Clearly, as an outsider, my view counts for little, but as I understand the Constitution, impeachment is a responsibility of Congress rather than the judiciary.
This surely means it is an entirely political power and rather than being tied to some very clear legal rules, impeaching a president - as an act that effectively subverts the will of the people - can only be done by the body that similarly is elected by the people. The decision to do so is therefore a political decision based on the political realities of the day.
As presidents have a pretty monarchial power anyway, the checks and balances of Congress are essential to curbing excesses in that power. If Congress abdicates that responsibility because of party politics or loyalties, I don't think there is much that can be done.
Wiser scholars may well have other precedents, but to this observer, the damage was done by the foolish and entirely partisan use of impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. The exercise devalued the awesome power that impeachment represents (ie the subversion by politicians of the will of the people). That damage means that politicians across the board are now wary of such proceedings even if more justified.
More importantly, it seems to me that Congress has long thrown away its role to be the check to presidential excess within a responsible partnership of power, in favour of the trough and the gravy train.
Rather than waste time impeaching President Bush (who for all that I disagree with his policies, strikes me as a man that has taken decisions based on his real belief that he is doing the right thing, and it's difficult to blame a chap for that) the effort would be better spent impeaching every Congress until they get the message to do their job.
![]()
Bookmarks