Posted on 06/01/2019 1:57:41 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Donald John TrumpOcasio-Cortez returns to bartending in support of tipped workers: 'Still got it!' Trade wars have cost stock market trillion: Deutsche Bank analysis Dollar stores warn they will have to raise prices over tariffs MORE has said that if the House were to impeach him despite his not having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” he might seek review of such an unconstitutional action in the Supreme Court. On April 24, he tweeted that if “the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only are there no 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors,' there are no Crimes by me at all.”
Yesterday, when asked by a reporter if he thinks Congress will impeach him, the president responded, “I don’t see how. They can because they’re possibly allowed, although I can’t imagine the courts allowing it.”
Commentators have accused Trump of not understanding the way impeachment works and have stated quite categorically that the courts have no constitutional role to play in what is solely a congressional and political process. Time magazine declared in a headline “That’s Not How It Works,” and Vox called the president’s argument “profoundly confused.”
Scholars also echoed the derision. The influential legal blog Lawfare wrote confidently that “The Supreme Court Has No Role in Impeachment,” and my friend and colleague Larry Tribe, an eminent constitutional law scholar, called Trump’s argument simply “idiocy,” explaining that “the court is very good at slapping down attempts to drag things out by bringing it into a...”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Impeachment and removal are two different steps.
Clinton was impeached but not removed.
Andrew Johnson was the first President to be impeached, but his impeachment and resulting trial are viewed as unjustified. President Trump's impeachment and resulting trial would be viewed the same way by history.
SCOTUS could, in fact, do that.
But the odds are about the same that it would overturn the long-standing “political question” principle that it’s used for more than 2 centuries to avoid making rulings on such matters. Very, very close to zero.
Nonsense.
It’s up to Congress to decide what merits impeachment.
To see the obvious problem with suggesting otherwise, just consider the case of impeachment of a federal judge or justice.
Disagree, the courts nor SCOTUS are the final arbiter in disagreements between the branches of government. That would put them above the other branches.
Not really. Even though your facts are correct, when Andrew Johnson’s name is listed in history books, it states that he was the first impeached President and unless it’s an extended biography, doesn’t give the reasons why. And when history books list impeached presidents, they’ll say Johnson, Clinton, and Trump, which means that Trump would be lumped in with that piece of garbage Clinton. People won’t care why. Just that he must have done something wrong.
I didn’t say he would get justice. Just pointing out who would have jurisdiction.
A few million armed patriots will stop any impeachment trial. They will be everywhere.
Unfortunately, network tv such as Law & Order, Criminal Minds, etc seems to love using that quote - it’s always spouted off by a character playing a right wing extremist. Seems to be a favorite for them.
But then Mr Dershowitz *is* a Constitutional scholar so...
They raise their prices anyway. A $10 shirt would be 12.50 if it went all the way to 25%, but that assumes no one else in the entire world will keep their price at 10 bucks. And lots of them make shirts.
The Scotus has no choice. The constitution says the chief justice is in charge. He presides.
All these high end lawyers expressing an opinion in uncharted waters reminds me that there are too many with too much time on their hands.
3 profession where you can be wrong and still be an expert
Lawyers - 50 % is the starting point as there’s a winner & loser in the end
Weather Forecasters
Sports Analysts - predicting game winners.
I was referring to the SC overruling an impeachment.
You’re right. I figured that, because that’s where I started, too. Then I remembered the Chief Justice thing and figured the chief justice could get 4 other votes pretty easily if he asked scotus to take it up.
“the chief justice could get 4 other votes pretty easily if he asked scotus to take it up.”
There’s no way this Chief Justice would want to take up a case like this. Also I don’t see a Chief Justice easily getting four members to agree with him on anything. There is no “easy” when it comes to the SC.
Dershowitz says that under Marbury/Madison the Scotus is the arbiter of anything between Congress/President.
A falsified or inadequate impeachment charge would definitely get the attention of Alito, Thomas, Kavenaugh, and Gorsuch.
It is entirely possible Roberts is a never-Trumper republican, but even he should see that the precedent for a political impeachment would mean every time an opposite party House gets in power that they would move to impeach a president over political differences.
It used to be hard to imagine federal courts overriding existing immigration law.
Roberts and the SC will stay out of it.
You will see many history books about the Trump impeachment bandwagon even if it is unsuccessful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.