// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    That's ... not how impeachment works. SCOTUS gets to decide a lot of things but it doesn't get to tell a house of Congress how to run its hearings.
    Actually, they can tell them how to run their hearings if they're defying legal precedent and trying to issue subpoenas without the approval of the relevant chamber, which in this case means a House vote.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one - and both sides are playing politics.
      It's a political process predicated on an actual crime being committed.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        It's a political process predicated on an actual crime being committed.
        WRONG!!!!! It's a political process THAT SHOULD BE predicated on an actual crime being committed.
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Sam View Post
          Schiff has been one of the Democratic leaders wary of impeachment.


          How do you come up with this stuff? The dude has been beating the impeachment drum for months. He's not wary of it, he's leading the charge! Even worse, he and his office coordinated with this "whistleblower" in order to manufacture another excuse to "git" Trump.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Actually, they can tell them how to run their hearings if they're defying legal precedent and trying to issue subpoenas without the approval of the relevant chamber, which in this case means a House vote.

            Source: Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)

            A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.

            © Copyright Original Source

            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              And my pain meds are kicking in, so maybe it wasn't just my keyboard -- I shall now try to revert to less intense discussions.

              And I just noticed you deleted your response - thanks for that, Sam -- I'll try again when I'm.....

              Thanks
              Hey, feel better and let those fellas do their good work.

              --Sam
              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

              Comment


              • #22
                Nope that is not a given, from your link:

                The President, claiming executive privilege, filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The District Court, after treating the subpoenaed material as presumptively privileged, concluded that the Special Prosecutor had made a sufficient showing to rebut the presumption and that the requirements of Rule 17(c) had been satisfied.

                They have to meet certain conditions.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Nope that is not a given, from your link:

                  The President, claiming executive privilege, filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The District Court, after treating the subpoenaed material as presumptively privileged, concluded that the Special Prosecutor had made a sufficient showing to rebut the presumption and that the requirements of Rule 17(c) had been satisfied.

                  They have to meet certain conditions.

                  Which will be done, rather easily. Material being pursuant to an impeachment proceeding, like material pursuant to a criminal trial, rebuts the presumption of privilege and Rule 17(c) ain't gonna help you.

                  --Sam
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    Source: Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)

                    A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    It would be absurd to interpret that ruling as saying that the Legislature can flout the law without the fear of judicial intervention just because it's running an impeachment inquiry; and by law, the power of subpoena requires the authorization of the relevant chamber, in this case the House which typically makes these decisions by vote, so the White House is well within its right to take the matter to the court regarding these phony "subpoenas" the House keeps sending out.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sam View Post
                      Source: Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)

                      A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Judicial review ISN'T IN the Constitution!!!!

                      Nor does it read like it was creating a loophole for unjust trials to allow political coups.

                      Truth is, it's uncharted territory - but I wouldn't count on a hyper-literalist reading by any member or the Court.

                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        It would be absurd to interpret that ruling as saying that the Legislature can flout the law without the fear of judicial intervention just because it's running an impeachment inquiry; and by law, the power of subpoena requires the authorization of the relevant chamber, in this case the House which typically makes these decisions by vote, so the White House is well within its right to take the matter to the court regarding these phony "subpoenas" the House keeps sending out.
                        Worse than that, White's concurrence left the door open.

                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          For reference:

                          Source: Findlaw


                          The Role of the U.S. Supreme Court

                          The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that it should not review judicial impeachments, using the "political question" doctrine to sidestep the issue.

                          Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). In the Walter Nixon case, Judge Nixon attacked the rule of the Senate allowing a subcommittee to hear evidence, rather than the Senate as a whole, in his judicial impeachment. The opinion of the Supreme Court declined to review Judge Nixon's case, and in dicta is not binding on future Courts.

                          Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon's removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions. The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

                          "Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis."

                          This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

                          "If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.

                          Source

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Last edited by Teallaura; 10-08-2019, 10:22 PM.

                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            Worse than that, White's concurrence left the door open.
                            Not very wide, since White differentiates in his concurrence between impeachment trials and criminal trials, noting that the framers did not want the judiciary to be involved in both.

                            So the questions that are on the table here, primarily dealing in Trump's "constitutional 6A rights" would not, under White's reasoning, tilt toward Trump.

                            --Sam
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Souter's hypothetical was if the House impeaches and the Senate, without trial, voted to convict on the basis of the President "being a bad guy".

                              Humorously, that finds its closest parallel to conservative pundits today urging McConnell to forgo a trial in case of impeachment and immediately vote to acquit Trump.

                              --Sam

                              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                              For reference:

                              Source: Findlaw


                              The Role of the U.S. Supreme Court

                              The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that it should not review judicial impeachments, using the "political question" doctrine to sidestep the issue.

                              Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). In the Walter Nixon case, Judge Nixon attacked the rule of the Senate allowing a subcommittee to hear evidence, rather than the Senate as a whole, in his judicial impeachment. The opinion of the Supreme Court declined to review Judge Nixon's case, and in dicta is not binding on future Courts.

                              Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon's removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions. The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

                              "Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis."

                              This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

                              "If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.

                              Source

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                                Not very wide, since White differentiates in his concurrence between impeachment trials and criminal trials, noting that the framers did not want the judiciary to be involved in both.

                                So the questions that are on the table here, primarily dealing in Trump's "constitutional 6A rights" would not, under White's reasoning, tilt toward Trump.

                                --Sam
                                No, he's left a plenty wide door - besides the non-binding nature of Nixon.

                                It's uncharted territory - and we have no idea what the Court will consider re: House precedings.

                                And being President doesn't strip you of your Constitutional rights.

                                You do realize both White and Souter addressed the Senate, right? You're arguing the Dems have no recourse if they believe the Senate has acquitted unjustly. The Senate is unlikely to convict - might test the 'we don't have to if we don't wanna' theory, but I doubt it.

                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 01:03 PM
                                1 response
                                8 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by seanD, Yesterday, 07:54 PM
                                19 responses
                                127 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 09-29-2020, 02:32 PM
                                146 responses
                                970 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Bill the Cat  
                                Started by Juvenal, 09-29-2020, 09:54 AM
                                14 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by seer, 09-29-2020, 09:50 AM
                                45 responses
                                408 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post firstfloor  
                                Working...
                                X