As I have said before, I don’t know whether Alejandro Mayorkas has been a successful Homeland Security Secretary, or a terrible one. The border has long been a problem, during the Trump years and during the Biden years. How much of this is dependent on external circumstances, how much is dependent on a continually failing Congress, how much is dependent on judicial decisions which have made it harder to maintain border restrictions, how much is dependent on presidential proclivities, and how much is dependent upon the administrative ability of the Homeland Security secretary. I just don’t know.

BUT, and I think I have said this before, as well, if I were Mayorkas, I would have resigned many months ago, and if I were Biden, I would have asked him to resign many months ago. I would have done this irrespective of whether he was doing a good job. I would have done this because Mayorkas had early become a target for the Republicans, and his removal would have removed a target, especially if a successor could have been found who had some Republican blood, and would have shown an attempt to accommodate some of the Republican concerns. After all, isn’t this what the Biden administration is doing in supporting the languishing border bill developed through bipartisan efforts in the Senate?

Leaving Mayorkas in place simply continued to give Republicans more ammunition, as will the House impeachment (particularly as it will be deemed a fruitless effort since the Democrats in the Senate won’t support it, and it will die there). The Democrats like to think that they will convince voters that the effort to impeach Mayorkas was stupid and that it will backfire, but I doubt that that will be the case.

And, now that he has been officially impeached (by one vote), it would clearly be impossible for Mayorkas to resign or for Biden to ask him to do so. Each side now has painted its red line in the sand (as they don’t say).

For an impeached official to be actually removed from office, as we know, a 2/3 vote in the Senate is required. It won’t even get a majority in the Democratic majority Senate.

This brings up two other questions, which I will list without answering (or trying to answer):

First, there is a question of whether a basis for Mayorkas’ impeachment exists. If the House believes an official is doing a bad job, or even doing a good job implementing policies that the House does not like, there would not seem to be a basis for impeachment. The constitution is clear that impeachment is only for bribery, treason or other high crimes or misdemeanors. It is unclear (to put it mildly) what high crimes or misdemeanors Mayorkas is accused of. And if he is impeached without having perpetrated high crimes or misdemeanors, is it even a valid impeachment? And who can decide what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor in an individual case? Is that a job for the House itself, for the Senate (in other words, could the Senate even refuse a trial on the basis that the impeachment is invalid?) Or would the courts (and eventually of course the Supreme Court) get involved? And who would have the standing to bring such a case?

Okay, that was the first question (with four question marks).

The second question is whether it makes sense for the House to impeach based on a majority vote, while the Senate (per the constitution) can only convict with a 2/3 vote? The Constitution is silent about the vote needed in the House (and the House obviously decides by majority vote on everything – I think, everything, but I might be wrong. But an impeachment without likelihood of a conviction is an absolute waste of time (which, considering it involves the time of the highest legislative officials of the government, is potentially harmful to the governance of the country), so why doesn’t the House adopt a rule requiring a higher vote in case of impeachment? I don’t know of any reason why it could not do so.

On another topic, the Democrat, Tom Souzzi, beat the Republican, Mazi Pilip, in the election to replace George Santos (not to be confused with George Soros) in yesterday’s special election. Trump had the obvious response – she’s a “foolish woman” and we need a “real candidate”.

So it goes.