoing treatment for blood cancer. Republican leadership brought the vote to the floor last Tuesday thinking they had enough members to clinch a win, only to be surprised by the return of Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who left the hospital bed where he was recovering from surgery to cast his "no" vote in a dramatic twist.
Republicans did not face such obstacles to their second vote, though they still lost the backing of the same trio of their colleagues, including Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.), who announced over the weekend he would no longer seek reelection. Reps. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) also remained opposed.
The GOP held the vote on Tuesday night fly-in, the same day former Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) was on the ballot in New York to regain his old seat following the removal of former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y). A delayed vote and a victory by Suozzi risked more closely balancing the chamber's numbers and the possibility of a tie vote — which would be a loss — on the measure.
The House did not debate the articles for a second time on Tuesday. Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah) changed his vote to "no" last week in a procedural move that allowed for speedy reconsideration.
But when the bill was considered last week, the GOP cast migrants as a threat to the nation while blaming Mayorkas for fentanyl deaths.
"While I do not wish to be standing here presenting these articles, we have exhausted all other options. Our oath to the Constitution now requires us to exercise this solemn duty. Secretary Mayorkas has explicitly refused to comply with the law. His refusal to obey the law has led to the death of our fellow citizens, and he no longer deserves to keep his job," House Homeland Security Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said in opening the debate.
The GOP case for impeachment is an unusual one, spurring criticism from conservative legal scholars as well as the opposing Republican lawmakers who argued their colleagues did not meet the bar for impeachment.
Republicans accuse Mayorkas of "willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law," claiming he violated immigration laws by failing to detain a sufficient number of migrants.
But no administration has ever detained all migrants, and immigration law experts who have weighed the claim determined Mayorkas did not violate any laws and is making the same tough choices past administrations have grappled with about who they have the resources to detain.
The articles also accuse him of "breach of public trust," which includes misleading claims about Mayorkas's interactions with Congress and his response to subpoenas from the House Homeland Security Committee. It also says he "failed to take action to fulfill his statutory duty to control the border."
Democrats have argued the articles fall well short of the standard for impeachment.
"Republicans have failed at making a constitutionally viable case for impeachment. Neither of the impeachment charges are a 'high crime and misdemeanor'…. Impeachment over mere policy disputes was deliberately rejected by the framers, and those disputes are best settled in the court system," Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the top Democrat on the panel, said during debate last week.
"In fact, the policy disputes identified in the articles of impeachment have already been addressed by the courts. The courts have either decided in the Biden administration's favor, or the disputes are still working their way through the system."
The Republican voices that opposed the articles expressed concerns the bill ran afoul of the standards laid out in the constitution, saying Mayorkas's job performance did not amount to a crime.
"Maladministration or incompetence does not rise to what our founders considered an impeachable offense," Buck wrote in an op-ed for The Hill last week.
And McClintock released a 10-page memo outlining his concerns with the impeachment push.
"The logic should be obvious. A cabinet secretary's job is to carry out the will of the president. How can he be impeached for not doing his job because he is doing it?" McClintock wrote, blaming President Biden for the state of the border.
Mayorkas's case is dramatically different from the first cabinet official to be impeached. Secretary of War William Belknap resigned from his post amid allegations he accepted kickbacks related to a lucrative military trading post, kicking off accusations of corruption.
It's likewise not clear whether the articles will get much consideration in the Senate.
While Senate Democrats could vote immediately to dismiss articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, they could also find ways to bury it.
Democrats could refer the matter to a special Senate committee to review the impeachment articles, which could then choose to bring it up for a vote after Election Day.
Senate Republicans have also been much more openly dismissive of the impeachment effort than their House counterparts.
"We've got so many things to do, I don't think impeachment was something intended to be brought up every three months or every two months," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), a member of the Senate GOP leadership team, said last month.
Tags
Who is online
420 visitors
Amen!
He was a traitor, he was held accountable.
I thought there had to be a trial to determine that /s
and a bit of embarrassing media coverage is nothing new for most cabinet members.
Or maybe he's just embarrassed for the 214 people who are playing in this charade.
Yay, now off to the senate where 'republicans' can waste even more time on katatonic kabuki.
I think that this will just underscore the Repubs inability to proceed with the bipartisan bill because of Trump.
The Repubs wisely linked aid to Ukraine and Israel to border protection to get maximum leverage and they succeeded.
Dems caved on more than Repubs but Trump scuttled the bill wanting a campaign issue more than solving a national crisis.
How would the proposed bill solve the crisis? The “trigger” isn’t reached until we are well beyond crisis stage and always depends totally on Biden’s discretion to be implemented. Biden already refuses to use his discretionary power to alleviate the problem, why should republicans trust him to use power he already has?
We already have more than 5,000 illegal crossings happening. The courts blocked Trump’s interpretation in 2018 and they would block the same with Biden,
We already have more than 5,000 illegal crossings happening
Right. 1,000 a day was considered a crisis under Obama. So the crisis isn't even close to being addressed. Now nothing can happen until we hit 5,000, which will leave the cartels essentially in control of the border as they already regulate the flow of illegal immigration. And it's all reliant on Biden choosing not to waive it.
he courts blocked Trump’s interpretation in 2018
The court never rejected trump's power to shut the border. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that "The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation." U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy
Here's a good summary of the Executive Power under 212(f)
All Biden has to do is exercise his authority under 212(f). The proposed deal would actually weaken current law.
I was thinking of the Dec 2018 ruling that upheld the 9th Circuit Court ruling that blocked Trump's policy which would have temporarily bar migrants who illegally cross into the US through the southern border from seeking asylum outside of official ports of entry. A district court ruled the ban irreconcilably conflicts with immigration law. Both the 9th and SCOTUS upheld the injunction.
The "Border Emergency Authority" would have made Trumps intent legal. It also added a quicker, more restrictive non-custodial asylum process for border entrants, a path to citizenship for Afghan evacuees and allies and increased funding for asylum officers for faster processing.
I was not in favor of the impeachment the first time around and I've not changed my position on this. I believe this is a waste of time because there are more important issues that they should be working on. He will not be convicted in the Senate and he is just following the policy decisions of the Administration rather than making this up as he goes along. This is nothing but partisan politics that they hope to use as a wedge issue in the campaign.
Ridiculous waste of time. Senate won’t convict and he will be at work tomorrow.
My question would be, how do the voters feel about the circus that the Republicans have been making the United States government? I guess we'll find out in November.
Honestly Buzz, 80% of people can’t name their congressman or both their senators, and a good portion get their news from late night comedians or Facebook. I can say until one of the late night comedians talk about it most won’t even know it exists.
What you are saying is that 80% of American voters are either easily deceivable or just plain ignorant. Well, George, would that be because of a failure of America's educational system or just plain reverse evolution?
Republicans control (barely) one house of Congress. They have zero power to implement legislation. All they can really do is shame the executive when it actively works against enforcing the laws.
Hopefully, myorkas feels a teeny bit humiliated that he’s the first cabinet official To be impeached in 150 years. That’s all he’ll be remembered for. Maybe, just maybe. other officials will feel some push to do their jobs and enforce the law rather than undercut it in order to avoid being similarly humiliated. That’s all this can accomplish
So?
more house melodrama to convince the room temp IQ's that an incompetent maga congress is getting something done.