Writ of Prohibition

[shalom aleichem]

President should apply to Supreme Court for a Writ of Prohibition to block further Impeachment proceedings.

[shalom aleichem]

Trump should have his better lawyers (if any) file a Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court seeking to enjoin further proceedings on impeachment unless and until the process guarantees the Constitutional rights afforded to any US Citizen, such as rights to confront and cross examine witness against him, right to have counsel at all critical phases, right to call witness in his own defense, right to impartial trier of facts, right to impartial and unbiased judges or other presiding officers (such as not Schiff or Nadler), right to disclosure of all witnesses, including Brady v. Maryland witnesses and information which may prove favorable to President.

They will argue that this is not a criminal or even a civil proceedings (which guarantee such rights), but it certainly is. He is being tried for high crimes and misdemeanors. I have felt this route should have been taken from the onset. Even of the Court ducks it, it is worth a shot.

[BenLurkin]

The Judicial Branch is already out of control. No need to make it worse.

[Brilliant]

They would not do that. It would just make Trump look bad.

[bk1000]

The HOR can do whatever they want to do in the house chamber. It carries no weight outside of the chamber. Trump’s lawyers should tell Nadless to pound sand.

[ClearCase_guy]

The Supreme Court has a Constitutional role in impeachment proceedings. But blocking impeachment proceedings is not that role.

[dp0622]

Terrible idea in every way imaginable.

First, his approval ratings go up every day this thing goes on. A west coast moron and now an east coast moron running the dem party into the ground with impeachment.

Second, the courts have WAY too much say in everything as it is

third, it would like Trump is doing the thing many Rs HATE that dems do and that’s run to the courts.

dems are killing themselves.

Why interfere?

[Sirius Lee]

I agree. When the enemy is making mistakes, don’t interfere. KAG 2020!

[going hot]

I would rather piss in their ear, but then, I likely would not be elected president.

[The Pack Knight]

The Supreme Court would almost certainly hold—correctly— that it has no original jurisdiction to issue such a writ under Marbury v. Madison, and no jurisdiction over the matter at all under Nixon v. U.S.

[TheNext]

Impeachment means nothing. Zero. Nada.

Nobody cares. If someone asks. Nobody cares.
Impeachment = Inquisition = Nothing.

How is the Wall?

[itsahoot]

The Supreme Court has a Constitutional role in impeachment proceedings.

I think only the Chief Justice has a roll. Of course he may just surrender any power he has to the Senate Parliamentarian like the last one did.

[palmer]

I agree that Nadler's committee shooting down all the due process amendments was a travesty, Brady Rule in particular. But not many ordinary people understand those issues. Trump's 4th amendment rights were stomped on starting in 2016 and there has been no legal consequence for that.

Judicial remedies sound good, but this is not Trump vs Congress in the big picture. It's Trump vs. the deep state.

[FredZarguna]

Correct. The paragraph describing the impeachment of the President and other Federal officers as a power of Congress makes it clear that this authority is beyond the reach of the Federal courts.

No such writ could possibly be binding on them. That is right and proper.

[Candor7]

You know PDJT just might get it. Article 1(9) of the Constitution bars the passing of any bill of attainder, which is what Congress is doing by refusing due process.

“A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

[ClearCase_guy]

I think only the Chief Justice has a roll.

In fact, that is what I'm saying. The Constitution makes it pretty clear that the Supreme Court has practically nothing to do with impeachment. Yes, the Chief Justice presides. That's it. The other justices have no role at all. And as for the Chief Justice, no one really knows what "presides" really means. The Court's place in all of this is practically "nothing".

And to go from "practically nothing" to a suggestion that the court should jump into the fray and block the whole thing is just very ill-advised.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

He is being tried for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Sorry, but this doesn't pass muster.

The trial occurs in the Senate, not the House.

[foreverfree]

Bump