Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Cow Poke]

Really, the courts have little choice but to hear the case, otherwise there is a stalemate.

And here is a classic example of how wrong you can be. The discussion wasn't about "the courts" but about SCOTUS --- and they do NOT have to hear the case. Simply by declining to hear the case would send a signal that they're not going to overrule a lower court's ruling.

Alan Dershowitz points out that the second article of impeachment -- "obstruction of Congress" -- is DOA:

Dershowitz: Look, the most important development happened today. The Supreme Court of the United States absolutely pulled the rug out of part twohttps://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...f-impeachment/

You really are profoundly ignorant about how these things work.

And, yeah, I know --- by exposing your ignorance of jurisprudence, I'm 'defending Trump at every turn'.

[JimL]

And here is a classic example of how wrong you can be. The discussion wasn't about "the courts" but about SCOTUS --- and they do NOT have to hear the case. Simply by declining to hear the case would send a signal that they're not going to overrule a lower court's ruling.

You really are profoundly ignorant about how these things work.

And, yeah, I know --- by exposing your ignorance of jurisprudence, I'm 'defending Trump at every turn'.

They're not hearing an appeal on a lower court ruling, CP. The hearing is on whether or not Trump can defy a Congressional subpoena.

[Cow Poke]

They're not hearing an appeal on a lower court ruling, CP. The hearing is on whether or not Trump can defy a Congressional subpoena.

You said "the courts" have little choice...

Really, the courts have little choice but to hear the case, otherwise there is a stalemate.

It wasn't "the courts" - it's SCOTUS, and they are not obligated in any way to hear any case. The very fact that they're willing to hear it says a lot. You're simply wrong that they "have little choice".

[Cow Poke]

They're not hearing an appeal on a lower court ruling, CP. The hearing is on whether or not Trump can defy a Congressional subpoena.

And, actually, in the text MM cited, it refers to one of the cases being from the State of New York -- which would certainly suggest "a lower court's ruling".

Lower courts upheld the subpoenas

(This would be where you usually simply disappear, or get frustrated and claim "It doesn't matter!")

[JimL]

You said "the courts" have little choice...
It wasn't "the courts" - it's SCOTUS,

We were talking about the Supreme Court, so it should of been clear to you what court I was talking about.

and they are not obligated in any way to hear any case. The very fact that they're willing to hear it says a lot. You're simply wrong that they "have little choice".

Really. And what happens then if they refuse to hear the case? Does Trump then have to comply with Congressional subpoenas? And what happens then if he doesn't comply?

[Cow Poke]

We were talking about the Supreme Court, so it should of been clear to you what court I was talking about.

You said "the courts". SCOTUS is not "the courts".

Really. And what happens then if they refuse to hear the case?

Then the lower court ruling stands.

Does Trump then have to comply with Congressional subpoenas? And what happens then if he doesn't comply?

Impeachment is the remedy for that. Unfortunately, the Democrats can't organize a two car funeral procession.

[Mountain Man]

Really. And what happens then if they refuse to hear the case? Does Trump then have to comply with Congressional subpoenas? And what happens then if he doesn't comply?

Are you really so ignorant? If the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, then the ruling of the lower court stands.

[Teallaura]

They're not hearing an appeal on a lower court ruling, ....

What? The High Court is rarely trier of fact. Are you sure about that?

[Tassman]

Your anti-Christian bigot colleagues are very proud of you.

So, to oppose Trump and the current GOP members in Washington is to be an Figures, given that it is you white evangelicals that put him there.

Personally, I never heard of Greta before last week.

That's hardly surprising. You Evangelicals are not known for your understanding and knowledge of the real world.

[Cow Poke]

So, to oppose Trump and the current GOP members in Washington is to be an

You're even dumber than I thought. No, THAT is not what makes you an anti-Christian bigot. The rest of your post, therefore, is typical TassiCrap.

[firstfloor]

[Cow Poke]

Your best example, please.

[firstfloor]

Your best example, please.

[Cow Poke]

If there are so many examples, why did you pick such a bogus one?

Here's the problem --- you're trusting the word of Nadler - the incredibly partisan hypocrite who decried the abuse of impeachment before, but is pressing forward against every pronouncement he's made in the past. Nadler is a liar, and he sleeps through impeachment hearings, and he drools when he dozes.

There is absolutely nothing illegal in what McConnel said -- in order for something to be "lawless", they have to actually be breaking some laws.

Now, find a REAL example.

[Mountain Man]

I don't buy this narrative that the Senate is supposed to enter into an impeachment trial blind when the Democrat case against Trump is a matter of public record. Given the almost criminal weakness of the Democrat case, working with the President to clear his good name is the only just thing to do.