[StAnDeliver]

"SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over how Leahy operates or what he allows or disallows."

You could not be more wrong.

There were interlocutory cases during the 1st Impeachment and the 1st Impeachment Trial that simply did not reach SCOTUS because the Democrats feared that very thing -- trying interlocutory cases or In Re: Impeachment in SCOTUS -- and after their attempts to depose Trump admin officials beforehand, simply mooted the same Trump admin officials subpoenas to appear at Impeachment to prevent any appeals.

This nearly got away from Nancy when Charles Kupperman refused to stop fighting his Federal case despite her mooting his subpoena! Then Mulvaney tried to plead into Kupperman's case precisely to send it to SCOTUS! United States District Court Leon (Shrub appointee, of course) rejected Mick's suit but had to grovel to Kupperman's lawyer and basically commit fraud upon the Court and assure Kupperman the case would eventually be dismissed.

Then in the 1st Impeachment Trial, the Senate barely voted against witnesses for the exact. same. reason. That is why only a couple of RINOs were allowed to vote for witnesses. You could not have had witnesses because they would have immediately hit SCOTUS.

Why do you think Rand -- who consistently communicates with the Majority Leader -- was even allowed to present his procedural vote! Schumer could have prevented that with simple Senate parliamentary out-of-order.

This trial, I state again, the first defense order-of-business should be to ticklist every Constitutional question and tell Leahy the Complaints are being filed as. we. speak.

Pull Queeg directly into this Constitutional crisis which he cannot and must not avoid.

[rollo tomasi]

I am sorry but could you read Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5, and Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7.

Judicial interpretation of the impeachment trail is verboten, Constitutionally and historically (Look at the Johnson trial and how the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS was told to piss off with his opinions).

Also



Are you one of those Q "The 4chan tripfag" schizoids? Stay off the tripcodes as well.

[The Pack Knight]

"SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over how Leahy operates or what he allows or disallows."

You could not be more wrong.

SCOTUS agrees with rollo tomasi. The Supreme Court held in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), that Art. I, § 3, cl. 6's grant of the "sole Power to try all Impeachments" to the Senate means "the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted." The "[a]uthority in the Senate to determine procedures for trying an impeached official" is "unreviewable by the courts." The Constitution provides for no "[j]udicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even . . . for the purposes of judicial review."