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 ...
“The only good distractor is a dead distractor” General Sheridan
As we’ve both agreed, Roberts has no choice but to preside if the House impeaches.
But, President Trump can initiate the action by filing with the Supreme Court. Then they’ll have to make some kind of decision.
Was perjury the charge for which he was impeached?
Yes, one of 11 charges
He lied in court under oath
The courts can and should get involved any time the feds act unconstitutionally and Dershowitz has a strong argument that this contemplated impeachment would be unconstitutional, violating Art. II, Sec. 4.
I don't know how they can say this when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial in the Senate.
It's true that in the two impeachments we've had, the Senate has set all the rules, but I believe that an assertive Chief Justice can push back and exert his own branch's powers as well.
This means that a Chief Justice can treat the trial as a trial, and not let the Senators steamroll him like Harkin did with Rehnquist. I know this is asking a lot from Roberts, but he doesn't have to be a potted plant if he doesn't want to be.
If the Chief Justice doesn't believe that the charges rise to the level of the Constitutional expectation of "high crimes and misdemeanors," then he should assert some rules of evidence and make bench rulings as any other trial judge would, and let the Senators holler all they want.
But... we are talking about Roberts, so I wouldn't expect much.
-PJ
If you were talking about Lanny Davis, I’d agree 100%
Dershowitz seems to be a deeply principled man who believes the government exists largely to protect citizens’ civil liberties.
Up until recently, he believed Republicans were the primary threat to civil liberties and Democrats were the protectors. He says that what is being done to President Trump is a full out assault on civil liberties and it has caused him to rethink his political loyalties.
He is still an outspoken Leftist when it comes to social welfare, redistribution, etc. he would still side with the Democrats in many issues.
But regarding the threat to civil liberties, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity when siding with President Trump in the last year or so on this Spygate coup attempt.
DERSHOWITZ IS CLEARLY WRONG ON THIS.
The Constitution does not allow for judicial review.
Congress can impeach and remove for farting in Church if they decide that is one of those “high crimes & misdemeanors”.
But, alas, Dershowitz is a long-time judicial activist, rather than an originalist.
Plus he’s getting paid to write this nonsense.
The Dems who pay attention know that any review by Barr will uncover the roots of the coup and Schiff’s demand to see the evidence contemporaneously is clearly an attempt to kill or counter whatever is discovered when it is found.
“other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”
The Constitution left that to the US Congress to define.
If they have the votes, POTUS is gone.
PERIOD.
“The constitution says the chief justice is in charge. He presides.”
He determines ONLY procedure.
The vote to convict is entirely in the hands of the Senate. They are the jury.
The entire article is about the Senate voting without first holding a trial, that’s the entire thought exercise.
The same as any trial. The jury makes the decision.
BUT, the judge can toss the case.
The procedure is the constitution and the laws of trials in the USA.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Would you cite your source for this?
The Constitution left that to the US Congress to define.
That would be getting close to ex-post facto which is unconstitutional as well as flat-out unjust (but when it comes to the feds the Constitution trumps all including our individual idea of "unjust").
No, we need to look to original understanding of "misdeameors" to understand and correctly apply the Constitution here.
Looks like erkelly has already done that...
If you look at what misdemeanor meant at the time, it meant behaving in ways that demean the office, such as dressing inappropriately or public drunkeness, and that could include petty crimes but not just that; high crimes would be the corrupt abuse of office.
erkelly, could you cite your source for this?
A good-faith understanding and accurate application of the Constitution requires this kind of research.
The SC won’t take the case. Separation of powers. Congress determines what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors
Dershowitz is just very good with the optics of what he is doing. the guy actualy understands how everything looks. make no mistakes everything he has done the last 2 years has been designed to manipulate how you look at what he says. he understands that the only thing protecting hillery is the willingness of the nation to go after her. he also understands that his client is not likable even to her supporters si he has to charm everyone into liking him.
It’s moot. The Senate will not convict, and probably Nancy will have her work cut out to stop it, but the House will not impeach. Only fifty Reps are that stupid, so far. And there is no chance of a two-third majority of the Senate committing political suicide, either. The economy’s booming. Trump is fighting heroically to stem the flood of invaders, and to get fair trade deals, and avert wars with the gentle but firm assertiveness that New Yorkers are masters of, with lots of bluster as a window dressing, and the country is with him, I strongly suspect, as am I.
As for his “uncouthness” and “lack of civility,” that’s a long and honored presidential tradition. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson were all “uncivil” and “brash” by design, and Teddy Roosevelt had the same jois de vivre and love of outdoor sports as Trump and then some. The common people love it. The blue socks, not so much. So, what else is new.
Dershowitz disagrees with you.
Was perjury the charge for which he was impeached?
______________
There are Clinton experts here who can detail the charges. IIRC, there were charges of perjury, suborning perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, with multiple counts for some categories of offense.
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.