Mayorkas Impeached

The Democrats gained back a seat in the special election to fill the Santos vacancy. The Republicans made sure to re-vote to impeach Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas. 

This time (with two members of both parties not participating, canceling each other out), they got it through by one vote. Since the only other Cabinet member impeached raced to resign before the vote (the Senate decided they still had jurisdiction), this is the first sitting Cabinet member impeached. A bit of history. 

President Biden:

This impeachment already failed once on a bipartisan vote. Instead of staging political stunts like this, Republicans with genuine concerns about the border should want Congress to deliver more border resources and stronger border security. Sadly, the same Republicans pushing this baseless impeachment are rejecting bipartisan plans Secretary Mayorkas and others in my administration have worked hard on to strengthen border security at this very moment — reversing from years of their own demands to pass stronger border bills.

There were two counts:

ARTICLE I: WILLFUL AND SYSTEMIC REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW

ARTICLE II: BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST

I referenced in the past the argument that this is an unconstitutional impeachment. I think a good argument can be made for that. I am inclined to think that the impeachment provision is so open-ended that it is something of a close question. Yes, I think it is fairly clear this is really a policy dispute mixed with an allegation of maladministration. Still, I don't know if this sort of thing (if backed up) would not qualify:

Alejandro N. Mayorkas has knowingly made false statements, and knowingly obstructed lawful oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘DHS’’), principally to obfuscate the results of his willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law. 

My philosophy is not to try to make a harder case than necessary. The move here is a question of prosecutorial discretion. Clinton was technically liable to impeachment. That didn't mean his impeachment was justified. I think that holds now. The policy motivation is important to address. But, I am inclined not to call it "unconstitutional." I accept it though.

[ETA: Here is more, including what should be done. Again, I am inclined to think there is a good argument to be made as a whole this was an illegitimate impeachment. But, there is too much discretion in the clause to be a slam-dunk.]

We will see how long the process takes including if there will actually be a trial. The desire is to do the minimum. So, an actual trial with multiple days of argument and such might not happen. There is no requirement that the v.p. presides (though Aaron Burr did when Justice Chase -- not that one -- was impeached). And the intent is to use the pro tempore. 

The whole border thing is mixed up with Trump and the 2024 elections. On that front, Trump on Monday (Lincoln's Birthday) petitioned for a SCOTUS hearing in the immunity case. A government reply is due in a week. Then, Trump replies. 

Let's hope this thing is done by the end of the month. 

ETA: The government reply was submitted today.

Also, to toss it in, this is some collection (partial list) of impeachment managers, including Liz Cheney's replacement: Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Clay Higgins (R-LA), and Harriet Hageman (R-WY).