Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: adorno

adorno wrote: “Something like that would never make it to conviction, and THE PEOPLE would be adamantly against a wrongful impeachment and they wouldn’t allow something like that get to conviction. And, last resort, SCOTUS for appeal.”

You’re simply wrong on the law.

A federal judge named Walter Nixon (no relation) was criminally tried and found guilty of making false statements to a grand jury. He was then impeached by the House, and tried and convicted by the Senate.

He appealed his conviction in the Senate, on procedural grounds, in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). The Supreme Court held unanimously that impeachment decisions by the House and the ensuing trial in the Senate ate not “justiciable”. That is, no court in the land, including the Supreme Court, can review or overrule them.

Since impeachment and removal from office may not be appealed, then those actions can be taken on whatever basis the House and Senate choose to act upon. The only peaceful response available to the people would be to vote to remove those responsible from office.


48 posted on 12/27/2018 4:01:13 PM PST by DugwayDuke ("A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: DugwayDuke
A federal judge named Walter Nixon

You're talking about a federal judge, and that's a much lower profile case than impeachment of a president. So, was that case as public as an impeachment of a president would be? Even Bill Clinton didn't make it to conviction, and he actually did commit a federal crime.
50 posted on 12/27/2018 4:46:36 PM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson